[3.5] Paladin Executed Surrendered Foe, Did Not Fall

[Psyx]

"Seems more like you want "kick down the door RWAR HULK SMASH" gamess than "high fantasy" gamess to me...."

Well, you are a long way away and can't read my mind based on half a dozen sentences, so it might do.

I just don't see the place for massive moral dilemma over this particular situation in high fantasy. Angsting about the paladinic code has it's place in games, but not when dealing with a humanoid, evil bandit who was trying to commit murder and is only surrendering in order to try to save his own miserable life or to get a better chance at taking the paladin's or -potentially- the boy-king's.


"On "bandits having no rights and being killable with impunity" I don't think present-day D&D takes that approach."

This is a GM call. His world, his rules. I tend to run grittier games with morals of the times, rather than transpose our morals onto a society where there aren't even very practical. Others don't. On a slightly related note; we had a massive split in a WFRP party a while ago based on the killing of a village full of mutants who were selling arms to a bunch of mutant bandits. Ultimately, it wasn't particularly 'fun' gaming or roleplaying and has pretty much resulted in the end of the campaign. Some games are made for moral dilemma [V:R/tM for example], others are a little bit more black and white in their play.

Likewise as regards magna carta wrangling: I don't think that in most games hobgoblins in woods have any rights. If they did, why aren't all adventurer's executed for vigilantism and murder? This is a world where groups of PCs sneak into orc villages and kill everything that moves without thought of quarter or striking to subdue or fair trial. If we start applying our-world morals, then every PC is going to come out looking pretty CE.

[Snake-Aes]

"Seems more like you want "kick down the door RWAR HULK SMASH" gamess than "high fantasy" gamess to me...."

Well, you are a long way away and can't read my mind based on half a dozen sentences, so it might do.

I just don't see the place for massive moral dilemma over this particular situation in high fantasy. Angsting about the paladinic code has it's place in games, but not when dealing with a humanoid, evil bandit who was trying to commit murder and is only surrendering in order to try to save his own miserable life or to get a better chance at taking the paladin's or -potentially- the boy-king's. And yet, to a good character, even such person is worth a second chance. Seriously, he could have rolled sense motive to tell whether or not the hob was being serious about surrendering. Justice without Mercy is Vengeance. His attitude wasn't weighing who the hob was. It only took in consideration that the easiest way to handle the whole thing was killing the hob. This is not appropriate behavior for a character who goes out of his way to represent justice and defend that which is pure and good.

Any non-paladin LG character would be fine doing it. Any neutral character would be fine doing it. The very embodiment of justice wouldn't.

[Boci]

Problem being it wasnt a duel

Semantics. For the bit of the fight that is relevant to this discussion, there were 2 participants. Besides, I'm just saying there is some truth in the statement that surrendering is made easier by D&D's combat system.

[Kris Strife]

"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them?"

If I have enough levels in Cleric, yes.

[hamishspence]

I don't think that in most games hobgoblins in woods have any rights. If they did, why aren't all adventurer's executed for vigilantism and murder? This is a world where groups of PCs sneak into orc villages and kill everything that moves without thought of quarter or striking to subdue or fair trial. If we start applying our-world morals, then every PC is going to come out looking pretty CE.

Which might be why the BoED was written in the first place. Hence- the whole "don't kill anything that moves- only kill guys that are attacking you, spare the noncombatants and children" theme of BoED when it comes to attacking orc villages.

And it points out you need a reason: just "they're there" isn't going to cut it- the orcs actually have to have been raiding their neighbours before you're justified in going in and destroying the village.

Exalted characters (like this paladin is supposed to be) are very careful with their violence- they aren't out for profit, but to make the world a better place- and they do this by only attacking those evil beings they are justified in attacking- and trying to redeem the rest.


If I have enough levels in Cleric, yes.

The rules for Raise Dead actually state that only people with a strong will and "unfinished business" such as most adventurers, can answer the call, most ordinary commoners aren't going to come back when you cast Raise Dead on them.



Any non-paladin LG character would be fine doing it. Any neutral character would be fine doing it. The very embodiment of justice wouldn't.

I'd say Exalted characters (CG and NG included), Paladins of Freedom, and maybe Holy Liberators (Chaotic PRC that may not ever commit an evil act) might also be a bit leery of Not Showing Mercy.

[FatR]

Fact remains that he murdered this creature. Despite how "humane" he may have tried to make it the creature was there, helpless, asking for mercy and he smashed the life right out. Its not like the critter dropped the weapon and screamed i surrender as the pali was swinging, the pali had time to raise the morningstar OVER HIS HEAD and attempt to be humane about it... that implies premeditation.
And once again this bizarre notion that merely being cornered by a stronger opponent and asking for mercy somehow makes you entitled to receiving mercy, irrespective of circumstances. Particularly when dealing with a character devoted not to mercy, but to justice.

I'm starting to wonder if the fall-happy crowd in this thread simply wishes paladins to be unplayable.

[hamishspence]

Exalted characters are devoted to mercy as an aspect of justice.
The Paladin has Vow of Poverty- which makes him an Exalted character.

Hence- if he's going to stay Exalted, he must show mercy if at all reasonably possible.

Execution for serious crimes is not Evil (BoED) but the person to be executed should have been found guilty of serious crimes first, and not have been presumed to be guilty because of the company they're in.

Manual of the Planes describes Celestia, the plane of equal law and good- as devoted to justice and mercy.

I'm not saying the Paladin should necessarily lose his paladin powers (though a case can be made for this) but that he should lose his Exalted status until he atones.

[FatR]

Dropping a weapon and sticking arms high in the air is the traditional symbol of surrender. Yelling "I surrender" on top of this makes the message pretty clear.
Either is not particularly likely to work when you're already in melee. Unless you're armored enough to not be mortally wounded by the first blow.

[hamishspence]

The guy was reduced to 0 hit points- if they did anything strenuous in the next round (like attack) they'd immediately drop to -1 hit points, fall unconscious (unless they have Diehard), and start dying.

Faced with the choice between starting dying, and not, it makes sense to drop your weapon, surrender, and hope your opponent accepts.

[Kris Strife]

And once again this bizarre notion that merely being cornered by a stronger opponent and asking for mercy somehow makes you entitled to receiving mercy, irrespective of circumstances. Particularly when dealing with a character devoted not to mercy, but to justice.

I'm starting to wonder if the fall-happy crowd in this thread simply wishes paladins to be unplayable.

I've been noticing a trend. If the DM makes the player fall or shift alignment, people are against it. If the DM lets them off with a waning or something, they thing they should have fallen so hard they wind up in Asmodeus' living room.

Exceptions exist of course, but that seems to be the overall case.

@Hamishspence: I don't think you can bring back those who died of old age, so I'd imagine most of them would have some kind of unfinished business worth coming back for.

[hamishspence]

It might be more a 4E thing, as a "why don't people resurrect every NPC that dies by violence"- because NPC souls aren't always strong enough to cross back.

In the Cleric Quintet, a beggar is murdered, the hero tries to resurrect the beggar, and nothing happens- because Raise Dead just doesn't work all the time.

[Snake-Aes]

I've been noticing a trend. If the DM makes the player fall or shift alignment, people are against it. If the DM lets them off with a waning or something, they thing they should have fallen so hard they wind up in Asmodeus' living room.

Exceptions exist of course, but that seems to be the overall case.

@Hamishspence: I don't think you can bring back those who died of old age, so I'd imagine most of them would have some kind of unfinished business worth coming back for.

:p if we all were of the opinion he should fell so hard to clonk asmodeus' butt, this thread would end in the first page. Same goes for the opposite. So yes, it is a trend that people disagree.


And on the odds of having the surrender work: You know when you are at 0 hp, on the brink of death. It actually causes a status change, so it is believable such a character feels he's in a bad place.
Second, it's a viable maneuver IRL. Historically, enemies whose rescues were valuable often managed to surrender mid-battle. A fair number of them died in the middle of the rage, but an equally high number survived.
When you have to pick between guaranteed death(running away and attacking both would drop you further), or a 50/50 chance of the enemy knowing you surrendered, i'm fairly sure you'd put your money on surrendering.

[The Rose Dragon]

It might be more a 4E thing, as a "why don't people resurrect every NPC that dies by violence"- because NPC souls aren't always strong enough to cross back.

The soul also has to be willing to come back from the dead. Most afterlives aren't that terrible compared to the Prime Material, so why would a soul give up his in exchange for life?

[Psyx]

"And once again this bizarre notion that merely being cornered by a stronger opponent and asking for mercy somehow makes you entitled to receiving mercy."

+1

"I'm starting to wonder if the fall-happy crowd in this thread simply wishes paladins to be unplayable."

It does seem a little overly harsh on them.
We've still not found out what deity the paladin worshipped, which is probably quite important...


"they do this by only attacking those evil beings they are justified in attacking- and trying to redeem the rest."

And once you make that choice to attack with a lethal weapon because it is the 'right' 'good' and 'lawful' thing to do, and punish those bandits with death, the choice is made. The paladin has already decided that they deserve to die, or that their death is the only practical ending to the matter before launching the attack. The paladin had already decided on the punishment for the crime and to be the hand of justice in the matter.
Someone snivelling for mercy selfishly should not change that choice. To then elect to show mercy shows that the moral choice had not been thought through BEFORE resorting to violence, which is worse, because it shows a lack of consideration for consequence. If the paladin wanted to show mercy, the opportunity should have been given before the combat started.

[Boci]

The soul also has to be willing to come back from the dead. Most afterlives aren't that terrible compared to the Prime Material, so why would a soul give up his in exchange for life?

NPC: "So you say you slaughtered those village as an act of mercy. Care to explain?"
PC: "Well, your honour, as we all know, the after life is far superior to the material world..."

[Psyx]

...Which makes me think that if anything the paladin should have called for quarter at the start of the combat. 'I'm a servant of the king, surrender, or no quarter will be taken' would have been fine, and then there would be no real moral quandary later on...

[The Rose Dragon]

NPC: "So you say you slaughtered those village as an act of mercy. Care to explain?"
PC: "Well, your honour, as we all know, the after life is far superior to the material world..."

That line of thinking comes up on these boards more often than one might think. Especially where some people (hopefully jokingly) argue that killing babies is good because it prevents them from turning to evil later in life and sends them to a desirable afterlife.

[hamishspence]

And once you make that choice to attack with a lethal weapon because it is the 'right' 'good' and 'lawful' thing to do, and punish those bandits with death, the choice is made. The paladin has already decided that they deserve to die, or that their death is the only practical ending to the matter before launching the attack. The paladin had already decided on the punishment for the crime and to be the hand of justice in the matter.

Going by the OP, that's not how it went- the patrol stumbled across the paladin and king, and they fought because the paladin didn't want the patrol to return and give away the location.

Or, the patrol attacked the paladin- and he chose to defend himself.

It isn't automatically "The paladin attacked the patrol because he decided they all deserve to die".

[Friend Computer]

In medieval times, maybe- but D&D isn't medieval times. A bandit could be anything from a long-term villain who's committed dozens of murders for loot, to somebody young and inexperienced who's only just taken up the career, and never actually killed anybody.

Hence- a judge with justice on their mind, might investigate the bandit's history, and if the bandit has little real Evil to their record, they might be sentenced to hard labour rather than death.

Irrelevent. It may be perfectly lawful to execute bandits, but having accepted the surrender of a foe in combat, the paladin must abide by the surrender.


The policy doesn't makes it right, thought, in the mindset required by paragons of LG.
This.
Lawful =/= Lawful Good =/= Paladin's Code.


I have no opinion on the subject because I think the Paladin Code of Conduct is absurdly stupid.

What I do want to comment on is the OP - why is this bothering you? How is this your business? Do you want the Paladin to fall? Seriously, you're neither the DM nor the person playing the Paladin, this seems to be no business of yours. That kind of... I dunno, negative attitude about another player at your table... that really would bother me.

Which is, of course, why I hate the Paladin to begin with. This entire argument, with over 160 posts, should never have happened.

This does not make for a fun game.
Why is it absurd that there is a group dedicated to fighting evil without using evil, and who hold themselves to a higher moral standard than anyone else?

And he is the DM, and is wondering if he did the correct thing.

And the reason the thread is long is because people see a lot of room in alignment and have different views on what the alignments mean, and some people try to make it more subjective than others, and... yeah. And what of us who like these discussions and like the fact that we can have them without them devolving into screaming matches and flame wars?


So imprisonment and prolonged physical abuse / torture is more paladinic than swift justice now? I think after being strangled into unconsciousness for the second time, and knowing darn well that my fate was the gallows, I'd be pleading for a swift end to it right there and then.
Taking the hobgoblin as a prisoner (I doubt a meaningful oath could be extracted from the hobgoblin. They are lawful, but not outsiders made of law) is the optimal course of action for the paladin. If the hobgoblin begs for execution upon hearing that, then as a DM, I would not penalize the paladin for that execution.


He's one man already protecting a non-combatant. There is every reason for him not to take prisoners. He derived no pleasure for the act. This shouldn't even be an issue.
Doesn't matter. The hobgoblin surrendered.



"...does not fit with a Good aligned PC"

But it does fit with Lawful ones, and a Paladin is both. Where that balance lays and what is more important is essentially a player choice.
Well, no. The paladin is not Lawful and Good, but Lawful Good. On top of that, paladins are not just lawful good, but are paragons of that alignment. And this paladin was exalted on top of that! This paladin is a paragon of all that is good and just and merciful among paragons of all that is good and just and merciful!


Couple of points.
First, in a situation where a beaten foe "surrenders" to save his own life and get a better chance to shank someone later, the Paladin shouldn't be obliged to accept his surrender. "No, pick up your sword and we'll finish this" should be within his Code and his alignment.
(note: I've just recently seen Star Wars episode 3 and played Force Unleashed, and I'm sick of "hey, I beat this guy, but now I have to turn my back so he can try to gut me, otherwise it's bad to kill him")
The paladin may (I disagree, but meh) be accorded the right to refuse surrender. This being the case, it should be announced beforehand, not when the opponent surrenders. Regardless, the paladin did not offer this.


What's the risk to the paladin's physical health for conking the hobgoblin in the head compared to that of running him through? It's about the same.

With that said, which tactic is less likely to kill the helpless creature? That's really all that matters, and pretty much any character would know the answer without any kind of metagame insight into the rules.
Yup.


Also, the Paladin could probably heal the hobgoblin if he really overdid it. I assume the king's personal bodyguard/escort would be high enough level for that.

And if it's almost impossible to kill someone with a single unarmed strike when you're trying to do it, there shouldn't be a problem when you're holding back.
Lay On Hands for 1hp. Level 1.


Required or not, he accepted it. Then killed the hobgoblin. In particular, killed the hobgoblin for convenience rather than ethics or morality.
This


As a small side-note, I'll never understand the people who say "Nonlethal damage isn't violent!" I had an incident with this in a previous campaign, where a player who had levels in monk, Vow of Nonviolence and Peace habitually ran around and beat the crap out of people with his fists, all while saying "Lawl, I don't do HP damage, so clearly it's I don't lose my feats!"

Just because it doesn't kill you doesn't mean it doesn't hurt like a bitch.

Yeah... That's not even lawful behaviour...


Where does it say in the rules what it means for something to be Good in the context of the alignment system? I don't see any statements in the alignment section of the PHB that are inherently definitive -- they don't contain relevant qualifiers like "all" or "only" -- and taking the given statements to be definitive leads to conclusions like "Killing innocents in order to protect other innocents is both Evil and Good". Now, I don't see anything saying that something can't be Evil and Good at the same time, but the normal assumption seems to be that something only has one alignment. We could toss out that assumption, but then we should be prepared to deal with the consequences of that.

This may be "twisting" by "lawyering", but it's also exploring the practical upshots of actually adopting possible definitions of "Good" and "Evil" for the purposes of implementing alignment. Now, you can take statements about Good and Evil and not directly use them to determine what alignments get assigned, but instead selectively apply them based on what "feels right". But I don't consider that to be "making sense of alignment".

It's well and good to acknowledge that "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it". It's disingenuous to say "I know it when I see it, and that's my definition". One could "define" "red" as "that which people deem 'red'", but that's a vacuous definition; any word could be "defined" in that fashion. A meaningful definition would explain what it is that causes people to label something "red".

Just having a cognitive black box that's consistent about what it applies a given label to isn't the same as knowing what that label means. To know what the label mean is to know a set of conditions that are necessary and sufficient to cause the cognitive black box to apply the label. :smallamused: Roughly speaking.

So the correct system of metaethics is the one that describes what it is that makes human beings deem things moral or immoral (if there is such a system). But! Alignment doesn't necessarily need to work like that. If one includes as an assumption of the setting cosmology that Good is independent of human opinions, then it's entirely appropriate for human beings to occasionally be horrified by Good things.
No, the stuff on alignment does not say 'all' or 'only', and I don't think it needs to. Saying it leads to contradictory conclusions is something I will not disagree with, and is actually something I like in a system, and won't complain about. But the contradiction you posed is nonsense. By killing innocent life you are not protecting it, so the action is not good. If this results in a situation where there is no possible good outcome, well, sometimes there isn't, and the only way out is by committing an evil act. If the DM forces such a situation onto a character for whom alignment matters, that's unwarranted, but in a discussion of a theoretical world with impersonal objective Good and Evil it is bound to happen.

So my position isn't that 'I can't define it, but know it' rather 'we have a definition (more correctly, a description), and lets see where things go'. My reasoning for this is because I don't believe there are objective good and evil, and I do believe that 'the ends justify the means' and have little patience for such a discussion in the real world. Given the descriptions of good and evil, of law and chaos that we are presented with, however, we have the means to judge where individual actions and characters fit on the alignment grid. It also, however, allows the possibility good turning into evil and chaos into law, and such contradictions are the basis for all movement and change. I touched on this in another point in another thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8842798&postcount=47) a few days back. The rest of your post I agree with. ^__^


I think that we're either getting 'LG' mixed up with 'really impracticality naive' or are tainting it with our modern idea of 'good'. This is a fantasy world of violent times very unlike our own. Being a bandit is cause for a death sentence. Being a hobgoblin is pretty much cause for death too. Tossing down your weapon doesn't mean that 'just' fate is avoided. It just means the fight over. The fight being over still doesn't mean you don't die. Heck: Poaching would probably be enough grounds fro execution, but we'll assume that Paladins rather than LN/LE knights overlook such mild offences and only really punish the big ones... like banditry and kidnapping. Those are seen as evil acts and are against the law. Perfectly acceptable grounds for the paladin delivering lethal justice.
No, we are ignoring modern conceptions of good and justice, ancient conceptions of good and justice, and possible future conceptions of good and justice. We are instead looking at the SRD and BoED for what they have to say on alignment, the Paladin's Code, and being Exalted.


And once again this bizarre notion that merely being cornered by a stronger opponent and asking for mercy somehow makes you entitled to receiving mercy, irrespective of circumstances. Particularly when dealing with a character devoted not to mercy, but to justice.

I'm starting to wonder if the fall-happy crowd in this thread simply wishes paladins to be unplayable.
On the contrary, this thread has made me want to play a paladin.


I've been noticing a trend. If the DM makes the player fall or shift alignment, people are against it. If the DM lets them off with a waning or something, they thing they should have fallen so hard they wind up in Asmodeus' living room.

Exceptions exist of course, but that seems to be the overall case.

@Hamishspence: I don't think you can bring back those who died of old age, so I'd imagine most of them would have some kind of unfinished business worth coming back for.

I've not seen this trend at all, at least in this thread. I've not even seen people suggest a change of alignment, and my own previous post explicitly said that a fall, but not alignment change, would be appropriate.

[Psyx]

"Going by the OP, that's not how it went- the patrol stumbled across the paladin and king, and they fought because the paladin didn't want the patrol to return and give away the location.
Or, the patrol attacked the paladin- and he chose to defend himself.
It isn't automatically "The paladin attacked the patrol because he decided they all deserve to die". "


If he was jumped by the bandits he could still have called on them to surrender 'now' or expect no quarter.

The paladin knew he was going to be attacking a bandit camp and should have had his moral reasoning done before he went into combat. If he wasn't completely convinced that these things needed running through, then he shouldn't have drawn steel.


***

"Irrelevent. It may be perfectly lawful to execute bandits, but having accepted the surrender of a foe in combat, the paladin must abide by the surrender."

Non Sequitur. 'Surrender' does not mean immunity to repercussions for prior acts. Accepting a surrender does not mean that you cannot kill a foe later. The act of surrender -if accepted- merely ended the fight. The Paladin then lawfully executed the bandit.


"Taking the hobgoblin as a prisoner (I doubt a meaningful oath could be extracted from the hobgoblin. They are lawful, but not outsiders made of law) is the optimal course of action for the paladin. "

...If he has a Wisdom of about 7. He had no means of restraint and it would have been detrimental to the greater good of his main objective. Paladins need to weigh up repercussions as good/evil acts rather than simply the immediate act. Doing the later makes for a very dumb paladin that will ultimately end up doing more harm than good by making morally whiter-than-white but ultimately wrong/bad choices.

[Boci]

I keep reading "Accepted the surrender". Did the paladin actually do that?

[hamishspence]

The paladin knew he was going to be attacking a bandit camp and should have had his moral reasoning done before he went into combat. If he wasn't completely convinced that these things needed running through, then he shouldn't have drawn steel.

If people attack you- you defend yourself with whatever means necessary.

That doesn't necessarily mean that "they needed running through" after they've thrown down their weapons.



'Surrender' does not mean immunity to repercussions for prior acts. Accepting a surrender does not mean that you cannot kill a foe later. The act of surrender -if accepted- merely ended the fight. The Paladin then lawfully executed the bandit.

Where does it say that the paladin had the authority to "lawfully execute the bandit" in this case? What makes killing an unarmed opponent immediately after they disarm, a "lawful execution"?

Execution normally requires more than that- an assessment of the being's crimes, an "I find you guilty of X" and maybe the opportunity for the being to have their say before being slain.

[Snake-Aes]

"Taking the hobgoblin as a prisoner (I doubt a meaningful oath could be extracted from the hobgoblin. They are lawful, but not outsiders made of law) is the optimal course of action for the paladin. "

...If he has a Wisdom of about 7. He had no means of restraint and it would have been detrimental to the greater good of his main objective. Paladins need to weigh up repercussions as good/evil acts rather than simply the immediate act. Doing the later makes for a very dumb paladin that will ultimately end up doing more harm than good by making morally whiter-than-white but ultimately wrong/bad choices.

This is being analyzed without context. The paladin didn't even try to look for other alternatives. He just went straight to execution as soon as his round started. The fact he did that so quickly and easily is more aggravating than the actual execution.



I keep reading "Accepted the surrender". Did the paladin actually do that?
Apparently not, as all he did was to proceed and attack anyway.

[hamishspence]

From the original quote:



In any case, following a map captured from one of the men they'd killed earlier, they made their way towards this encampment. Enroute, they came accross a hobgoblin patrol. Catching them by surprise, the Paladin and the boy make short work of the patrol. The last hobgoblin, knocked to 0 hitpoints, drops his weapons and surrenders. At this point, the boy is watching very carefully to see what the Paladin will do. At this time, the Paladin raises his morningstar, and brains the surrendered hobgoblin, attempting to make the death as humane as possible given the conditions.

Does imply that the hobgoblin had actually surrendered, rather than "brains the attempting-to-surrender hobgoblin"

[Boci]

Does imply that the hobgoblin had actually surrendered, rather than "brains the attempting-to-surrender hobgoblin"

Yes, but that is not what I asked. The paladin didn't say "I accept your surrender" and then kill the hobgoblin, he just killed it, which is not quite as bad.

[hamishspence]

True.

Still, after weapons have been dropped, braining someone and going "Surrender not accepted" can be a little shady.

Though following the "I accept your surrender" with a short trial (maybe using Zone of Truth) and an execution on the authority of the king, after the hobgoblin had had a chance to offer info or not in return for clemency, might have been better.

Offering surrendered enemies a chance to do some good, is pretty common in fiction.

[Snake-Aes]

Offering surrendered enemies a chance to do some good, is pretty common in fiction.

and kind of the point of exalted's "crime fighting".

[Psyx]

"If people attack you- you defend yourself with whatever means necessary."

I don't actually agree. If attacked, you respond with a weapon that you feel it is morally acceptable to use properly. If you are mugged in the street, would you use a firearm to defend yourself, when the implication of you successfully defending yourself would then be the death of another? Don't use a weapon that you do not feel morally correct in using properly.


"Where does it say that the paladin had the authority to "lawfully execute the bandit" in this case? What makes killing an unarmed opponent immediately after they disarm, a "lawful execution"?"

I would guess because the king [y'know the one RIGHT THERE :smallbiggrin: ] directly commanded him to sort out the situation.

It's a GM call in so many ways, and so much is unknown to us: Is the paladin a member of a knightly order / the nobility which DOES have such authority, for example?

"Does imply that the hobgoblin had actually surrendered, rather than "brains the attempting-to-surrender hobgoblin""

Something else that we don't know.

I don't see the paladin as obligated in accepting surrender, but it would have been better if he had -as I mentioned- offered the chance as a one-time-only-offer up-front.

[Sliver]

Did the paladin actually accepted surrender? As I saw it, the goblin surrendered, the paladin killed him. Did he accept the surrender, making the opponent think he was safe, and then killed him?

[hamishspence]

Though whether the character will take the opportunity or not can be a tricky question.

A character doesn't have to be an "outsider made of law" to swear a meaningfull oath- they merely have to be honorable- which is quite a common trait in LE villains, though not all LE villains are honorable.

Had they questioned him, under magic, they could have found out if he was especially malevolent, or unusually honorable, if he was likely to reform if given the chance, or was utterly unrepentant and "deserving only of execution".

But they didn't.



I don't actually agree. If attacked, you respond with a weapon that you feel it is morally acceptable to use properly. If you are mugged in the street, would you use a firearm to defend yourself, when the implication of you successfully defending yourself would then be the death of another? Don't use a weapon that you do not feel morally correct in using properly.

Whatever means necessary. In other words, if you have good reason to believe that a lethal weapon is necessary to save your life, you use it.


I would guess because the king [y'know the one RIGHT THERE :smallbiggrin: ] directly commanded him to sort out the situation.

It said the king was watching him closely- but it didn't say the king commanded him to carry out an execution, or even just "sort out the situation".


I don't see the paladin as obligated in accepting surrender, but it would have been better if he had -as I mentioned- offered the chance as a one-time-only-offer up-front.

Did they have the chance? They ran into the goblin patrol and got surprise- the OP didn't say they'd ambushed the patrol. Though yelling "surrender or die" as soon as possible might have helped.

"Surrender now or there will be no quarter" when you're outnumbered (but you outclass the enemy) seems like an excuse to rationalize killing people who attempt to surrender when they realize their mistake, though.

[Arbitrarious]

Don't they have vows that represent the (im)practical levels of Exalted. He has VoP but does he have Vow of Nonviolence or Vow of Peace? He was attacked and acting not in his own interest but in the interests of those he was sworn to protect. That alone justifies his own use of violent force. He didn't act out of his own convenience, but of his obligation to others.

The hobgoblin didn't surrender when his last ally fell or when he was wounded (50%). He fought to the edge of death and made a last moment bid to survive. There is no guarantee that knocking him out would have done it's job. Suppose another band on patrol found him and tended to him, thereby alerting them to your presence? What if a wild animal comes and decides to have a little meal? How about he comes to and then decides he is going to get revenge for his fallen allies and his own disgrace, or just continue being a plague to the local populace as bandit? Are you going to hold up your mission to go track that hobgoblin down? Are you going to accept fault if he comes back and kills the captives while you are otherwise occupied? When Batman spares the Joker for the umpteenth time he is absolutely responsible for what he does after. Many people suffered and died, on multiple occasions, simply so he can keep the moral high ground. Little Timmy who lost his father when the Joker bombed that subway train after breaking out of Arkham for the 6th time can rest easy knowing that Batman's hands are blood free, can't he?

[hamishspence]

Main difference is that this guy hasn't been "spared for the umpteenth time"- this is the first time the two have met as far as we know.

[ProfMoriarty]

Is it Good to provide Evil creatures indefinite opportunity for redemption at the cost of indefinite harm to innocents? That seems dubious, but in a cosmology where to kill an Evil creature is to sentence it to be tortured by fiends for centuries, maybe it is. Of course, irredeemably Evil creatures could not be spared this fate in any event, so they are, as you note, a possible exception.

And if fiends don't have afterlives, in addition to being the ones who torture souls for centuries, then they're also an exception for different reasons.

My assumption is somewhat, but not entirely, based on the Vow of Non-violence description that says you can't do more than non-lethal damage to humanoids or monstrous humanoids even if they are evil. Only exceptions are inherently evil or non-living such as certain abberations, undead, or evil outsiders/pit fiends.

The assumption is that every creature is capable of Good and capable of atonement/redemption for their evil ways. In this event, no creature should be killed for being evil or doing evil, no matter the situation.

Yes, to answer your question, it would be Good to provide creatures infinite chances for both Good and Evil deeds, but by dealing with these creatures you take it upon yourself to be responsible for these creatures rehabilitation and journey of atonement etc. You don't just beat them up, tell them to be better and go on your way.
Any Evil they commit after you release them is your responsibility, but if you kill them you remove ANY possibility that they will do Good in the future. Evil begets Evil etc. Killing them is the easy way out, they won't be Evil and you won't be responsible for them anymore. Hardly a Good thing to do when they could have done so much more.


This is entirely idealistic vision of Good and always based on the assumption everyone can be Good. Like in superhero comics or anime where every badguy defeated joins your crew to do Good(I never read One Piece but thats what it seems to be about). What I prefer in my D&D is that this assumption is restricted only to certain campaigns and is made perfectly clear when creating a paladin character.

I repeat, I don't like this approach to good in my D&D. I prefer to have Evil creatures be punished by death and Good to be able to deal it freely provided they know they are dealing with Evil creatures who have commited heinous crimes. I don't like paladins falling, they are weak enough as it is.
Plus, I'm selfish; I don't want Bahamut to take away my Dragonborn template for killing a bugbear because he surrendered, what can I say? I'm a PC.

[hamishspence]

I prefer to have Evil creatures be punished by death and Good to be able to deal it freely provided they know they are dealing with Evil creatures who have commited heinous crimes.

Emphasis on the "know they are dealing with creatures who have committed heinous crimes"

Banditry, and even taking hostages, doesn't always fall into that category.

Remember the bandit arc of OoTS? Samantha was evil and had possibly committed heinous crimes, her father was "at best Neutral with Evil tendencies" but the rest of the bandits were all treated as redeemable by the Order. Despite having kidnapped people on Samantha's orders.

Durkon was a LG cleric of a deity- but he didn't see "punishing the bandits" as a priority- instead he encouraged them to take up an honest lifestyle.

[Arbitrarious]

Main difference is that this guy hasn't been "spared for the umpteenth time"- this is the first time the two have met as far as we know.

True but in sparring him and leaving him in the woods you need to assume responsibility for what he does. If you leave a killer out in the world knowingly then you have to accept some accountability when he kills again especially when you are taking it upon yourself to oppose him on moral grounds. "Well yes he was part of group of bandits who were killing and capturing people, but he surrendered. So you know, I thought he was good for it." is kind of a weak excuse to plead innocence for your own inaction.

[hamishspence]

Hence, knock him out for as long as you think reasonable, hide him as well as you can (under a big pile of brush) and return to his location after you've freed the prisoners (since you can't tie him up)

Sparing his life doesn't mean just letting him go without bothering to keep track of him.

Plus- might help to interrogate him first to find out exactly what he has been doing with the other bandits, and how much of their activities he's participated in. He might also provide info that could be useful in sneaking into the camp to perform a rescue.

When you're playing an Exalted character (even one which hasn't taken Vow of Nonviolence or Vow of Peace) killing should still be more of a last resort, when other methods have been tried and failed.

[Snake-Aes]

Durkon was a LG cleric of a deity- but he didn't see "punishing the bandits" as a priority- instead he encouraged them to take up an honest lifestyle.

Psst. Maybe it'll be easier to rationalize if you take off the op's hobgoblin's fangs and dye his skin yellow.

[hamishspence]

I recall that strip.

While D&D has tended to move goblins, orcs, etc toward "can't just kill them for XP anymore" in splatbooks like Cityscape, and especially in the Eberron Campaign setting, there seems to be a lot of resistance to the idea.

[Friend Computer]

Psst. Maybe it'll be easier to rationalize if you take off the op's hobgoblin's fangs and dye his skin yellow.
I lol'd.

But yes, there seems to be a very big difference of opinion between people who think that:
Best option in a bad list is good. Greatest good for the greatest number. Historically....
and
The books say that Good and Evil are things and the books talk about them, what what the books say is...

Yes, I know that if in a similar situation you would probably do the same thing as the PC, but that is not being an exhalted paladin, that is being... a human with a job to do. I find that most people IRL would fall into the neutral band on the good/evil axis, with more tending toward evil than good. I suspect that due to certain views i hold, I would fall into Lawful Evil in D&D alignments. I don't care. Everyone else should accept that the best thing to do in a given situation is not the most Good thing to do. When you clear that up, and look at what the books say...

[Eorran]

Hence, knock him out for as long as you think reasonable, hide him as well as you can (under a big pile of brush) and return to his location after you've freed the prisoners (since you can't tie him up)

Sparing his life doesn't mean just letting him go without bothering to keep track of him.

Plus- might help to interrogate him first to find out exactly what he has been doing with the other bandits, and how much of their activities he's participated in. He might also provide info that could be useful in sneaking into the camp to perform a rescue.

When you're playing an Exalted character (even one which hasn't taken Vow of Nonviolence or Vow of Peace) killing should still be more of a last resort, when other methods have been tried and failed.

While fine in theory, this can quickly become ridiculous. The Paladin has other duties, and limited resources to carry them out. If he thinks he can take the hobgoblin captive without endangering the safety of the king he's escorting, or jeopardizing the mission to rescue the captives, fine and dandy. If not, he has to prioritize, and I’d see the following order of importance:
1. The King’s safety
2. The safety of the captives
3. The well-being of defeated enemies
Whether the bandit is human, hobgoblin, or eldritch abomination shouldn’t make any difference.
Taking prisoners is massively resource-intensive, and can compromise his ability to perform his other duties. I like Mike G’s analogy of SAS or Green Berets in hostile territory.
Whether the bandit should have been executed depends heavily on campaign flavour and culture. Are paladins invested with authority to judge? Are there rules for surrendering that the hobgoblin and paladin would have known? Can he transfer custody of his captive?
Mercy is an important attribute of a Paladin, but shouldn’t be used to shackle the character.

[ProfMoriarty]

Emphasis on the "know they are dealing with creatures who have committed heinous crimes"

Banditry, and even taking hostages, doesn't always fall into that category.

Remember the bandit arc of OoTS? Samantha was evil and had possibly committed heinous crimes, her father was "at best Neutral with Evil tendencies" but the rest of the bandits were all treated as redeemable by the Order. Despite having kidnapped people on Samantha's orders.

Durkon was a LG cleric of a deity- but he didn't see "punishing the bandits" as a priority- instead he encouraged them to take up an honest lifestyle.

True, banditry shouldn't be readily punished with death. In the OP's example people appeared to have been taken prisoner instead of killed (though only some women and children escaped, the men might've been killed instead of being taken prisoner). Perhaps there was more information from the escapees about the bandits' collective crimes we don't know about that could have hastened the paladin's judgement. The OP hasn't really clarified if there were any mitigating or incriminating circumstances.

In the OoTS example, they did have plenty of interaction with the bandits and Durkon could have surmised that these people were only dangerous bandits because of their leader. Though he also has no way of knowing whether or not their group returned to banditry with a new leader; a bit neglectful on his part but sometimes Good people need an easy out in stories to continue on their main quest.

He also got a giant golden mug of ale from the bandits, which may have influenced his decision to spare them any punishment.

And Samantha wasn't spared punishment, possibly received a punishment worse than death, as the Chaotic Evil Belkar pointed out.

[Leon]

Last night, our Vow of Poverty Paladin was escorting a boy-king through an elven forest, on the run from marauding hobgoblins and men, when they came across a fleeing elf-woman and her children. They rescued the woman and her children from their pursuers, and while speaking to the woman afterwords, found out that they had been prisoners and escaped from a human-hobgoblin encampment a few miles away where more prisoners were being kept.

The Paladin wanted to avoid the camp, as his job was to get the boy-king to safety, but the boy-king basically pulled rank, and told the Paladin that they have a responsibility to those people, and that they should attempt to rescue them.

In any case, following a map captured from one of the men they'd killed earlier, they made their way towards this encampment. Enroute, they came accross a hobgoblin patrol. Catching them by surprise, the Paladin and the boy make short work of the patrol. The last hobgoblin, knocked to 0 hitpoints, drops his weapons and surrenders. At this point, the boy is watching very carefully to see what the Paladin will do. At this time, the Paladin raises his morningstar, and brains the surrendered hobgoblin, attempting to make the death as humane as possible given the conditions.

We stopped and spoke OOC for a bit about this. The Paladin's player explained that they did not have any reliable way to detain the prisoner at this time (they had no rope or manacles), and due to their proximity to the man-hobgoblin encampment, could not risk letting the hobgoblin get a chance to warn his buddies. He still had an obligation to protect the boy, and also did not want to further endanger the prisoners kept at the camp (which they were attempting to rescue). He ended his argument by stating that he felt he had no choice.


Being the DM, a took note of his argument, and told him that I felt he was justified in the decision that he made, but to watch out in the future in case this was the beginning of a slippery slope situation.

Does this sound like the right choice in this situation?

Yes, If the DM is happy with it and the game can continue then its a right choice.


Only time in my games i can recall that a Pally should have fallen was at the time it oversight and vague knowledge of the rules. Talked to the player afterward saying that they should have fallen on the spot for locking the npc they had with them in a room with a couple trolls and then fleeing.

I figure he got his just reward later when he reincarnated as a badger (oh the power of that 1d3+5 Smite...)

[hamishspence]

Whether the bandit is human, hobgoblin, or eldritch abomination shouldn’t make any difference.

it shouldn't- but in older-style D&D games it often does.


Whether the bandit should have been executed depends heavily on campaign flavour and culture. Are paladins invested with authority to judge? Are there rules for surrendering that the hobgoblin and paladin would have known? Can he transfer custody of his captive?
Mercy is an important attribute of a Paladin, but shouldn’t be used to shackle the character.

True- its more important to Exalted characters than Paladins specifically- given that there's a bit of text in the PHB (and some in PHB2) that seems to support the notion that some paladins can be merciless toward those they deem evil, and not fall.

Ironically the novel version of Alhandra, seemed to be fully aware that "Evil" does not mean "Guilty" and (as I recall from a much earlier thread) was willing to step in and stop a lynching without checking to see whether the character (Krusk the half-orc) was evil first- but demanding that he be given a fair trial, and only be executed if the evidence was enough to convict him of the crime.

So far, suggestions for consequences for the paladin's actions have included:

1: Nothing at all.

2: A warning from the DM to be careful but no mechanical consequences (this is what the OP actually did).

3: Loss of Exalted status but not loss of paladin powers.

4: Loss of some paladin powers, but not all of them.

5: Loss of all paladin powers until they atone.

I'd personally go with 2 or 3- the paladin isn't exactly acting very Exalted- but they shouldn't be heavily penalized.

[Person_Man]

Paladins are not police officers or Jedi. They don't have to read enemies their non-existent Miranda rights and take them in for a trail. They don't have to accept the surrender of an enemy that they honestly believe is a threat. They are only bound by what their God believes is Lawful and Good. If this Paladin happened to be worshiping the God of Due Process, then yes, he did something very wrong and should lose his Paladinhood or be given a stern warning. Otherwise, he should be congratulated for destroying an Unlawful and probably Evil threat.

[Snake-Aes]

Otherwise, he should be congratulated for destroying an Unlawful and probably Evil threat.

Ah, but this here is not how a paladin should act at all. Paladins can't take harsh decisions based on guesses, or because it's simpler when said simpler harms someone else.

And comparing with jedi or police? An exalted character makes those feel unworthy.

[Aeromyre]

Here is a list of dishonorable acts for lawful good characters, you may consider using this website for Alignment (http://easydamus.com/lawfulgood.html) if there is ever confusion.


The following actions are dishonorable for this alignment:

Accused of crime (innocent or not)

Attacking an unarmed or obviously inferior opponent

Being taken prisoner

Convicted of a crime

Defeated by an inferior opponent

Delivering death blow to a helpless opponent

Desecrating an enemy's corpse

Dirty fighting

Falsely claiming the 'bragging rights' that belong to another or outright lying

Fleeing a battle that's obviously going poorly

Fleeing a fight with a superior opponent

Fleeing a fight with an equal opponent

Gloating over a victory

Killing a host who has provided you food or shelter

Neglecting to properly bury a member of one's own race

Paying off an extortionist or shake-down

Perpetrate humiliating prank on enemy

Rash or improper social behavior

Refusing a fair contest/challenge

Surrendering

Taking a bribe

Taunting an enemy into fighting

Treason

Unjustly slaying a prisoner or unarmed opponent who has yielded

Walking away from a challenge

[Woodsman]

Couldn't the player have just taken the -4 penalty to deal non-lethal damage and just knock the hobgoblin out?

I mean, yeah, just leaving him there woulda sucked, but Rule of Plot says he'd have lived to save their lives someday.

[hamishspence]

That's a pretty good site- though it doesn't have much for the "evil guy who thinks he's a Good guy"- the evil alignments as described there don't leave much room for Well Intentioned Extremists the way the splatbooks do.

"Unjustly slaying a prisoner or unarmed opponent who has yielded"

may also play a part- if the character promises to spare the prisoner's life in return for info, then kills them. Or kills them based on what they are "a hobgoblin bandit" rather than what they've done.


Couldn't the player have just taken the -4 penalty to deal non-lethal damage and just knock the hobgoblin out?

I mean, yeah, just leaving him there woulda sucked, but Rule of Plot says he'd have lived to save their lives someday.

That's been raised a few times- with some people saying "another patrol might have found him and raised the alarm" or "he might commit evil acts in the future so must be killed now" or "he might be eaten by a monster while unconscious, so its much more merciful to kill him now"

I did mention that "Surrendering enemy generally means Plot Hook" earlier in the thread.

[endoperez]

I suspect that due to certain views i hold, I would fall into Lawful Evil in D&D alignments.

But Friend Computer, you are the very epitome of Good! Without you the Alpha Complex would be swamped in Traitor Mutant Commies! All Hail Friend Computer!


I agree with the rest of your post, though. I've given some thought to the matter myself, and believe that a person can be both good and evil at the same time. Not in D&D alignments, obviously, but if people are capable of both very good and very evil, surely there are some who have managed both.

On-topic, directed to the OP - nightmares! It was mentioned here before, and IIRC it was from Quintessential Paladin (2?), and that just fits.If you want to, you could add a minor penalty. Ability to feel fear would fit quite well. Don't mention it specificaly, just describe how he wakes up after the bout of nightmares he's shaking, and when he's ready to make camp he's terrified the dreams will come again. You can later arrange for him to be targeted by a Fear effect. :D

And in case you side more with the people arguing that the mitigating factors don't matter, just make it so he'll never get his fear immunity back, not without really earning it.

[hamishspence]

On-topic, directed to the OP - nightmares! It was mentioned here before, and IIRC it was from Quintessential Paladin (2?), and that just fits.If you want to, you could add a minor penalty.

Quintessenial Paladin 2, yes. It had a choice (for the DM) of two suggested penalties: -1 to caster level when casting paladin spells, and -2 sacred penalty to Charisma when dealing with celestials.

Goes well with that other suggestion of a visit from a lantern archon.

[Person_Man]

Ah, but this here is not how a paladin should act at all. Paladins can't take harsh decisions based on guesses, or because it's simpler when said simpler harms someone else.

I would reiterate that it depends on who the Paladin worships. It is this God who defines what right and wrong are for this Paladin.

If this Paladin worships the God of Strength, Bravery, and Rightful Vengeance, then he was well within his dogma to kill a weak and cowardly enemy who surrendered (rather then continuing to fight and die with honor, as his companions had) while protecting his ward on the way to free prisoners. Not all Gods/cultures believe that mercy is a virtue. Aztecs, Mongols, and Klingons, just to name a few examples. Read up on military sociology, and you'll learn that the prohibition against killing enemies who surrender grew largely out of the fear of retribution and/or a desire to ransom or enslave prisoners, which was a primary source of income for most soldiers. Neither of these are particularly noble or good acts.

Again, I fully acknowledge that some Gods hold mercy in high regard. And if this Paladin worshiped such a God, then he should lose his abilities and/or be sternly warned. But that's not always the case.

[The Rose Dragon]

I would reiterate that it depends on who the Paladin worships. It is this God who defines what right and wrong are for this Paladin.

Paladins can simply not worship anyone. Gods don't determine a paladin's code, or the tenets of law and good. They may adhere to them, but they do not set them. Neither does a god grant a paladin's powers (except in Forgotten Realms), and as such, he has no authority to take them away.

[Severus]

/rant on

I'm glad I don't play with a lot of you. This rose colored view of the world puts my teeth on edge.

Imprisonment is a luxury of rich modern societies that are mostly full of law abiding people. In your typical medieval-ish fantasy world full of evil monsters, there aren't enough prisons to be had. Executing a criminal who has surrendered seems perfectly reasonable to me. In medieval period, many knights would have the authority to do this kind of thing. I would think doubly so in a fantasy world with so many dangers. It's genre.

Is the paladin supposed to capture every single monster it encounters, drag it back to court and say "can you pretty please try this monster for its crimes so I can lop its head off?"

If, as a GM, you want Paladins to accept surrenders and drag them all off to jail, then it is your responsibility to make that relatively easy. I've had a fair number of GMs over the years want realistic worlds, but then set completely unrealistic expectations of paladins, effectively breaking the class.

/rant off

[hamishspence]

The problem is, what counts as a Good or Neutral or Evil act isn't defined by the deity- alignment is objective rather than relative, so an act can't be Good for one deity but Evil for the next.

Second- a paladin is penalized for failing to be Lawful Good- not primarily for failing to uphold the tenets of their deity (the PHB states paladins don't even have to have a deity). A LG paladin of a LN deity might follow his deity's code to the letter- and Fall- because his deity's code is LN, not LG.

This crops up in at least one D&D novel: Tymora's Luck- where the NG deity is willing to do something evil- and when the paladin finally catches on, she intervenes,

and when the deity says "How dare you risk falling from my grace?" she responds with "It would be evil to join these two goddesses together against their will".


In medieval period, many knights would have the authority to do this kind of thing. I would think doubly so in a fantasy world with so many dangers. It's genre.

The impression I got, was that "the power of pit and gallows" tended to be reserved for high-ranking lords, and that "ordinary knights" weren't allowed to do this kind of thing.

[Yukitsu]

Depends on era. Several knights were a vassal responsible for a fief, and would have the right and duty to execute any brigand caught in his liege lords realm during the D&D era of setting. Later on, they would evolve to become a man-at-arms with a title at most, but I believe retained some of their authority.

[hamishspence]

This might be "low nobility" able to settle minor crimes, but for more serious ones like murder, generally had to defer to high nobility.

And even high nobles generally gave brigands a hearing, and the sentence might vary depending on aggravating and mitigating factors. A brigand who provided information leading to the destruction of their band, for example.

Is a 1st level paladin the equivalent of a man-at-arms, or a sheriff, or maybe one of the sheriff's officers? How about a mid level paladin?

And if the "monastic orders" like the Knights Templar are a better parallel, what were their powers?

[EENick]

This is just me but since he was traveling with a boy King couldn't he have just asked for the king make a quicky call on the creature? Assuming this kid isn't just a figure head the ability to make legal judgements on criminals or enemies should be well within his power and right of rule assuming the law wasn't already on the paladine's side.

How much of a trial would a bandit be due for anyway? They would go to trial the paladine would report the badit attacked and tried to kill him and surrendered in an act of cowardess after his friends were slain. The court would then take the word of the paladine and quickly execute the bandit unless they were some super far removed from any sembelence of historical reality fantasy race of supermen (not that there is anything wrong with that when you've got clerics and mages and demons running around).

Assuming we're more period UK then totally removed fantasy that leaves the paladine with considerable legal options to justify his moral choice. I mean most period sherrifs, lords, were given HUGE leway in enforcing the kings law outside of developed towns etc. Peasents had little rights in some parts and only nobels really fully enjoyed the protection of the law. I'm assuming as a paladine escorting the freaking king he had to have some authority which should logically and reasonably extend to enforcing the kings law, for which bandits could almost certainly be punishable by death (as were a great many crimes) at the lords option and for violent crimes like attacking one of the kings men death was partically a requirement for the offender.

The concepts of imprisonment as the only option of serious crimes is a very recent one. The law was frequently brutal and violent. Theives had their fingers cut off. Bandits lost their head. A lawful good paladine even under a strict code could easily claim their actions were justified if not madated under the law and that in this case the great good did not allow them to show the mercy that they might otherwise have given.

I think giving the paladine a warning (since such actions should obviously not be taken lightly by such a devoted paladine) was the right call to make and if anything was a little harsh.

Under a more comic book style fantasy setting on the other hand that really depends on the tone and flavor of the setting and just how goodie, goodie gum drops/black&white the setting is.

After all against foes Superman knew could recover he has crippled of maimed freely. A paladine could under that sort of setting could resonably maim or even kill the bandit under those circumstances and simply vow to have him healed/raised later and see justice done to the poor fellow giving the bandit his second chance.

[Yukitsu]

This might be "low nobility" able to settle minor crimes, but for more serious ones like murder, generally had to defer to high nobility.

And even high nobles generally gave brigands a hearing, and the sentence might vary depending on aggravating and mitigating factors. A brigand who provided information leading to the destruction of their band, for example.

Is a 1st level paladin the equivalent of a man-at-arms, or a sheriff, or maybe one of the sheriff's officers? How about a mid level paladin?

And if the "monastic orders" like the Knights Templar are a better parallel, what were their powers?

The three knightly orders of Jeruselum (of St. John, Templars, Teutonic) were all armed medical staff, and men-at-arms in a near constant state of war. They had to abide by the rules of war of the era, because they didn't police the crusader states. Typically, a conflict involving them would be open war, or them defending immigrants as they were going to one of the cities.

In this case, the child king should have ordered the hobgoblin's execution for various crimes. However, as he is a naive child king, it is understandable if the paladin acts without his authority unless the king specificall stays his hand.

In terms of "rank" most knights were born into it. You can't start as a level 1 man-at-arms and work your way up. Your social strata is usually dictated at birth, except in a few rare cases. If at level 20 he could order the man to death, he had the authority to do it at level 1.

Normally, I'd say a paladin must abide by a higher set of laws, but when the king is right beside him, clemency is not the proper response.

[hamishspence]

The DMG2 sourcebook does discuss the issue of "how medieval" a D&D world should be.

Page 105:

In actual medieval societies, those of lower status were often executed for comparatively minor offenses, such as petty theft. Convicted offenders were lucky to escape with mere mutilation. Since an authentically grim portrayal of medieval justice violates most players' sense of fun, good-aligned D&D societies are not so harsh. Serious crimes of violence might result in execution, but other crimes result in fines. Convicted criminals might be stripped of their rank, along with their dependants, or even forced to labour as villeins. Offenses where no injury is suffered and no property taken or destroyed incur fines as a result.

It also mentions the issue of "bounty hunters hunting outlaws" on page 103:

The law forbids bounty hunters to harm outlaws after they surrender, but otherwise, hunters can use lethal force.



In terms of "rank" most knights were born into it. You can't start as a level 1 man-at-arms and work your way up. Your social strata is usually dictated at birth, except in a few rare cases. If at level 20 he could order the man to death, he had the authority to do it at level 1.

I was thinking more of the fact that social rank doesn't always translate to legal power. The son of an earl might rank high socially- but he might not have legal power to override the local sheriff- or the power to sentence people- only his father has that.

[Yukitsu]

I was thinking more of the fact that social rank doesn't always translate to legal power. The son of an earl might rank high socially- but he might not have legal power to override the local sheriff- or the power to sentence people- only his father has that.

In this case, it's a knight and no countermanding authority. Assuming he's a vassal (VOP so he's not), then he has the authority to override a sheriff's order, were one present, and if it were his fiefdom. However, the only other authority present was the king, who very obviously outranks him, but as far as I can tell gave no indication that it should not be done.

However, all ranks do hold legal power. "Earl's son" however, isn't an official rank, which is why it holds no official power.

[hamishspence]

Of course, you're looking at things from a Neutral Good view (what's the Good thing to do) whether the PC has authority for their actions may be less important.

The paladin is an Exalted character- so (if he's going to keep his Exalted feat) the first thing on his mind should be the "Good" thing to do.

Of course, "Good" can conflict with other loyalties- like "Duty to obey". or "Protecting people you're devoted to from a potential threat".

So the "in character" thing to do might not be the Exalted thing to do.

[Yukitsu]

Given the stakes, falling from exalted to "merely" good would be of a greater benefit to society, assuming the king is one worth protecting. And it's in those cases that exalted is wrong. What good person allows the king to die just to save a murderer?

Every time I read BoED, I get the feeling it was written by evil people trying to make good so restrictive as to be ineffective, but I suppose your mileage may vary.

[FelixG]

And once again this bizarre notion that merely being cornered by a stronger opponent and asking for mercy somehow makes you entitled to receiving mercy, irrespective of circumstances. Particularly when dealing with a character devoted not to mercy, but to justice.

I'm starting to wonder if the fall-happy crowd in this thread simply wishes paladins to be unplayable.

For the record, i dont want Palis to be unplayable.

I just want people who play palis (much less exalted palis) to play them as they were intended instead of thugs/fighters with more powers.

A fighter or barbarian would have no problem justifying murdering a surrendered foe, meh i didnt want to deal with it, is a fine sentiment, maybe not for an exalted but just normal, its ok.

An exalted pali should be held to higher standards, in this case, he wasn't. And i also agree with the loosing of some powers (primary exalted status) and maybe a few of the lower end pali things, but not a complete fall.

[EENick]

The DMG2 sourcebook does discuss the issue of "how medieval" a D&D world should be.

True but my point was once you leave that sort of real world logic behind to embrace a more light hearted fantasy world killing and raising a foe becomes a perfectly reasonable and moral course of action which really is only slightly worse then knocking someone unconcious and taking them with you to sort out later. Provided the paladine didn't leave the corpse where it lay and really doesn make every effort to raise the falled foe one could make a very reasonable argument of killing the bandit without violating their alignment.

[hamishspence]

What good person allows the king to die just to save a murderer?


Will the king be put at risk by sparing the hobgoblin's life? Possibly- but this is a far cry from "allowing the king to die to save a murderer"

And is the hobgoblin a murderer? We don't know that.

I keep hearing claims that "the hobgoblin was a coward who attacked the paladin and king then surrendered when his life was in danger."

In the OP- the paladin and king partly won because they "got surprise" Which implies they were the ones doing the attacking:


Enroute, they came accross a hobgoblin patrol. Catching them by surprise, the Paladin and the boy make short work of the patrol. The last hobgoblin, knocked to 0 hitpoints, drops his weapons and surrenders.



0 Hit points is "disabled" - if you perform any standard action, you become Dying. Surrendering at this point is not exactly cowardice.

[Snake-Aes]

True but my point was once you leave that sort of real world logic behind to embrace a more light hearted fantasy world killing and raising a foe becomes a perfectly reasonable and moral course of action which really is only slightly worse then knocking someone unconcious and taking them with you to sort out later. Provided the paladine didn't leave the corpse where it lay and really doesn make every effort to raise the falled foe one could make a very reasonable argument of killing the bandit without violating their alignment.

It's not as much a violation of alignment as a violation of exaltation and being a paragon of the tenets of justice. It was already said most LG characters could get away with that, muddy as it is. But someone who purposefully puts himself on a higher moral ground is in for a hard time.

Yes, being Good to the point of an exalted character is deliberately hard. Good overall is already harder to play than any other alignment by default. BoED just takes it to an extreme.

[hamishspence]

Every time I read BoED, I get the feeling it was written by evil people trying to make good so restrictive as to be ineffective, but I suppose your mileage may vary.


When I read it, I notice just how much of it is in line with modern morality and things like the Geneva conventions- as well as the modern definitions of "crimes against mankind"

Slavery and torture being deemed evil.

Discrimination being deemed evil.

Emphasis on giving quarter if asked for, and the correct treatment of prisoners.

A high importance placed on trying to redeem and rehabilitate Evil characters.

And so on.

YMMV, of course.


True but my point was once you leave that sort of real world logic behind to embrace a more light hearted fantasy world killing and raising a foe becomes a perfectly reasonable and moral course of action which really is only slightly worse then knocking someone unconcious and taking them with you to sort out later.

Raise Dead does have certain limitations- not everybody can come back (depending on the DM), and creatures are always aware of the identity and alignment of the being raising them. A hobgoblin might be wary of being Raised by a human priest.

[Mike_G]

Alternately, the Paladin could loose his Exalted status, lose his VoP, but when searching the dead Hobbos find appropriate gear for a Paladin of his level.

Then he can play a Paladin as a functional warrior for Good, you can tear up the Book of Exhausting Screeds for coasters, and there will be much rejoicing.

[FelixG]

I will quote from the BoED because its simply the fact that the character specifically opened the book and took on the roll of an exalted:



on Mercy:
"For good characters who devote their lives to hunting and exterminating the forces of evil, evil's most seductive lure may be the abandonment of mercy. Mercy means giving quarter to enemies who surrender and treating criminals and prisoners with compassion and even kindness. It is, in effect, the good doctrine of respect for life taken to its logical extreme- respecting and honoring even the life of one's enemy. In a world full of enemies who show no respect for life whatsoever, it can be extremely tempting to treat foes as they have treated others, to exact revenge for slain comrades and innocents, to offer no quarter and become merciless.
A good character must not succumb to that trap. Good character must offer mercy and accept surrender no matter how many times villains might betray that kindness or escape captivity to continue their evil deeds. If a foe surrenders, a good character is bound to accept the surrender, bind the prisoner, and treat him as kindly as possible.


A pali is a paragon of GOOD. in no way did he act in the faith of an exalted or even try to be a paragon of good in this case.

Hell saying he didnt have binds was even an afterthought for his own lazyness, he could have stripped off the enemies or even his own shirt to use to bind the creature and bring him to justice. And he certainly didn't show the character quarter or mercy.

[Yukitsu]

When I read it, I notice just how much of it is in line with modern morality and things like the Geneva conventions- as well as the modern definitions of "crimes against mankind"

Slavery and torture being deemed evil.

Discrimination being deemed evil.

Emphasis on giving quarter if asked for, and the correct treatment of prisoners.

A high importance placed on trying to redeem and rehabilitate Evil characters.

And so on.

YMMV, of course.


It goes further than that, and I can agree to those simple tenants of good, but they go further when they talk about exalted. Exalted must always try to talk down everything, no matter the risks that redemption implies. Poison is evil, but diseasing evil people isn't (WTF?) A vow that says you can't kill, even in self defense while you're fighting a war. It takes the norm, and essentially twists it to something a modern person wouldn't even think of doing, even if they were highly moral. They'd basically have to be a martyr, because a lot of the exalted behavior is suicidal when you're walking around a place filled with objective evil trying to eat the flesh from your bones.


Will the king be put at risk by sparing the hobgoblin's life? Possibly- but this is a far cry from "allowing the king to die to save a murderer"

And is the hobgoblin a murderer? We don't know that.

I keep hearing claims that "the hobgoblin was a coward who attacked the paladin and king then surrendered when his life was in danger."

In the OP- the paladin and king partly won because they "got surprise" Which implies they were the ones doing the attacking:

Making a point, not using specifics. That the hobgoblin "merely" engages in human trafficking instead of murder doesn't change the fact that given the circumstances it's not worth risking a king's life for it given the era.

[EENick]

It's not as much a violation of alignment as a violation of exaltation and being a paragon of the tenets of justice. It was already said most LG characters could get away with that, muddy as it is. But someone who purposefully puts himself on a higher moral ground is in for a hard time.

Yes, being Good to the point of an exalted character is deliberately hard. Good overall is already harder to play than any other alignment by default. BoED just takes it to an extreme.


Raise Dead does have certain limitations- not everybody can come back (depending on the DM), and creatures are always aware of the identity and alignment of the being raising them. A hobgoblin might be wary of being Raised by a human priest.

Well this is just the way I would play it but hard or no holding a exalted character to the letter of the law rather then the spirit of the law is making them lawful netural not lawful good.

Besides it is hardly muddy if the DM seriously make the character work for it rather then making it an easy out. I can see a paladine having a seriously hard time getting a good aligned priest to agree to ask their god to raise a hobgoblin, and might require real sacrifice from the paladine, a good GM will just make sure the player knows this options isn't in fact an easy way to do things but actually a more difficult one in the long term.

Maybe as hamishspener suggest the normal raise dead won't work and the Paladine is honor bound to seek out stronger magic such a wish. As long as the GM takes them to task over it, as in my opinion they should, and doesn't make it as easy as just getting a scroll next time he stops in town I hardly see it as an easy nor one that should punish the paladine beyond having to go through the considerable difficulty or raising the individual. But that would just be my judgement call. D&D morals are all relative to the DMs and I can understand how others would want to handle the situation differently.

[Snake-Aes]

They'd basically have to be a martyr, because a lot of the exalted behavior is suicidal when you're walking around a place filled with objective evil trying to eat the flesh from your bones.
Mister Yukitsu, that's sort of the point.

[hamishspence]

Making a point, not using specifics. That the hobgoblin "merely" engages in human trafficking instead of murder doesn't change the fact that given the circumstances it's not worth risking a king's life for it given the era.

There's also the "is he a major participate, or a minor one" question.

Plus the fact that it's a mixed hobgoblin-human group (not including the prisoners)

Had it been a human bandit who'd dropped their weapon- would most of the comments be

"It's not worth risking a king's life for it."?

Many of the vows reflect historical ones- some historical groups took vows of nonviolence. Why these Vows are attached to Good alignment is a different question- might be the "respect for life" in the PHB turned Up To Eleven.

hence why they don't apply to undead and constructs- because they are "not living"

Though I'd say unjustified violence against an intelligent construct might be Evil, even if they "have no life to take".

[woodenbandman]

Why is an enemy's surrender not considered suspicious? If you walk up to the guy and say "surrender" and he does, that's one thing, but the guy was trying to kill you a minute ago, who's to say he wouldn't try it again when your back is turned?

[hamishspence]

Partly because, at 0 Hit points- if he takes any standard actions at all, he'll drop to Dying.

He could be suicidal and yell for help at a crucial point, but if he's suicidal, why'd he surrender?

Treating it as suspicious- assuming he's out to get back to the group, and knocking him out, is fine- but (going by the aforementioned Easydamus alignment system), it's "dishonorable for LG" to kill helpless enemies, and surrendered enemies.

[Snake-Aes]

Why is an enemy's surrender not considered suspicious? If you walk up to the guy and say "surrender" and he does, that's one thing, but the guy was trying to kill you a minute ago, who's to say he wouldn't try it again when your back is turned?

Sense Motive is a class skill for paladins.

[FelixG]

Why is an enemy's surrender not considered suspicious? If you walk up to the guy and say "surrender" and he does, that's one thing, but the guy was trying to kill you a minute ago, who's to say he wouldn't try it again when your back is turned?

It doesn't matter if its suspicious, giving mercy doesn't say you have to accept the surrender only if all the motives appear altruistic, or convenient.

He is a paragon of good AND exalted, he is BOUND to accept a surrender and give mercy when it is asked of him, he broke the tenants of his alignment and exalted status based on a book he CHOOSES to use for his character. If he was a normal pali he could throw the BoED out the window and say screw that noise, but he decided he wanted to use that book in building his character then throws what it has to say specifically about this very situation out the window in favor of his own world view.

[EENick]

Sense Motive is a class skill for paladins.

A classic tall moral failure that only works in D&D:

Hobo - I surrender
Paldine - *botches sense motive roll* The 12 gods reveals your deception to me. DIE LYING LIAR DIE! *Kills hobo and falls*

[Yukitsu]

Mister Yukitsu, that's sort of the point.

Having to martyr yourself anytime you meet an encounter does not an interesting campaign make.


There's also the "is he a major participate, or a minor one" question.

Plus the fact that it's a mixed hobgoblin-human group (not including the prisoners)

Had it been a human bandit who'd dropped their weapon- would most of the comments be

"It's not worth risking a king's life for it."?

Frankly yes. The important part to me is "is trafficking slaves" and "is a bandit", with the tag on extenuating circumstance of "the king is with me and needs to be protected."


Many of the vows reflect historical ones- some historical groups took vows of nonviolence. Why these Vows are attached to Good alignment is a different question- might be the "respect for life" in the PHB turned Up To Eleven.

hence why they don't apply to undead and constructs- because they are "not living"

Though I'd say unjustified violence against an intelligent construct might be Evil, even if they "have no life to take".

Some have nothing at all to do with sensible values though. Not touching corpses is somehow more good than touching corpses? While some religions did have those vows, they weren't because doing so was more moral. And again, this is a setting that essentially contains absolutely vile and evil individuals as a means of having a plot. It's not as though you fight against people who are just trying to get their next meal (or sometimes they are, but that meal is sentient). That you can't defensibly kill them to protect yourselves or others isn't the same as being Ghandi here, some things in a D&D world wouldn't bat an eye to enslaving or murdering an entire nation of pacificists.

[Mike_G]

Many of the vows reflect historical ones- some historical groups took vows of nonviolence. Why these Vows are attached to Good alignment is a different question- might be the "respect for life" in the PHB turned Up To Eleven.


And most people who took vows of nonviolence didn't go out in the wild carrying weapons and specializing in combat.

No many people who work in slaughterhouses are card carrying members of PETA.

A PC with a vow of nonviolence played as a healer, who tries to minimize the violence done by his comrades, like Roy tries to control Belkar a bit rather than turn him loose on an unsuspecting world. Maybe the adventurers saved his life, or the lives of his family and he feels an obligation to try to "redeem them of their violent ways." That's at least interesting.

But "My role is a warrior who champions the innocent and punishes the wicked. But I have to be very nice and respectful to the wicked once they promise to stop, pretty please with sugar, since we all know one of the defining characteristics of Evil is that they would never lie to save their skin. Oh. Wait."

As if Paladins weren't a big enough pain in the butt to play, the Book of Enthusiasm Drain just sucks any remaining fun from the class.

[The Rose Dragon]

he broke the tenants of his alignment and exalted status based on a book

He may have broken his Exalted status, but not his alignment. He is not bound to any more than any other paladin or good character to remain good. If you think he did something that would be acceptable for any other good character, then it is acceptable for him as a good character.

Exalted characters don't need to have a stricter morality than other good characters to remain good, only to remain Exalted.

[FelixG]

Having to martyr yourself anytime you meet an encounter does not an interesting campaign make.



Thats may be so, but that is EXACTLY what the pali player signed up for by taking his choice of class and feats. If he didnt want to be bound to the tenants he should have been a fighter or a pali without VoP

[Snake-Aes]

Having to martyr yourself anytime you meet an encounter does not an interesting campaign make.

The book itself alerts that playing the 'same way' with exalted deeds just doesn't work. If you consistently throw a Non-Violent guy in fights, then all he'll do is flee or die. Plus, if you want to make a saint character, why wouldn't you appreciate the challenge of being a saint when it's more convenient not to be?

A classic tall moral failure that only works in D&D:

Hobo - I surrender
Paldine - *botches sense motive roll* The 12 gods reveals your deception to me. DIE LYING LIAR DIE! *Kills hobo and falls*
Instead, he could simply demand the guy to do something else that allows the paladin to safely restrict him. Like binding him.

[hamishspence]

But "My role is a warrior who champions the innocent and punishes the wicked. But I have to be very nice and respectful to the wicked once they promise to stop, pretty please with sugar, since we all know one of the defining characteristics of Evil is that they would never lie to save their skin. Oh. Wait."

There is the emphasis on redeeming the evil character first- (the diplomacy rules, for example)

Just letting an unredeemed evil character go, is not in line with Exalted either.


The book itself alerts that playing the 'same way' with exalted deeds just doesn't work. If you consistently throw a Non-Violent guy in fights, then all he'll do is flee or die.

Or, knock the adversaries into unconsciousness via nonlethal damage.

[FelixG]

He may have broken his Exalted status, but not his alignment. He is not bound to any more than any other paladin or good character to remain good. If you think he did something that would be acceptable for any other good character, then it is acceptable for him as a good character.

Exalted characters don't need to have a stricter morality than other good characters to remain good, only to remain Exalted.

His alignment is good yes? Exalted lawful good no less. The mercy bit is taking good as it says, to its logical extreme.

The reason i say that he is bound more to be good than his contemporary heros, is he chose to take things from a book, specifically about good, where it describes how good characters should act. Then acts in bad faith to the source of his powers.

Thus my statement saying he isn't following the tenants of his alignment.

[hamishspence]

Even if you're just thinking of Lawful good (heck, even if you just thinking of "any good") the act is a little shaky.

This site is heavily based on alignment through all editions of D&D:

http://easydamus.com/alignment.html

and lists "killing a helpless opponent" as dishonorable for all 3 Good alignments:


LG: The following actions are dishonorable for this alignment:
Attacking an unarmed or obviously inferior opponent

NG: The following actions are dishonorable for this alignment:
Attacking an unarmed or obviously inferior opponent

CG: The following actions are dishonorable for this alignment:
Delivering death blow to a helpless opponent

Though this might be more "how do others of this alignment treat you when they find out"

[The Rose Dragon]

His alignment is good yes? Exalted lawful good no less. The mercy bit is taking good as it says, to its logical extreme.

The reason i say that he is bound more to be good than his contemporary heros, is he chose to take things from a book, specifically about good, where it describes how good characters should act. Then acts in bad faith to the source of his powers.

Thus my statement saying he isn't following the tenants of his alignment.

His alignment is Lawful Good. Exalted is not an alignment, it's a status that requires you to be of a certain alignment. BoED does not state how good characters should act, it states how Exalted characters should act. A non-fallen Paladin who does not use any Exalted feats is as Lawful Good as as a non-fallen Paladin who does.

If any other Paladin would be following the tenets of his alignment by doing an action which is in defiance of being Exalted, an (well, ex-) Exalted Paladin would also be following them, he would simply not be Exalted anymore.

[FelixG]

His alignment is Lawful Good. Exalted is not an alignment, it's a status that requires you to be of a certain alignment. BoED does not state how good characters should act, it states how Exalted characters should act. A non-fallen Paladin who does not use any Exalted feats is as Lawful Good as as a non-fallen Paladin who does.

If any other Paladin would be following the tenets of his alignment by doing an action which is in defiance of being Exalted, an (well, ex-) Exalted Paladin would also be following them, he would simply not be Exalted anymore.

Were that the case then the entry would read "Exalted character who devote their lives... ect ect. it is in effect taking the exalted doctrine of life ect ect..."

Instead they use the word good, and reference evil, meaning that they are laying out tenants for alignment, not just for exalted alone, good in general and "Those who devote their lives to hunting and exterminating the forces of evil" in particular, like palis.

[EENick]

Instead, he could simply demand the guy to do something else that allows the paladin to safely restrict him. Like binding him.

Yes but nearly as amusing.

[hamishspence]

Were that the case then the entry would read "Exalted character who devote their lives... ect ect. it is in effect taking the exalted doctrine of life ect ect..."

Instead they use the word good, and reference evil, meaning that they are laying out tenants for alignment, not just for exalted alone, good in general and "Those who devote their lives to hunting and exterminating the forces of evil" in particular, like palis.

The tricky part is combining "Killing a prisoner who surrenders is out of the question for characters pursuing the exalted path of good"

with "The death penalty for serious crimes is widely practiced and does not qualify as evil"

Possibly by assuming it's not the PC's job to decide whether someone deserves to die or not. That's the court's job. The PC's is to use violence in self-defence or defence of others- not as punishment. Though they might have to use violence to apprehend somebody who's committing serious crimes. And the Exalted PC's job is to offer captured bad guys the opportunity for redemption, and if they spurn it, to turn them over to the law.

Even Chaotic civilizations have courts- they don't just expect everyone to take the law into their own hands.

The PHB does say "A LG character hates to see the guilty go unpunished" but not "so whenever they see someone guilty, they punish them themselves"

[The Rose Dragon]

Instead they use the word good, and reference evil, meaning that they are laying out tenants for alignment, not just for exalted alone, good in general and "Those who devote their lives to hunting and exterminating the forces of evil" in particular, like palis.

In that case (I admit I haven't read the book in quite some time), those are for all good characters, and being Exalted has nothing to do with it. A non-Exalted Paladin would be just as violating his tenets of alignment as an Exalted one by committing such a deed.

I'm specifically arguing against this part:


If he was a normal pali he could throw the BoED out the window and say screw that noise

No, he couldn't. Anything that makes an Exalted Paladin fall from Paladinhood would also make a normal Paladin fall from Paladinhood. Not everything that makes an Exalted Paladin lose his Exalted status would make him fall from Paladinhood. Being Exalted does not change your Code of Conduct, nor does it change the definitions of Lawful, Good and Evil.

((Also, feel free to ignore this, but I would appreciate it if you could just type out "paladin". It would only take half an extra second per word, and make your posts much more pleasing to read.))

[hamishspence]

Sometimes it makes distinctions between someone who is good, and someone who is "devoted to the highest ideals of good"- that is, someone Exalted.

Still, in general in does tend toward a theme of genuinely good characters, as opposed to characters who are really no different from Neutral ones, at least trying to adhere to these standards.

[FelixG]

In that case (I admit I haven't read the book in quite some time), those are for all good characters, and being Exalted has nothing to do with it. A non-Exalted Paladin would be just as violating his tenets of alignment as an Exalted one by committing such a deed.

I'm specifically arguing against this part:



No, he couldn't. Anything that makes an Exalted Paladin fall from Paladinhood would also make a normal Paladin fall from Paladinhood. Not everything that makes an Exalted Paladin lose his Exalted status would make him fall from Paladinhood. Being Exalted does not change your Code of Conduct, nor does it change the definitions of Lawful, Good and Evil.

((Also, feel free to ignore this, but I would appreciate it if you could just type out "paladin". It would only take half an extra second per word, and make your posts much more pleasing to read.))

Oh i get where you are coming from.

What i was trying, and apparently failing XD to convey was that if he hadn't picked feats from the BoED he could have just thrown the whole book out the window, as most people consider it to be badly written and full of junk.

I am criticizing the fact that he takes parts of the book and uses them to their fullest but then when a specific example is given that relates to his alignment in general, and his class almost specifically, in a given situation, he throws it out.

And it is not a Paladins job to be judge jury and executioner, who exactly gave him the right to decide that this hob deserved the death penalty?

What really strikes me as flawed, especially with this Paladin, is that he had the ultimate ruler of the land not 10 feet away from him, who could have easily with a word passed sentence on the poor fellow who had given him the surrender, but he didn't defer to this greater power of the land, he took it upon himself to murder a defeated and helpless foe.

The argument may stand up when you are out in the wilderness away from any semblance of authority, but when the ultimate authority of the land is right at your back, you should defer to him for the sentence instead of just murdering the person

[hamishspence]

It's not like "the boy" is too young either- he and the paladin both fought the bandit party.



What i was trying, and apparently failing XD to convey was that if he hadn't picked feats from the BoED he could have just thrown the whole book out the window, as most people consider it to be badly written and full of junk.

It can be tricky- but it at least tried to make Goodness really mean something, instead of having Good and Evil use exactly the same methods on their enemies, like torture. Sometimes it could be a bit badly thought out- but I like the intention behind it, and I notice the similarities to older D&D sources (like Eric Holmes Basic D&D) which also said that killing prisoners, and torturing enemies for info, were not appropriate behaviour for Good characters.



And it is not a Paladins job to be judge jury and executioner, who exactly gave him the right to decide that this hob deserved the death penalty?

For some people, Detect Evil exists for this purpose- and paladins are the executioners of the "Powers of Good and Law"

For others- paladin's don't work that way- they are "soldiers of good" rather than "judge, jury, executioner"

[The Rose Dragon]

And it is not a Paladins job to be judge jury and executioner, who exactly gave him the right to decide that this hob deserved the death penalty?

There is a difference between the death penalty and killing as a part of war. Paladins are warriors, and therefore know the realities of war. Whether the distinction applies here or not, though, is a valid point. The character obviously thought what he was doing was being a soldier, not an executioner. Was he right in his judgment? Probably not.


The argument may stand up when you are out in the wilderness away from any semblance of authority, but when the ultimate authority of the land is right at your back, you should defer to him for the sentence instead of just murdering the person

A paladin should defer to legitimate authority. It refers to both the right and ability to exercise it. If the authority is a five year old kid who believes unicorns are real (well, obviously they are in D&D, but still), the paladin has both more practical and more spiritual experience and is therefore more qualified to pass judgment. His judgment here is wrong, in my opinion, but if he decided to spare the hobgoblin when the king wanted the paladin to kill him, he would be entirely justified in sparing the hobgoblin despite the king's wishes.

[hamishspence]

We know the paladin's already deferred to the boy king once:


The Paladin wanted to avoid the camp, as his job was to get the boy-king to safety, but the boy-king basically pulled rank, and told the Paladin that they have a responsibility to those people, and that they should attempt to rescue them.

why not this time, when:


At this point, the boy is watching very carefully to see what the Paladin will do.

The two together "made short work of the patrol"- so it's not like the boy-king is too young to fight.

[FelixG]

There is a difference between the death penalty and killing as a part of war. Paladins are warriors, and therefore know the realities of war. Whether the distinction applies here or not, though, is a valid point. The character obviously thought what he was doing was being a soldier, not an executioner. Was he right in his judgment? Probably not.



A paladin should defer to legitimate authority. It refers to both the right and ability to exercise it. If the authority is a five year old kid who believes unicorns are real (well, obviously they are in D&D, but still), the paladin has both more practical and more spiritual experience and is therefore more qualified to pass judgment. His judgment here is wrong, in my opinion, but if he decided to spare the hobgoblin when the king wanted the paladin to kill him, he would be entirely justified in sparing the hobgoblin despite the king's wishes.

On point one: This wasnt particularly war, it is like coming across a street gang in an urban environment, if it was a war between hobs and humans then the paladin may have been excusable in his actions, this however was a patrol of criminals, not enemy soldiers.

Though even in the time of war if an enemy surrenders you can still capture them and use them for information, and as i said before in the thread, having no way to restrain him was completely bunk seeing as how they all are most likely wearing clothing of some sort.

Point 2: the "kid" that he was escorting could have been between 1 and 109 years old (110 is when an elf is an adult), he may well have been 50 years old and have more life experience than the paladin two times over, and he is king after all, we have no reason to believe he is incapable of passing judgment on a brigand in his own land.

[The Rose Dragon]

I once knew a 10 year old (he's probably 13-14 now) who could kick the ass of most adults in a straight fight (both in technique and in body development). It doesn't mean I would trust him with running a country competently. Skill at fighting does not necessarily mean skill at sovereignty.

He also might have deferred to the king as a courtesy the first time, when his judgment was sound and following it would be something he'd do anyway, if not for his duty to the king.

Note that I think he should have at least lose his Exalted status as what he did. I'm just trying to explain why it's something the character might have done in that situation.


Point 2: the "kid" that he was escorting could have been between 1 and 109 years old (110 is when an elf is an adult)

Elves mature as fast as humans do. 110 is just the age they usually start adventuring.

[Snake-Aes]

I once knew a 10 year old (he's probably 13-14 now) who could kick the ass of most adults in a straight fight (both in technique and in body development). It doesn't mean I would trust him with running a country competently. Skill at fighting does not necessarily mean skill at sovereignty.

He also might have deferred to the king as a courtesy the first time, when his judgment was sound and following it would be something he'd do anyway, if not for his duty to the king.

Note that I think he should have at least lose his Exalted status as what he did. I'm just trying to explain why it's something the character might have done in that situation.
Excellent, but that doesn't have anything to do with anything. The claims about his fight is only that he is of sufficient age, and probably enough to be already training to be king/ being king. We have no idea of how good or bad a king he is, except that he is a king, and old enough to at least fight.

[FelixG]

again, a kid in this case could easily be 50 years old or older. And if the kid had been born into royalty and raised to rule his nation sense birth, would you still mistrust him so? or are you basing that on the idea that the 10 year old just suddenly gets thrust into power going from commoner to king?

[hamishspence]

We have no idea of how good or bad a king he is, except that he is a king, and old enough to at least fight.

We know he's the sort of person who, when "on the run from marauding humans and hobgoblins" is still willing to go to the aid of people kept prisoner, even at his own risk.

Maybe just a little too idealistic to be "the perfect king" but it may be a good sign for his alignment, at least.

[The Rose Dragon]

We have no idea of how good or bad a king he is, except that he is a king, and old enough to at least fight.

That's the point, though: we don't know whether he is legitimate authority or not. For all we know, he could be evil (well, OK, he couldn't be evil, or the paladin would have already fallen) or insane. Or he might be a perfectly capable king. Just because he can fight doesn't mean he is fit to rule. I'm just exploring why it doesn't have to be out-of-character for the paladin to do what he did. A violation of his alignment and Exalted status, perhaps, but not out-of-character.

EDIT: Remember, your alignment does not determine your personality, your personality determines your alignment.

[FelixG]

Being a paladin is a calling, you arnt just chosen for the life you choose it yourself according to the PHB. As is taking on exalted status (you choose to live impoverished with VoP it cant be forced upon you through happenstance)

So I would (and have been) arguing that the way he built his character is precisely at odds with how he has played him.

[hamishspence]

I'm wondering how they're on the run from hobgoblins and humans in the first place- did the king get overthrown? Is an army invading? Was the king out hunting with a bodyguard and then pursued by bandits and forced to flee?

And how much political power does a VOP paladin have anyway? Maybe he's the king's bodyguard, or best friend, or has only just rescued the king when the king, fleeing from bandits, ran across him?

The plot sounds interesting.

[The Rose Dragon]

Being a paladin is a calling, you arnt just chosen for the life you choose it yourself according to the PHB. As is taking on exalted status (you choose to live impoverished with VoP it cant be forced upon you through happenstance)

So I would (and have been) arguing that the way he built his character is precisely at odds with how he has played him.

Paladins aren't perfect. Neither are Exalted characters. That's what makes them interesting (to me, at least). They can fall. They strive not to, but the possibility is there. Sometimes, the best of intentions can cause the fall. Sometimes, what you think is perfectly acceptable is in fact not.

Like I said, I think he should have fallen from being Exalted (if not from being a Paladin) for killing the hobgoblin. But it's a choice that makes sense for the character. He chose to put his role as a warrior and his duty to the king in front of his role as a champion of good and law. He could have done something else, certainly, but he (probably) just stopped fighting less than a minute ago. Not all options come to you readily during or right after a heated battle.

[hamishspence]

I tend to agree with this- though an intermediate category between "fall from exalted status" and "nothing happens" might be preferable- maybe lose some of the benefits of the feat, but not all.

The story actually makes me want to know more. Have the prisoners been taken for slave-trafficking, or as hostages to ensure the good behaviour of the villages they've been taken from? Why have humans and hobgoblins teamed up in the first place? Are the "maruading humans and hobgoblins" they are on the run from, tied to the bandits, or are they two separate groups?

[FelixG]

I would agree on the middle ground, i would have had him loose his VoP powers for sure until he finds a way to make it right, atonement, repenting, maybe even a quest of it to provide for the family of the hob (a good place for your VoP treasure to go)

Could have made a good sob story of it, turns out the hob was doing it to feed his family, or maybe even earn their freedom for the very slavers he was working for ect.

[hamishspence]

Could have made a good sob story of it, turns out the hob was doing it to feed his family, or maybe even earn their freedom for the very slavers he was working for ect.

Could work if done right- if done badly though, the player might complain a lot, feeling that the DM is deliberately throwing "not so evil" enemies at him.

[FelixG]

Well, if a person surrenders, perhaps the paladin should use his at will detect evil to see if the person is evil or not before murdering em.

But it comes back to the point that if he had done what he was supposed to do in the first place (accept surrenders) it wouldnt be an issue.

[Severus]

It doesn't matter if its suspicious, giving mercy doesn't say you have to accept the surrender only if all the motives appear altruistic, or convenient.

He is a paragon of good AND exalted, he is BOUND to accept a surrender and give mercy when it is asked of him, he broke the tenants of his alignment and exalted status based on a book he CHOOSES to use for his character. If he was a normal pali he could throw the BoED out the window and say screw that noise, but he decided he wanted to use that book in building his character then throws what it has to say specifically about this very situation out the window in favor of his own world view.

And does the world you run support this behavior? Are their jails and sheriffs everywhere ready to take any and all suspects off his hands and give them fair trials? If you, as a GM, create some huge high bar for paladins to go over, but there is nothing in the world infrastructure to support it, then you're effectively saying this class doesn't exist. Nobody would do it because nobody COULD.

If you want a wild west crazy world full of dangers and monsters and evil, then you have to give those who champion good the ability to deal with that. Otherwise, as others have said, you're forcing a modern real world ethics onto a character who lives in a world that can't possibly sustain that ethical standard. It's ludicrous.

[FatR]

I will quote from the BoED because its simply the fact that the character specifically opened the book and took on the roll of an exalted:
That's why BoED is bad. Not only this extreme sort of superhero comics morality fails in general (by, in effect, saying that the guilty have more rights to live than the innocent), BoED tries to introduce it to the multiverse where you have beings made of concentrated malevolence, beings specifically created to cause harm and suffering to the world, beings that have no other purpose but to consume the rest of the existence, and so on...

[Snake-Aes]

That's why BoED is bad. Not only this extreme sort of superhero comics morality fails in general (by, in effect, saying that the guilty have more rights to live than the innocent), BoED tries to introduce it to the multiverse where you have beings made of concentrated malevolence, beings specifically created to cause harm and suffering to the world, beings that have no other purpose but to consume the rest of the existence, and so on...And those are just fine to go and slaughter.
It's not that it doesn't work. It's that it really is hard to actually be a saint.

[The Rose Dragon]

And those are just fine to go and slaughter.
It's not that it doesn't work. It's that it really is hard to actually be a saint.

For Exalted characters, at least. For those with Vow of Non-Violence or Vow of Peace, the living ones are still off-limits.

[Yukitsu]

Thats may be so, but that is EXACTLY what the pali player signed up for by taking his choice of class and feats. If he didnt want to be bound to the tenants he should have been a fighter or a pali without VoP

No, he chose to be a pauper, not a martyr. There's a reason pretty much every paladin ability is a combat one, and almost every ability from the VOP grants combat or defensive bonuses. It's because in this particular game, the creators realised that no one wants to play a diplomat, and when they do, the paladin class is hardly the ideal. They are a soldier of the God's class, they are not the god's talkers, that's the clergy.

Paladins simply don't work in worlds with grey and grey morality. If the DM pulls "but these guys aren't really that evil" to justify your inability to act to protect someone, then frankly he should have told the player paladins have no place in his world in the first place. Paladins only fit when there is some evil somewhere to smite.

[The Rose Dragon]

Paladins only fit when there is some evil somewhere to smite.

There is a distinction between "some evil somewhere to smite" and "a lot of evil everywhere to smite". I agree with the first half of the post, though.

[Shatteredtower]

Bah. He falls. He opted to kill for the sake of convenience, with no regard to the options. He acted without remorse, only self-justification.

Good isn't easy. Refraining from evil isn't easy either. Those are still the terms for a paladin, and there's a price for those that can't meet them.

The price isn't end of game. It's sincere atonement. Some think that's just a spell, rather than acknowledgment of wrongdoing. For the sake of a game, we cut corners when it comes to the solution part of the absolution. Exalted characters are about leaving the corners intact, and survival mattering less than principle.

Using the fight against evil as an excuse is a sign it's already been lost.

[Yukitsu]

Doing things the hard way has its place, but really it's not just ease, it's risk. Sure it's nicer to not kill the hobgoblin, but in this case, it risks the stability of a kingdom, the king himself, and hostages. Doing things the hard way just to gratify your own pride at the cost of security to those who rely on you is in my opinion worse than letting down your principles to get rid of someone who will go back to what they were doing the instant you turn your back to them. If there were no others on the line? Yeah, try the hard way of repentance, the risky way of restraining him etc. But in the middle of the field, with three people you need to protect, it is not the appropriate time for that.

[FelixG]

And does the world you run support this behavior? Are their jails and sheriffs everywhere ready to take any and all suspects off his hands and give them fair trials? If you, as a GM, create some huge high bar for paladins to go over, but there is nothing in the world infrastructure to support it, then you're effectively saying this class doesn't exist. Nobody would do it because nobody COULD.

If you want a wild west crazy world full of dangers and monsters and evil, then you have to give those who champion good the ability to deal with that. Otherwise, as others have said, you're forcing a modern real world ethics onto a character who lives in a world that can't possibly sustain that ethical standard. It's ludicrous.

I personally discourage the use of BoED to my players when i run a game, because if they want to accept one thing out of it i will generally use the rest of it as well. So normally this is not an issue in my games, and i have a player who rather enjoys playing a Paladin but they also dont sacrifice their morals and code for sake of convenience, they actually think about their actions.

Now, if my players DO take prisoners, there are places to pawn then off sure, i tend to run fairly high magic games so transporting this prisoners to their destination where there are prisons and places to hold them isnt much of a problem.

Though yes, if a paladin screws up in one of my games, they know it, that how i run my worlds, but people still play them anyway, they just learn not to break their codes.

[FelixG]

No, he chose to be a pauper, not a martyr. There's a reason pretty much every paladin ability is a combat one, and almost every ability from the VOP grants combat or defensive bonuses. It's because in this particular game, the creators realised that no one wants to play a diplomat, and when they do, the paladin class is hardly the ideal. They are a soldier of the God's class, they are not the god's talkers, that's the clergy.

Paladins simply don't work in worlds with grey and grey morality. If the DM pulls "but these guys aren't really that evil" to justify your inability to act to protect someone, then frankly he should have told the player paladins have no place in his world in the first place. Paladins only fit when there is some evil somewhere to smite.

Ok even if the guy is an evil jerk who burned down an orphanage at some point in the past. The paladin still had time to consider the surrender, the king had time to stop fighting and watch the paladin closely. And watch as the paladin MURDERED a helpless surrendered foe because he didnt want to deal with the prisoner. So whats grey morality about a person surrendering themselves to you then murdering them?

[Shatteredtower]

Doing things the hard way has its place, but really it's not just ease, it's risk.

No, the risk is taking shortcuts and making excuses for them. The true stakes are bigger than kings or kingdoms.

[Yukitsu]

The same reason it happens in wars. Given the time and resources, it simply isn't safe trying to restrain someone who surrendered. Basically, you are an advancing group of soldiers. You encounter an enemy on your way to your objective. You can send him on his way back to your trenches, but know that he can just pick up a gun and shoot you in the back when he gets a chance. How do you know this? Because that's what people did. Or you try and restrain them. Well, restraints aren't infallible (in fact in D&D, given 20 rounds pretty much anyone can get out of handcuffs.) If "white and black" morality is to insure your allies get shot in the back I'd rather be on the evil side. They sound less likely to kill me through negligence than the good guys.


No, the risk is taking shortcuts and making excuses for them. The true stakes are bigger than kings or kingdoms.

So your pride is more important than the lives of a woman, a child and a king? Now that's arrogance.

Basically, there comes a point where ignoring pragmatics for morals is simply invoking "good is dumb". Your code of values cannot be worth more than the lives you are protecting, because any less than a 100% effort to save them is merely rationalizing their deaths by saying you stuck to your principles.

[Tankadin]

Apologies if this was actually resolved and I missed it, but reading thru I wish there would've been more discussion about what the actual law of the land was. What are the penalties for attempted murder, or, since we're talking monarchy, attempted regicide? Let's be honest, this is what the bandits were trying to do. If attempted murder means death, surrendering just means you don't die in battle. Something for the DM to think about.

Furthermore, what are the institutions of justice in Kingdom X? Do any prisoners have a right to trial by jury? How much evidence is required to justify a conviction? Paladins plausibly spend a lot of their time wandering around working as judges or arbiters--if these burdens of proof and justice are met, a summary execution is certainly Lawful, and arguably Good (forget abstract utilitarian pleasure calculus, the hobgoblins are endangering the lives of the innocent and powerless. The paladin math is easy here). Yes, justice that isn't tempered by mercy is just vengeance, but there are a lot of factors that affect sentencing. Most death penalty cases involve arguments about the now-convicted murder presenting a continued threat to society.

I'm normally a pretty big proponent of the being-a-paladin is hard camp. I spend a lot of time with existentialist novels. But even in our world which is (I hope) devoid of beings of pure evil, secular institutions of justice must exist and individuals must be held accountable for their actions. Camus didn't say the world is absurd and so you can do whatever you want. He said the world is absurd and you have to act in spite of that. If the hobgoblin has moral agency, well, he screwed up and has to take responsibility. If he doesn't, well, then the paladin's actions become even more easy to defend.

[Ravens_cry]

The Paladin is also responsible for his actions. Considering the alternatives from knocking out to taking prisoner that wouldn't have resulted in the hobgoblins death, and that the hobgoblin specifically threw down his weapon and surrendered, for all we know I think an Exalted Lawful Good Paladin has a duty to accept such a surrender if they felt it was earnest, and there is mechanics for determining that.
Was the action fall worthy? I admit I am a little ambivalent on this, but it was certainly a Bad Thing.

[Friend Computer]

Doing things the hard way has its place, but really it's not just ease, it's risk. Sure it's nicer to not kill the hobgoblin, but in this case, it risks the stability of a kingdom, the king himself, and hostages. Doing things the hard way just to gratify your own pride at the cost of security to those who rely on you is in my opinion worse than letting down your principles to get rid of someone who will go back to what they were doing the instant you turn your back to them. If there were no others on the line? Yeah, try the hard way of repentance, the risky way of restraining him etc. But in the middle of the field, with three people you need to protect, it is not the appropriate time for that.
If he feels the that isn't the appropriate time for that, then he acts on it and falls. And yes, if he did what needed to be done, now what is good, and falls for it, it is a character I'd find much more sympathetic and genuinely heroic.


The same reason it happens in wars. Given the time and resources, it simply isn't safe trying to restrain someone who surrendered. Basically, you are an advancing group of soldiers. You encounter an enemy on your way to your objective. You can send him on his way back to your trenches, but know that he can just pick up a gun and shoot you in the back when he gets a chance. How do you know this? Because that's what people did. Or you try and restrain them. Well, restraints aren't infallible (in fact in D&D, given 20 rounds pretty much anyone can get out of handcuffs.) If "white and black" morality is to insure your allies get shot in the back I'd rather be on the evil side. They sound less likely to kill me through negligence than the good guys.
And this is just the thing. You would choose evil. So would we. But we are not paladins.


So your pride is more important than the lives of a woman, a child and a king? Now that's arrogance.

Basically, there comes a point where ignoring pragmatics for morals is simply invoking "good is dumb". Your code of values cannot be worth more than the lives you are protecting, because any less than a 100% effort to save them is merely rationalizing their deaths by saying you stuck to your principles.
This isn't simply morality, but objective forces in the universe. Also, I don't believe people are saying he shouldn't have killed the hobgoblin, but that he can't kill a surrended for and remain exalted. Stop conflating the two positions.

[Yukitsu]

fine then, I'll just close by asking this. If the pragmatic guy is right, and the hobgoblin either directly or indirectly kills the king, the woman and the child, does the paladin fall for being a party to the murders? I'd say he should, as he failed in his duty when he had ample reason, and ample opportunity to have succeeded.

People are always quick to say "well, the blood isn't on my hands, so it's OK." no matter how many, or whos blood it is. I don't think that can be right. I think you have to consider what you're risking.

[Ravens_cry]

Maybe, though that not only assumes the hobgoblin wasn't sincere in his surrender but also ignores the non-lethal options for preventing such actions by the hobgoblin.
Seriously, this was a major role play opportunity, to show a creature that the power of good is not in force of arms alone.

[FelixG]

If the hobgoblin came back and murdered the king and the woman and child, thgen no the paladin would not fall. If he stood by and did nothing while the hob bitchered them then yes, but if he tried in earnest to protect them then no.

His vow to the code and to law and good come before his pledge to the king. but yes, its all asuming the hob wasnt in earnest in his attempt to give up

[Yukitsu]

Maybe, though that not only assumes the hobgoblin wasn't sincere in his surrender but also ignores the non-lethal options for preventing such actions by the hobgoblin.
Seriously, this was a major role play opportunity, to show a creature that the power of good is not in force of arms alone.

I'd be more willing to see that point of view if the rules for restraining individuals were better. The common restraining material, rope will be burst in 20 rounds or so, and you can't accept someones surrender and then batter them unconcious anyway. Well you can, but that's unequivacably evil (accepting surrender then attacking? Seriously, don't give them the false pretense and just attack using non-lethal.) and certainly less lawful. Even then, when I play neutrals with other paladins, the number of times I get to say "I told you so" over the corpses of the one he's supposedly supposed to be protecting basically means I'll never support the alternative as "good".

Really, when then "good" actions get more innocent people wrong than the "evil" actions, something is wrong with the world.


If the hobgoblin came back and murdered the king and the woman and child, thgen no the paladin would not fall. If he stood by and did nothing while the hob bitchered them then yes, but if he tried in earnest to protect them then no.

His vow to the code and to law and good come before his pledge to the king. but yes, its all asuming the hob wasnt in earnest in his attempt to give up

He didn't try in earnest to save them though. He chose the hobgoblin above their safety. He tried tentatively to save them, and earnestly tried to save the hobgoblin. And in these dilemas, you can't have everything.

[Ravens_cry]

I'd be more willing to see that point of view if the rules for restraining individuals were better. The common restraining material, rope will be burst in 20 rounds or so, and you can't accept someones surrender and then batter them unconcious anyway. Well you can, but that's unequivacably evil (accepting surrender then attacking? Seriously, don't give them the false pretense and just attack using non-lethal.) and certainly less lawful. Even then, when I play neutrals with other paladins, the number of times I get to say "I told you so" over the corpses of the one he's supposedly supposed to be protecting basically means I'll never support the alternative as "good".

Really, when then "good" actions get more innocent people wrong than the "evil" actions, something is wrong with the world.

Sense motive. Is he sincere? If he is, then take him with you, extracting a promise he will not do such and such, and swear that you will not hesitate to cut him down if he even attempts to break that oath. If you are not sure, apologize and knock him out, tying him to your saddle bags, stripping him of his weapons and armour, gagging them. Yes, either is somewhat an inconvenience to you. But bothkeep them in sight and prevent most forms of treachery. And if they do, well, they will know what your word is worth.

[Math_Mage]

I'm not going to start my own line of reasoning again because I was operating under false assumptions about the scenario. But I'm perfectly willing to dispute others' reasoning, so here goes. :smalltongue:


I'd be more willing to see that point of view if the rules for restraining individuals were better. The common restraining material, rope will be burst in 20 rounds or so, and you can't accept someones surrender and then batter them unconcious anyway. Well you can, but that's unequivacably evil (accepting surrender then attacking? Seriously, don't give them the false pretense and just attack using non-lethal.) and certainly less lawful.

Evil? When Wesley knocked out Inigo, was that evil? Not lawful, I'll maybe grant you. The paladin could have asked first, of course.


Even then, when I play neutrals with other paladins, the number of times I get to say "I told you so" over the corpses of the one he's supposedly supposed to be protecting basically means I'll never support the alternative as "good".

Really, when then "good" actions get more innocent people wrong than the "evil" actions, something is wrong with the world.

Presumption: Leaving the hobgoblin alive represented a significant additional threat to the king.
Rejection: The knocked-out hobgoblin isn't waking up before the king and paladin alert the rest of the hobgoblins to their presence anyway, by freeing the prisoners.
Rejection: The hobgoblins have no especial reason to chase the paladin and king based on the knowledge of the knocked-out hobgoblin.
Conclusion: Leaving the hobgoblin alive represented no additional threat.


He didn't try in earnest to save them though. He chose the hobgoblin above their safety. He tried tentatively to save them, and earnestly tried to save the hobgoblin. And in these dilemas, you can't have everything.

Actually, there is one way to have everything, and that would be for the Paladin to play smart and not ambush the goblin patrol. Presumably he was skilled enough at concealment that he could set up the ambush; then he was skilled enough to bypass the patrol. Then the camp doesn't get warned by the loss of their patrol, and the Paladin doesn't have to face moral dilemmas about what to do with a surrendered prisoner whom he attacked first.

[Friend Computer]

Really, when then "good" actions get more innocent people wrong than the "evil" actions, something is wrong with the world.

And this is the problem. You are looking at Good through our definition of good. They are not the same, and if you change the names of the alignment to 'blue and orange' then I'm sure we'd have a much more productive discussion than confsing good with Good.

[olentu]

And this is the problem. You are looking at Good through our definition of good. They are not the same, and if you change the names of the alignment to 'blue and orange' then I'm sure we'd have a much more productive discussion than confsing good with Good.

This really is true so far as I can tell in the D&D alignment system. Really it is so strict in some cases that as I recall it can in fact even be an evil act evil to take an act that is the only possible one that will keep evil from destroying all that is good.

[hamishspence]

What are the penalties for attempted murder, or, since we're talking monarchy, attempted regicide? Let's be honest, this is what the bandits were trying to do.

It's worth remembering that the paladin and the king were the ones who won surprise and attacked the hobgoblins first.

As to the issue of "it's cowardly for the hobgoblin to surrender"- the hobgoblin had reached the point of actually being "disabled" and thus effectively unable to fight, when they surrendered. Hardly cowardice.

[FatR]

And those are just fine to go and slaughter.
Actually no, that's not what the quoted except on mercy from BoED says at all.



It's not that it doesn't work. It's that it really is hard to actually be a saint.
Yes, so why you support a statement that requires from a saint to also be bloody stupid?

[Anon-a-mouse]

A few points...

1. According to the rules, one willful evil act causes a paladin to fall. According to the rules, killing someone who has surrendered is an evil act. There are some cases when the literal interpretation of the rules produces undesirable results, but I don't regard this as one of them. What's the point in playing a character with a strict code of conduct if you can ignore it when it becomes inconvenient?

2. To suggest that using non-lethal damage is meta-gaming is absurd. The option to KO someone exists in real life. The fact that it works better in DnD than in real life doesn't make it meta-gaming. Magic works better in DnD than in real life. Is using magic meta-gaming? If the lack of realism of knocking someone out without risking killing them bothers you, house-rule in a percentage risk of death when using non-lethal damage. If the paladin accidently kills the hobgoblin, it is not a willful evil act, and thus does not cause him to fall.

3. The boy king has the right to sanction the paladin to put the hobgoblin on trial (obviously, it must be a fair trial), but there may be some difficulties with this option. Since we know the hobgoblins have prisoners, they may just have been trying to abduct and/or rob the paladin and the king. All you can prove this particular hobgoblin guilty of is; assault with a deadly weapon, attempted kidnapping/armed robbery and being a member of a criminal organisation. Are these capital crimes in the jurisdiction in which this story takes place?

[hamishspence]

Paladins only fit when there is some evil somewhere to smite.

Paladins do fine in Eberron- which is very grey and gray. Exalted characters also exist in Eberron (there's a VOP saint character in one of the splatbooks.

That said, Eberron paladins of the Silver Flame have been known to slide down the slippery slope, despite the fact that the dogma of the Flame (in Faiths of Eberron) specifically encourages redeeming evil where reasonably possible.


All you can prove this particular hobgoblin guilty of is; assault with a deadly weapon, attempted kidnapping/armed robbery and being a member of a criminal organisation. Are these capital crimes in the jurisdiction in which this story takes place?

Given that the paladin and king attacked first, the first two might be a bit iffy (Is it assault if you defend yourself from attack? How about if you recognize your attackers as "agents of the law"?)

Being a member of a criminal organization is easier to prove. Still (since the OP didn't say how old the hobgoblin was) they might be a new recruit, so less culpable than a long-term member.

[FelixG]

Given that the paladin and king attacked first, the first two might be a bit iffy (Is it assault if you defend yourself from attack? How about if you recognize your attackers as "agents of the law"?)


Another point, how could you identify a VoP paladin as an agent of the law?

By VoP he should have his weapon, a days worth of water and food, and a home made robe for cover, maybe a bit more clothing depending on his local.

I dont think a VoP Paladin has all the ornate symbols of good and justice their normal contemporary paladins have emblazoned on their armor shields and weapons.

To a patrol of hob goblins this human rushing at them with a mace probably just seems like a crazy beggar.

I know if someone in home made cloths came charging at me with a mace letting out a battle cry or just brained one of my friends (in the case of surprise) i would do my darnedest to stop them from killing me next!

[Killer Angel]

He is a paragon of good AND exalted, he is BOUND to accept a surrender and give mercy when it is asked of him, he broke the tenants of his alignment and exalted status based on a book he CHOOSES to use for his character. If he was a normal pali he could throw the BoED out the window and say screw that noise, but he decided he wanted to use that book in building his character then throws what it has to say specifically about this very situation out the window in favor of his own world view.

This is not a bad point.
Killing a surrended enemy, is not a thing an exalted paladin can do.
There are effectively some circumstances in his favour (the boy king, etc.), so I would have him stripped of some of his powers, giving back to him at the end of the mission, after a Atonement.

[Friend Computer]

This really is true so far as I can tell in the D&D alignment system. Really it is so strict in some cases that as I recall it can in fact even be an evil act evil to take an act that is the only possible one that will keep evil from destroying all that is good.
That's right. Sometimes the only option that works is to commit an Evil act. There is even the possibility that committing a Good act will lead one to Evil. For some people this means that alignment is broken and wrong, for other people it means that the names of the alignments are misleading, and for me it means that alignment is contradictory, and includes the possibility of something turning into its opposite. And as Ive said in another post on these boards, that gives rise to different ways of looking at something from within the one alignment, and different factions within the alignment, and the drama that comes from factional conflicts and Good turning into Evil. I like that.

[FatR]

So your pride is more important than the lives of a woman, a child and a king? Now that's arrogance.

Basically, there comes a point where ignoring pragmatics for morals is simply invoking "good is dumb". Your code of values cannot be worth more than the lives you are protecting, because any less than a 100% effort to save them is merely rationalizing their deaths by saying you stuck to your principles.
Amen to that. Heroes who, after noticing that thugs they spare go right back to murder and pillage, manage to figure out that their mercy was actually the form of cruelty towards the defenseless, somehow appeal to me more than heroes who don't really give a crap about how many people die, as long as their moral code remains uncompromised. RL warrior saints weren't the people who avoided moral calculus, but people who arrived to the results later deemed right (sometimes that was "martyring himself", but only when that seemed to actually have a chance of improving the situation).

[hamishspence]

Hence- when you spare a villain's life- you must redeem them before they can be allowed to go free.

I've seen the claim "Mercy to the guilty is treason to the innocent" a lot of times- and there's always struck me as something off about that claim.

I much prefer Manual of the Planes' description of Celestia (the plane of equal Law and Good) as a plane of "justice and mercy".

Similarly with paladins- I don't see them as Terminators with a mandate to destroy everything that detects as evil, but as protectors- their abilities are tools to help them in their job, not a mandate to kill all Evil beings in sight.

A paladin puts himself between aggressive evil and the innocent, and says "None Shall Pass".

Or seeks it out and brings it to justice- which might mean making them make restitution, rather than killing it outright, if it surrenders.

[Psyx]

"No, he chose to be a pauper, not a martyr. There's a reason pretty much every paladin ability is a combat one, and almost every ability from the VOP grants combat or defensive bonuses. It's because in this particular game, the creators realised that no one wants to play a diplomat, and when they do, the paladin class is hardly the ideal. They are a soldier of the God's class, they are not the god's talkers, that's the clergy."


^This. Ultimately the game is designed for militant characters to kick butt.

"Heroes who, after noticing that thugs they spare go right back to murder and pillage, manage to figure out that their mercy was actually the form of cruelty towards the defenseless, somehow appeal to me more than heroes who don't really give a crap about how many people die, as long as their moral code remains uncompromised."

^This.
Being truly good means sometimes actually sacrificing that self-righteous moral code in order to do greater good. Anyone can remain pure by sitting on a fence and not getting their hands dirty. That's not 'good': It's just cowardice and lack of conviction. Paladins are people who go out there and get their hands dirty. They might not like it, and they might need to do questionable things on occasion and regret the consequences, but ultimately sanctimonious self-righteous morals do nothing for the world, and are selfish. The Exalted Feats might require a character to be shiny and nice but they are still designed to be used by characters who murder sentient beings on a daily basis, and that has to be borne in mind.


"And if the "monastic orders" like the Knights Templar are a better parallel, what were their powers?"

Brutal and fully church-sanctioned when it came to non-Christians. In the same way that I would expect a knight or paladin's powers to be limitless where dealing with bandits and humanoids.

VoP doesn't means he's dressed in rags, either. There's no reason why a smart but rough tabbard can't be emblazoned with heraldry of the king or the paladinic order.


I think that the player should have thought about his intentions more long before combat and probably pointed out to the King that they could not afford to take prisoners. If anything the character is guilty of not thinkings things through well enough beforehand. But then: Int is a dump stat for paladins...

[FelixG]

Both are decent examples, but far from Exalted.

A person who is exalted is choosing to go one step beyond good, taking it to its logical extreme, as said before several times. This paladin is not only good, he is exalted. And as such broke one of his exalted dutys (and as pointed out before murdered a helpless individual) by not accepting that surrender.

Sure you can kick butt and take names with the bonuses given to you if the enemy is fighting tooth and nail till their final struggling breath. It never says you have to offer mercy to someone who is trying to kill you.

But in this case, the hob threw down his arms, and asked for mercy. A true exalted character would have given it, this character obviously doesn't care for his code when it is inconvenient to him so he should be striped of his powers.

To an exalted character, there is only good, you are a paragon, you dont "sacrafice one thing for the greater potential good." It was this players choice to take exalted feats and become exalted himself, the GM should take away those powers he is granted from that stuff when he has proven that he wont act in a exalted way that is CLEARLY described in the rules layed out for exalted.

It doesnt say grant mercy when convenient, it says grant mercy to those who ask for it, even if it comes to bite you in the rear later on. Thats how it is.

[hamishspence]

^This. Ultimately the game is designed for militant characters to kick butt.


Hence- the moral problems involved, which BoED was a attempt to rectify.

As played prior to BoED- it got to the point where people were saying "All adventurers are rich violent hobos- alignment merely says what the colour of your lightsaber is"

(and the DMG has statistics for NPC adventurers which say 50% of them are Evil).

The Tome of Fiends:

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Tome_of_Fiends_(3.5e_Sourcebook)/Morality_and_Fiends

points out that it's very hard to rationalize what D&D adventurers do as Good:


Noone knows what makes an action Good in D&D, so your group is ultimately going to have to decide for yourselves. Is your action Good because your intentions are Good? Is your action Good because the most likely result of your action is Good? Is your action Good because the actual end result of that action is Good? Is your action Good because the verb that bests describes your action is in general Good? There are actually some very good arguments for all of these written by people like Jeremy Bentham, Immanuel Kant, and David Wasserman – but there are many other essays that are so astoundingly contradictory and ill-reasoned that they are of less help than reading nothing. Unfortunately for the hobby, some of the essays of the second type were written by Gary Gygax.

This is not an easy question to answer. The rulebooks, for example, are no help at all. D&D at its heart is about breaking into other peoples' homes, stabbing them in the face, and taking all their money. That's very hard to rationalize as a Good thing to do, and the authors of D&D have historically not tried terribly hard.


So BoED stopped trying- and simply gave "Good" a higher standard to adhere to.


^This.
Being truly good means sometimes actually sacrificing that self-righteous moral code in order to do greater good. Anyone can remain pure by sitting on a fence and not getting their hands dirty. That's not 'good': It's just cowardice and lack of conviction. Paladins are people who go out there and get their hands dirty.

Actually- that's Grey Guard- paladins who are willing to do questionable acts "for the greater good" and not standard paladins.


The Exalted Feats might require a character to be shiny and nice but they are still designed to be used by characters who murder sentient beings on a daily basis, and that has to be borne in mind.

Not really. BoED is for those players who don't want to "murder sentient beings on a daily basis"- and want to only use violence in defense of themselves and others.

[Psyx]

"and the DMG has statistics for NPC adventurers which say 50% of them are Evil"

You have to be a bit unhinged to crawl into dark holes to kill stuff for a job.

I see most adventurers as -in 'reality'- being marginalised psychos with substance abuse problems. 50% evil is probably generous, and the population probably lives in utter terror of them.

[hamishspence]

Then why should paladins who act exactly like those traditional D&D adventurers, be deemed to not be committing Evil acts?

DMG2 does suggest that adventurers who get out of hand tend to end up with other adventurers (hired by the townsfolk) hunting them.

Heroes of Horror suggests that the character who "does good things but uses Evil methods" or "does evil deeds for a good cause" can be "a flexible Neutral" rather than Evil- the Angel TV series is cited as an example of the sort of thing that would fit into a Neutral, antihero-type horror campaign.

[Snake-Aes]

Actually no, that's not what the quoted except on mercy from BoED says at all.

Again, the BoED does say that those creatures that really are "made of evil" are fine to slain, because there's not really any other way.
Demons and the like aren't going to change, and that is something they can actually be sure.

Of course, good characters recognize that some creatures are utterly beyond redemption. Most creatures described in the Monster Manual as “always evil” are either completely irredeemable or so intimately tied to evil that they are almost entirely hopeless. Certainly demons and devils are best slain, or at least banished, and only a naïve fool would try to convert them. Evil dragons might not be entirely beyond salvation, but there is truly only the barest glimmer of hope.


Yes, so why you support a statement that requires from a saint to also be bloody stupid?
You are mistaking exalted's Goodness with "Stupid". They set themselves to a higher moral standard, and as such they do have a harder time keeping up with it. It's what they believe in, and they'll follow it to the best of their ability.

Back to the paladin in the example, a single damned sense motive roll could tell if the hob was serious about surrendering or not. And he didn't have much option, as a single blow at -4 would knock him unconscious, and the paladin would have managed to bind him and escort him to a civilized area under the promise of letting none harm him and truly give him a chance to change his ways.
THEN, if the hob isn't going to change, the paladin could go and drop him dead. Literally an entire adventure's worth.
That doesn't mean he'd have to be stupid and just leave the hob free to do something stupid. He'd use the best of his ability to ensure no one would come to harm.

Yes, it's a lot of work, but that's what such Good characters are about. We think it's not worth it, that's because we, players aren't Good, much less to the amounts shown in BoED.

[FatR]

"and the DMG has statistics for NPC adventurers which say 50% of them are Evil"

You have to be a bit unhinged to crawl into dark holes to kill stuff for a job.

I see most adventurers as -in 'reality'- being marginalised psychos with substance abuse problems. 50% evil is probably generous, and the population probably lives in utter terror of them.
You're projecting modern viewpoint of people who kill stuff as their job on the world to which it isn't applicable, methinks. In the medieval times and before that being really good at killing things and taking their stuff made you an awesome role model, not a marginalized thug. See: RL nobility (although adventurers will be a far more egalitarian bunch, for obvious reasons).

You're correct, though, that the population will fear them (because that's just a common sense). It will also worship them.

[hamishspence]

You're projecting modern viewpoint of people who kill stuff as their job on the world to which it isn't applicable, methinks. In the medieval times and before that being really good at killing things and taking their stuff made you an awesome role model, not a marginalized thug.

D&D isn't exactly a medieval world either (though parts of it will resemble medieval times.) For example, in most D&D settings, women and men tend to have comparable status and rights. And (in DMG2) lawful aligned regions are likely to have trial by judge or jury, rather than trial by ordeal.

[Shatteredtower]

Yes, it's a lot of work, but that's what such Good characters are about.

Bingo! (Perhaps that was a poor choice of word.)

If you're going to wear the aura, you're going to to respect the values that power it. If you can't meet the standard, you don't qualify for the benefits.

The paladin may always choose to do what feels necessary, but doesn't get to pretend that the 'necessary' evil was good, or even value neutral. There must be acknowledgment of wrongdoing and there must be penance.

The "dirty hands" argument is about convenience. It has nothing to do with being good. If the value can be compromised when it's difficult to adhere to it, it's not much of a value.

[Yukitsu]

Paladins do fine in Eberron- which is very grey and gray. Exalted characters also exist in Eberron (there's a VOP saint character in one of the splatbooks.

That said, Eberron paladins of the Silver Flame have been known to slide down the slippery slope, despite the fact that the dogma of the Flame (in Faiths of Eberron) specifically encourages redeeming evil where reasonably possible.

Eberron lets you play grey paladins without falling however, so the dynamic isn't exactly that obvious. And things like the priests of Vaul and far realmsian horrors still present an obvious dark target demographic for a paladin to happily and freely smite. They work there because when the time comes, they can freely smite teh evulz, but at all other times, they don't have to worry about getting there hands a little dirty.


Given that the paladin and king attacked first, the first two might be a bit iffy (Is it assault if you defend yourself from attack? How about if you recognize your attackers as "agents of the law"?)

Being a member of a criminal organization is easier to prove. Still (since the OP didn't say how old the hobgoblin was) they might be a new recruit, so less culpable than a long-term member.

At the point where you're saying "It was just his first day on the job, and wasn't really responsible for the horrible things being done" I'll get a new DM. If it isn't said outright that it's a young twitchy kid, and gets retconned like that, that's just the DM fishing for excuses to cause a fall. "You didn't ask" isn't a valid argument when really, you shouldn't have to for something that out of place and specific.


Sense motive. Is he sincere? If he is, then take him with you, extracting a promise he will not do such and such, and swear that you will not hesitate to cut him down if he even attempts to break that oath. If you are not sure, apologize and knock him out, tying him to your saddle bags, stripping him of his weapons and armour, gagging them. Yes, either is somewhat an inconvenience to you. But bothkeep them in sight and prevent most forms of treachery. And if they do, well, they will know what your word is worth.

Again, that's accepting the surrender, then assaulting him. And given how certainty works, and how the DM may use secret rolls etc, you're best off just beating him from the start, and it's more "moral" to do so before you accept the surrender. Maybe he'll defend himself from your non-lethal attack and give you justification to kill him, but really at that point you're fishing for excuses, you don't actually care about reason or lives, you're just doing whatever you can to gratify your code for the codes sake.

As for tying them to a horse after knocking them unconcious, that's a far more cruel means of executing them, especially after accepting their surrender.


Evil? When Wesley knocked out Inigo, was that evil? Not lawful, I'll maybe grant you. The paladin could have asked first, of course.

Neither of the mooks surrendered though, hence leaving him to knock them out as they were still fighting. And since he had nothing to lose in knocking them out, why not? He wasn't leaving behind live adversaries while guarding the king, or a woman and child.

A lot of people are emphasizing that the pragmatic way is "easier" but neglecting that this isn't about ease. It's about the risk involved. You're gambling with the lives of 2 non-combatants and the king. Being brave and chivalrous is risking your own life. It is not about risking others.


Presumption: Leaving the hobgoblin alive represented a significant additional threat to the king.
Rejection: The knocked-out hobgoblin isn't waking up before the king and paladin alert the rest of the hobgoblins to their presence anyway, by freeing the prisoners.
Rejection: The hobgoblins have no especial reason to chase the paladin and king based on the knowledge of the knocked-out hobgoblin.
Conclusion: Leaving the hobgoblin alive represented no additional threat.

I've stated as well that battering a surrendered combatant in your care is no more moral than killing one who is attempting to surrender.

That aside, if the walk is any more than an hour away, the hobgoblin can indeed get back up and alert another patrol, which is all he needs to do to thwart essentially your entire mission and to compromise the safety of the woman, child and king.


Actually, there is one way to have everything, and that would be for the Paladin to play smart and not ambush the goblin patrol. Presumably he was skilled enough at concealment that he could set up the ambush; then he was skilled enough to bypass the patrol. Then the camp doesn't get warned by the loss of their patrol, and the Paladin doesn't have to face moral dilemmas about what to do with a surrendered prisoner whom he attacked first.

I doubt this on two accounts. One, since you don't have to actively evade to ambush, you can avoid all listen checks by not using move silently. A non-paladin skill. In an ambush, you can take 20 to hide in the most optimal location. You cannot do so while on the move to get around the patrols. Second, these are slave traders, they are an unsympathetic villain by their very nature, he would be attacking them at some point in time anyway, and there is no where that I have seen saying a paladin cannot ambush an enemy.

[FelixG]

Yukitsu, i have a feeling that you are ignoring one key thing here. The fact that he is exalted. As an exalted character he is bound by his exalted tenants (not paladin code) to accept the surrender of someone asking for it, even if it comes back to bite you later...If you like i can repost the relevant portions.

He doesnt have the option of saying "well this could be bad later, so im going to kill him now" for that he SHOULD fall from exalted status. it is CLEARLY covered in the exalted deeds section, its not like this is a grey area thats not addressed anywhere....

And on the subject of his paladin code. What he did is murder. "did the person have a weapon?" no "did he think about how best to kill this person?" yes, thats premeditation. Reguardless of who they are he jumped them first then murdered a helpless surrendered foe, thus breaking BOTH his exalted status and his paladin code.

And your choosing to read tie him tothe horse how YOU want it to be, your assuming a cruel intention where you are clearly wrong, this is how they meant:

http://www.fivestarfarmsinc.com/images/train-mount3-T.jpg

my god how cruel to tie a prisoner up and lay them over the back of your mount to take them to justice...

and again, a person who wants to "play around" with their code, doing evil for the greater good is NOT a paladin, that is a GREY GUARD. if a Paladin in their standard form had the option of doing evil to get the job done, a lawful good alignment wouldn't be required, and a whole prestige class around bending the rules wouldn't have been published

If you dont believe me its on page 40 of the Complete Scoundrel under Gray Guard.

[hamishspence]

Again, that's accepting the surrender, then assaulting him.

You accept his surrender, you get as much info from him as possible, then, you knock him out (possibly with his agreement) because, between knocking him out for a period, murdering him, and letting him go, knocking him out is the most moral option.

BoED actually points out that with particularly dangerous prisoners (such as teleporting devils) knocking them out is the best option. It's only repeatedly knocking mortal prisoners out every time they come to consciousness, that's iffy.


I've stated as well that battering a surrendered combatant in your care is no more moral than killing one who is attempting to surrender.

Killing someone who has dropped their weapon, and is disabled, is murder- significantly more immoral than merely knocking them out for a few hours. Assault- especially as a one-off to prevent the guard interfering, is less immoral than murder (and arguably, not immoral at all in this case).


That aside, if the walk is any more than an hour away, the hobgoblin can indeed get back up and alert another patrol, which is all he needs to do to thwart essentially your entire mission and to compromise the safety of the woman, child and king.


Hit points return at a rate of 1 per character level per hour- if you have a rough estimate of their character level, you can do enough nonlethal damage to keep them out for a few hours.

Think of a D&D character someone who knows exactly where and how to hit someone so it causes no damage, but leaves them unconscious for a period.

[Ravens_cry]

*looks at spoilered picture*
Yes, that is pretty much what I meant by tying them to my horse, with a little more rope involved. I don't mean tying a rope around their wrists and dragging them back, that would kill them just as dead and be far more cruel and twisted then bashing their head in.

[hamishspence]

He wasn't leaving behind live adversaries while guarding the king, or a woman and child.

He was leaving behind live adversaries while on a rescue mission, though.

And if the paladin's going on a rescue mission with the king- they have bigger things to worry about, safety-wise, than one live hobgoblin. I assume they're not stupid enough to take the woman and child with the while raiding the hobgoblin camp.

[Hague]

It should be noted, for posterity, that the argument that presented Paladins as holy warriors beholden to their god is a little silly, since the example given, Heironeous, is himself a 20th level paladin.

[hamishspence]

Yup- a paladin is first and foremost beholden to Good, then Law, then their deity.

Even in the Realms, where all paladins must have a deity to have divine spells- a paladin should still be LG first, "warrior of deity" second.

I mentioned earlier an example of a paladin having to stand up to their deity- because the deity, while NG, is doing something that's ultimately evil.

[Talakeal]

One thing I don't think anyone has pointed out yet.

According to the BoED all paladins are by default exalted. If you look at the section where it tells you how to RP different classes of exalted characters the paladin section tells you that this is redundant as anyone who follows the paladin code would already be exalted.
Therefore the argument that he will lose exalted powers but not paladin powers doesn't really hold water.


PS. This is how I remember it, but forgive me if this isn't entirely correct, I haven't read the book in years and don't have it with me.

[Snake-Aes]

It says that paladins are all by default exemplars of their alignment and as such Exalted, yes.

That does bring the interesting point that yes, paladins are saints.



Oh, and to those that say "But the societies in the d&d worlds are grittier", the book also makes sure to mention that such "grittism" is one of the things that put exalted characters at odds with the societies they live in.

[Coidzor]

As if being a paladin wasn't already borked enough. That's just great. :smallamused:

[Ravens_cry]

As if being a paladin wasn't already borked enough. That's just great. :smallamused:
You say that like there is something wrong with begin at odds with the greater world, that working toward something better is a futile endeavour, being a literal exemplar of Mercy and Justice, an example that even in world where a hero is just hired sword that one can do, despite the odds, despite the inconvenience, one can stand up and do what is right.
"In a world where we all move in curves he proceeds in a straight line. And going straight in a world of curves makes things happen."
Night Watch -Sir Terry Pratchett

[LibraryOgre]

Being the DM, a took note of his argument, and told him that I felt he was justified in the decision that he made, but to watch out in the future in case this was the beginning of a slippery slope situation.

Does this sound like the right choice in this situation?

I agree with this. His rationale was good (or, more importantly, Good), and was tied to his immediate duty and the good of the people he's having to rescue. It COULD be a slippery slope, but I see nothing wrong with it.

[Coidzor]

You say that like there is something wrong with begin at odds with the greater world, that working toward something better is a futile endeavour, being a literal exemplar of Mercy and Justice, an example that even in world where a hero is just hired sword that one can do, despite the odds, despite the inconvenience, one can stand up and do what is right.
"In a world where we all move in curves he proceeds in a straight line. And going straight in a world of curves makes things happen."
Night Watch -Sir Terry Pratchett

No, I say it like it's a bad thing that the Paladin is pulled in every which way due to no common agreement about what they should be from the DEVELOPERS! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMU0tzLwhbE)

[Ravens_cry]

No, I say it like it's a bad thing that the Paladin is pulled in every which way due to no common agreement about what they should be from the DEVELOPERS! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMU0tzLwhbE)
Fundamental questions of morality and ethics tend to do that.

[FelixG]

I agree with this. His rationale was good (or, more importantly, Good), and was tied to his immediate duty and the good of the people he's having to rescue. It COULD be a slippery slope, but I see nothing wrong with it.

Oh theres nothing wrong with it...if he wasnt a paladin and sworn to accept the enemys surrender instead of murdering them.

There are lots of cases where people THINK they are doing good but are really doing evil.

It doesnt matter how the player justifies it to himself the fact remains what he did was against a key aspect of what he is supposed to stand for. He had many other options, he was just lazy and used pretty words to justify his lazyness or shortsightedness.

[Yukitsu]

Yukitsu, i have a feeling that you are ignoring one key thing here. The fact that he is exalted. As an exalted character he is bound by his exalted tenants (not paladin code) to accept the surrender of someone asking for it, even if it comes back to bite you later...If you like i can repost the relevant portions.

He doesnt have the option of saying "well this could be bad later, so im going to kill him now" for that he SHOULD fall from exalted status. it is CLEARLY covered in the exalted deeds section, its not like this is a grey area thats not addressed anywhere....

And on the subject of his paladin code. What he did is murder. "did the person have a weapon?" no "did he think about how best to kill this person?" yes, thats premeditation. Reguardless of who they are he jumped them first then murdered a helpless surrendered foe, thus breaking BOTH his exalted status and his paladin code.

I know that's what exalted says, I'm also saying that it's wrong.

The BoED was written assuming completely naive wide eyed idealism isn't going to turn around and bite you. It does. Often. You can cling to the tenants of exalted, or you can save the lives of the people you are protecting, and when you are choosing between the two, that's a problem with exalted. It's fine to risk yourself, it's fine to botch a mission, but those are you. You can't risk everyone else as well just to redeem one villain to satisfy your own oaths and claim you're the good guy, because that's just as selfish as killing the hobgoblin for nothing more than personal fame and glory.

I'm not even saying D&D is "gritty". I'm saying D&D isn't an idealist utopia where a few kind words and a diplomacy check will instantly soften the hearts of a slave trader who essentially lives off of the suffering of others.


And your choosing to read tie him tothe horse how YOU want it to be, your assuming a cruel intention where you are clearly wrong, this is how they meant:

http://www.fivestarfarmsinc.com/images/train-mount3-T.jpg

You really don't tie people to the saddle bags to get that result.


my god how cruel to tie a prisoner up and lay them over the back of your mount to take them to justice...

and again, a person who wants to "play around" with their code, doing evil for the greater good is NOT a paladin, that is a GREY GUARD. if a Paladin in their standard form had the option of doing evil to get the job done, a lawful good alignment wouldn't be required, and a whole prestige class around bending the rules wouldn't have been published

If you dont believe me its on page 40 of the Complete Scoundrel under Gray Guard.

Actually, the Gray guard can merely break his code of conduct. They can't be outright evil, so if this act is evil, as opposed to neutral (paladins can act neutral from time to time) and does so repeatedly, even for good cause, he will fall from good.


He was leaving behind live adversaries while on a rescue mission, though.

I've never mentioned the fact that the paladin was on a rescue mission as a relevant factor in saying that he should consider safety of the innocent first and foremost.


And if the paladin's going on a rescue mission with the king- they have bigger things to worry about, safety-wise, than one live hobgoblin. I assume they're not stupid enough to take the woman and child with the while raiding the hobgoblin camp.

Insofar as I can tell, the two mentioned in the story did not leave the group. If they had, and were seen away safely, it stands to reason that they could safely deal with the hobgoblin in another fashion, but given that it's a near war zone, and they're the king's guard, they likely aren't going to be safer being brought back to a city in close proximity to a slavers camp (assuming those poorly thought out defenseless elven forest cities that they seem to like saying foresty elves live in)

[Coidzor]

Fundamental questions of morality and ethics tend to do that.

Hell, they can't even agree on where they get their powers from or what flavor they should be. See Forgotten Realms Stupidity. See everyone and their mother having their own version of the class. See everyone and their mother feeling the need to have a different paladin class.

There is consensus that truenamers are broken mechanically, but no one even voices that paladins just don't have enough cohesion in how they're thought of due to being so fluffy and gooey to maintain their morphic field.

[dps]

The DMG2 sourcebook does discuss the issue of "how medieval" a D&D world should be.

Page 105:

In actual medieval societies, those of lower status were often executed for comparatively minor offenses, such as petty theft. Convicted offenders were lucky to escape with mere mutilation. Since an authentically grim portrayal of medieval justice violates most players' sense of fun, good-aligned D&D societies are not so harsh. Serious crimes of violence might result in execution, but other crimes result in fines. Convicted criminals might be stripped of their rank, along with their dependants, or even forced to labour as villeins. Offenses where no injury is suffered and no property taken or destroyed incur fines as a result.


Of course, ultimately it's up to the DM just "how medieval" his gameworld is. I'd want to know more about how this particular campaign has been run in the past before passing judgement on this particular event.

[FelixG]

I am not saying the BoED is a good book by any means, but i am saying that the character chose to open said book and pull things from it to build his character, so reasonably he should be expected to follow those same rules that he wanted to use to build his character, even when they become inconvenient.

And yes, Exalted characters are wide eyed idealists, thats their little shtick, if they go ahead and murder someone for practicality they are accepting the fact that people dont deserve mercy when they ask for it, people are not redeemable, and are sacrificing their own beliefs and SHOULD fall from their status.

This is a quote like a true exalted might say (though the character is far from such) Rorschach: Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.

They should hold true to their beliefs even when faced with the end of the world, much less some slavers. If he didn't want to follow the tenants of being Exalted then he shouldn't have picked up the stuff to make himself exalted.

[Yukitsu]

I am not saying the BoED is a good book by any means, but i am saying that the character chose to open said book and pull things from it to build his character, so reasonably he should be expected to follow those same rules that he wanted to use to build his character, even when they become inconvenient.

And yes, Exalted characters are wide eyed idealists, thats their little shtick, if they go ahead and murder someone for practicality they are accepting the fact that people dont deserve mercy when they ask for it, people are not redeemable, and are sacrificing their own beliefs and SHOULD fall from their status.

This is a quote like a true exalted might say (though the character is far from such) Rorschach: Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.

They should hold true to their beliefs even when faced with the end of the world, much less some slavers. If he didn't want to follow the tenants of being Exalted then he shouldn't have picked up the stuff to make himself exalted.

Sure, but when blind acceptance of a set of rules (exalted code of conduct) to adhere to ignoring the utility of the situation starts to logically move to law, not good. A vow of peace cleric who could have stopped a bunch of murderous bandits, but did not because of his oaths isn't a good person. A person who abandons his freind's corpse without a decent burial because he took an oath not to touch corpses isn't a good person, or heck, not touching him to administer a raise dead.

The problem I have with over strict adherence to exalted, is that a Good person will violate the tenants of the individual oaths all of the time, not because he's being pragmatic, but because he's being good. At that point, the rest of their premises (these things are good because they're good, context be damned) starts to move towards the absurd. Situation has to play a part in alignment, otherwise exalteds merely act in accordance to blind faith to their laws. They aren't doing what they know is right because it's good or right.

[FatR]

Hence- when you spare a villain's life- you must redeem them before they can be allowed to go free.
And as attempts at such redemption, even if theoretically viable, will prevent you from doing your duties effectively, unless your side is safely dominant in the setting, we go right back to choosing between the lives of the guilty and those of the innocent.


I much prefer Manual of the Planes' description of Celestia (the plane of equal Law and Good) as a plane of "justice and mercy".
(Shrugs.) You cannot embody both justice and mercy. These concepts, if taken to a logical conclusion, are fundamentally incompatible. You cannot treat people as they deserve and treat people better than they deserve at the same time. While the good guys are supposed to have some inclination towards latter, the very nature of DnD ensures that infinite mercy is not an answer at all, and using violence is necessary.


Similarly with paladins- I don't see them as Terminators with a mandate to destroy everything that detects as evil, but as protectors- their abilities are tools to help them in their job, not a mandate to kill all Evil beings in sight.

A paladin puts himself between aggressive evil and the innocent, and says "None Shall Pass".
The problem is, this stance doesn't work. We have whole comic book verses trying their best to justify it, and all they do is proving time and again, that the worlds, where villains are entitled to receiving "get out of smiting free" card whenever they surrender or are rendered unable to fight, are really horrible, crappy words.

[FelixG]

Tell me then, how is killing a helpless surrendered oponent, who cant even RUN without starting to bleed to death, make this character a good person? much less a Good character.

Especially when there are other options a truly Exalted character could have considered, but for the players laziness, didn't.

He could have tied him to the back of his celestial mount with his clothing, he would be alive and secure, the mount is smart enough to keep from beign recaptured until their job is done.

He could have given the hobs weapon to the woman, and tied the job up, tell her if he gets free he is going to be too weak to hurt you, so go ahead and chop him if he tries to run to warn people. (if the hob had attacked her he would drop to -1 and get KOd)

Or he could just knock him out for a few hours with a smack to the head with a plain fist...

So these are things a Good person, hell a thoughtful person could have done....but this paladin, this Exalted paladin, chose murder instead.

[Math_Mage]

Sure, but when blind acceptance of a set of rules (exalted code of conduct) to adhere to ignoring the utility of the situation starts to logically move to law, not good. A vow of peace cleric who could have stopped a bunch of murderous bandits, but did not because of his oaths isn't a good person. A person who abandons his freind's corpse without a decent burial because he took an oath not to touch corpses isn't a good person, or heck, not touching him to administer a raise dead.

A VoP cleric who commits violence on a bunch of murderous bandits to stop them is a good person who breaks his Vow.


The problem I have with over strict adherence to exalted, is that a Good person will violate the tenants of the individual oaths all of the time, not because he's being pragmatic, but because he's being good. At that point, the rest of their premises (these things are good because they're good, context be damned) starts to move towards the absurd. Situation has to play a part in alignment, otherwise exalteds merely act in accordance to blind faith to their laws. They aren't doing what they know is right because it's good or right.

Objective moral paradigms always result in pragmatic failures.
Subjective moral paradigms always result in theoretical paradoxes.

We're left to muddle along as best we can.

[Coidzor]

When the only sane thing to do is houserule it on a group by group basis, perhaps you've overstepped yourself a bit.

[Yukitsu]

Tell me then, how is killing a helpless surrendered oponent, who cant even RUN without starting to bleed to death, make this character a good person? much less a Good character.

You're not helpless at 0. I've had enough characters kill enemies at zero then drop unconcious to know that. And I've dictated enough strategy while at 0 to know that you don't need actions to be a threat.


Especially when there are other options a truly Exalted character could have considered, but for the players laziness, didn't.

He could have tied him to the back of his celestial mount with his clothing, he would be alive and secure, the mount is smart enough to keep from beign recaptured until their job is done.

I'll give that if the DM is willing to go with it, but riding a horse is not light activity for bleeders. And arguably, if you can ride a horse without bleeding out, you can pull a gag out of your mouth and shout for help, or to warn someone etc. I've moved a strap of clothe before, and I've ridden a horse, I certainly know which is more strenuous of the two.


He could have given the hobs weapon to the woman, and tied the job up, tell her if he gets free he is going to be too weak to hurt you, so go ahead and chop him if he tries to run to warn people. (if the hob had attacked her he would drop to -1 and get KOd)

I don't believe making a civilian into a murderer is the ideal, and realistically, she'd probably murder the bugger first chance she got anyway if she was a prior captive. But really, making a civilian do your dirty work because you haven't the guts to do it yourself? If you really suspect he's up for a horse ride, off him yourself if he gets uppity, though if he does that's the enemy alerted anyway, so not only do you kill him, but you've endangered the group.


Or he could just knock him out for a few hours with a smack to the head with a plain fist...

What is with all of you people thinking beating a person who has surrendered is ethical? There's a reason the rules of war treat beating prisoners just as harsh as not accepting quarter. And depending on level and amount of metagame, that smack across his head may last only one hour.


So these are things a Good person, hell a thoughtful person could have done....but this paladin, this Exalted paladin, chose murder instead.

Good people don't beat a person who are in their care, nor do I suspect those would be realistic or effective means to safely restrain a person.


A VoP cleric who commits violence on a bunch of murderous bandits to stop them is a good person who breaks his Vow.

The issue I have is, the game seems to say trying to talk down the bandits and obviously failing is "exalted" which they seem to imply is more good than good, even if the "good" guy is obviously more succesful in stopping civvies from getting axed.

[olentu]

Sure, but when blind acceptance of a set of rules (exalted code of conduct) to adhere to ignoring the utility of the situation starts to logically move to law, not good. A vow of peace cleric who could have stopped a bunch of murderous bandits, but did not because of his oaths isn't a good person. A person who abandons his freind's corpse without a decent burial because he took an oath not to touch corpses isn't a good person, or heck, not touching him to administer a raise dead.

The problem I have with over strict adherence to exalted, is that a Good person will violate the tenants of the individual oaths all of the time, not because he's being pragmatic, but because he's being good. At that point, the rest of their premises (these things are good because they're good, context be damned) starts to move towards the absurd. Situation has to play a part in alignment, otherwise exalteds merely act in accordance to blind faith to their laws. They aren't doing what they know is right because it's good or right.

Oh they are doing it because it is good it is just that good in D&D is arbitrarily decided upon.

[Math_Mage]

Good people don't beat a person who are in their care, nor do I suspect those would be realistic or effective means to safely restrain a person.


I have some trouble with you first saying that the paladin can't spare the hobgoblin because he needs to put the safety of his group first to be Good, and then saying that the paladin can't knock out the hobgoblin because "Good people don't do that." It seems like you're arbitrarily switching from situational ethics back to ethics of principle in order to be argumentative.

[FelixG]

I meant disabled, sorry for the misuse of the word.

Riding a horse? really? if someone has their arms and legs tied to the beast and is gagged and its moving at a nice slow trot, just enough to keep on the move and not be discovered, i seriously doubt thats going to kill a person who is disabled, its not so much as riding the horse as being carried by it, the different between a mother carrying her child in her arms while it sleeps or letting it ride on her shoulders. the celestial mount is intelligent, it doesn't need to be given directions constantly, and if the persons bound and gaged they wont be able to pull that strip out of their mouth because they are restrained.

Making the woman a murder? giving a person makes them a murder now in telling them that if he gets free to defend themselves? My point isn't to make the woman do the dirty work, its the point that she could be far from defenseless as people claim "oh gosh if the hob gets loose it will kill her and her kid" its at 0 HP, she has to knick it to send it to dieing.

And yes, konking a person on the head is more ethical than murdering them, what do you think the hob would have said to the paladin if he had said "gee mr hob, i dont know what to do with you, on one hand i could punch you and knock you out till i go free the rest of your prisoners, or, i could smash your brains in with this weapon..." hob: "Oh wow mr paladin, thats awefuly considerate of you, why dont ya just go ahead and brain me to save me the suffering of waking up alive with a headache in a few hours?"

And il respond with... Whats it with you people and thinking murdering a disabled prisoner who has surrendered to you is so much more ehtical than giving him a headache?

Good people dont murder defenseless prisoners.

[Yukitsu]

I have some trouble with you first saying that the paladin can't spare the hobgoblin because he needs to put the safety of his group first to be Good, and then saying that the paladin can't knock out the hobgoblin because "Good people don't do that." It seems like you're arbitrarily switching from situational ethics back to ethics of principle in order to be argumentative.

Oh, I think it's situationally fine, but so is the other situational consideration. I'm pointing out that it's hippocritical to say you can do one "evil" if the situation dictates it, but not another equivalent situational "evil." I also find that with the D&D rules what they are, it's not a functional fix without metagaming. In other words, it's strategically likely to result in failure anyway.


I meant disabled, sorry for the misuse of the word.

Riding a horse? really? if someone has their arms and legs tied to the beast and is gagged and its moving at a nice slow trot, just enough to keep on the move and not be discovered, i seriously doubt thats going to kill a person who is disabled, its not so much as riding the horse as being carried by it, the different between a mother carrying her child in her arms while it sleeps or letting it ride on her shoulders. the celestial mount is intelligent, it doesn't need to be given directions constantly, and if the persons bound and gaged they wont be able to pull that strip out of their mouth because they are restrained.

Seriously, ride a horse. Just ride a horse. It is absolutely no where near as smooth as being carried by a person, or even running.


Making the woman a murder? giving a person makes them a murder now in telling them that if he gets free to defend themselves? My point isn't to make the woman do the dirty work, its the point that she could be far from defenseless as people claim "oh gosh if the hob gets loose it will kill her and her kid" its at 0 HP, she has to knick it to send it to dieing.

I've never said the gob at 0 hit points is going to himself jump up and kill them all (and even then it's an unlikely possibility). My problem with this is that he will make it much, much harder to avoid conflict on their terms since he'll give advanced warning. And if you've hoisted him up onto a horse bound and gagged, frankly that's a bit of a deterant to getting within any good distance undetected. And if he gets off one good yell, expect combat to be on their terms.


And yes, konking a person on the head is more ethical than murdering them, what do you think the hob would have said to the paladin if he had said "gee mr hob, i dont know what to do with you, on one hand i could punch you and knock you out till i go free the rest of your prisoners, or, i could smash your brains in with this weapon..." hob: "Oh wow mr paladin, thats awefuly considerate of you, why dont ya just go ahead and brain me to save me the suffering of waking up alive with a headache in a few hours?"

There's a vast difference between not accepting quarter, and forcing them to fight to the death, and accepting it then beating them up. If you really must be pedantic, just tell him your honour hasn't been satisfied, tell him to pick up his sword then kill him. Frankly, I don't believe formalities should have a place in what is ultimately a decision of morals.


And il respond with... Whats it with you people and thinking murdering a disabled prisoner who has surrendered to you is so much more ehtical than giving him a headache?

Simply put, because he's not as important in any sense as the other two you have to protect, nor the king, and the most damage he can do to you, has nothing to do with his ability to fight. It has everything to do with detectability, of which all of your solutions fail to solve.


Good people dont murder defenseless prisoners.

Stop adding defenseless! The goblin was not defenseless! Nor was he a prisoner!

[FelixG]

I will admit, it has been years (somewhere in the magnitude of almost but not quite 2 decades) sense i have ridden a horse, so i will give it to your expertnesses that riding a horse at a slot trot is more stranuous than walking.

The hob surrendered, it was accepted, so yes, giving him a konk on the head is morally more upstanding than killing him.

You are also assuming this whole fight wasn't loud as the dickens, with people yelling and grunting and swords clanging, that will be heard a ways around, so the idea of him yelling suddenly to give away your position doesn't hold much weight, unless of course they managed to kill all the patrol but one in their surprise round, but we dont know that.

I know if i was beign ambushed and my buddies were within earshot i would yell out as soon as combat started to receive reinforcement.

as for detectability, a hob goblin gaged with a shirt with something tied around his mouth and then tied to a tree, how detectable is that? more so than the pile of other dead hobs? how is he going to be a huge problem if he cant get off a yell.

Plus he has no reason to yell, he surrendered, if he wanted help he would have yelled BEFORE to try to get help.

as for the defenseless part il quote the OP



The last hobgoblin, knocked to 0 hitpoints, drops his weapons and surrenders. At this point, the boy is watching very carefully to see what the Paladin will do. At this time, the Paladin raises his morningstar, and brains the surrendered hobgoblin, attempting to make the death as humane as possible given the conditions.


Ok i have bolded the important bits. The hob goblin has thrown down his weapons, and is disabled at 0 HP. He is now defenseless, for all intents and purposes he is sitting there begging the two for mercy.

Now we move to the second bit, i have the key word underlined, the hob goblin is surrendered, meaning the paladin accepted that surrender, otherwise the hob would still be trying to surrender. The boy king had time, to come over after their killing of the patrol, to watch the whole thing carefully.

So i stand by my statement in saying that the paladin MURDERED a DEFENSELESS prisoner.

[Math_Mage]

Oh, I think it's situationally fine, but so is the other situational consideration. I'm pointing out that it's hippocritical to say you can do one "evil" if the situation dictates it, but not another equivalent situational "evil." I also find that with the D&D rules what they are, it's not a functional fix without metagaming. In other words, it's strategically likely to result in failure anyway.

What if the Paladin knocks out the goblin without accepting his surrender? Is it no longer a principled evil and therefore no longer subject to accusations of hypocrisy?


Stop adding defenseless! The goblin was not defenseless! Nor was he a prisoner!

No, he was a member of a goblin patrol ambushed and disabled by a paladin who subsequently refused his surrender and killed him. As I said before, the keen strategy of "they can't see me from there, so turn around and ride in the other direction and come back after" would have avoided the situation entirely. But if the Paladin's behavior up to the point of the goblin's surrender was acceptable (campaign-dependent, I'm sure), I don't think anything he does with the goblin will make him fall.

[Yukitsu]

I will admit, it has been years (somewhere in the magnitude of almost but not quite 2 decades) sense i have ridden a horse, so i will give it to your expertnesses that riding a horse at a slot trot is more stranuous than walking.

The hob surrendered, it was accepted, so yes, giving him a konk on the head is morally more upstanding than killing him.

I'm sorry, but you'll have to bold where it says he accepted the surrender. That is no where evident in the OP.


You are also assuming this whole fight wasn't loud as the dickens, with people yelling and grunting and swords clanging, that will be heard a ways around, so the idea of him yelling suddenly to give away your position doesn't hold much weight, unless of course they managed to kill all the patrol but one in their surprise round, but we dont know that.

I know if i was beign ambushed and my buddies were within earshot i would yell out as soon as combat started to receive reinforcement.

as for detectability, a hob goblin gaged with a shirt with something tied around his mouth and then tied to a tree, how detectable is that? more so than the pile of other dead hobs? how is he going to be a huge problem if he cant get off a yell.

If they're within earshot, then you'd probably best get moving instead of debating morals no matter what your choice. Frankly worrying overmuch about complex means of rigging people to horses when reinforcements are en route, or they are packing up camp and leaving will end up with your fission mailed.

As for a guy tied to a tree, this will depend heavily on how far "a short distance away is." I've heard that mean anything from 5 minutes to 6 days depending on the context. If it's more than 1 day away, you'd basically have a gobbo that died of dehydration.


Plus he has no reason to yell, he surrendered, if he wanted help he would have yelled BEFORE to try to get help.

Or, maybe he's yelling to give his comrades fair warning as you are going towards them, as their main camp and livelihood being taken by surprise will likely end up with his freinds and allies killed. And yes, you can have freinds and allies and still be unambiguously evil. Realistically, he'll be tried and executed by a legitimate authority later, so I don't know why he wouldn't try to subvert the party where possible.


as for the defenseless part il quote the OP

Ok i have bolded the important bits. The hob goblin has thrown down his weapons, and is disabled at 0 HP. He is now defenseless, for all intents and purposes he is sitting there begging the two for mercy.

Now we move to the second bit, i have the key word underlined, the hob goblin is surrendered, meaning the paladin accepted that surrender, otherwise the hob would still be trying to surrender. The boy king had time, to come over after their killing of the patrol, to watch the whole thing carefully.

So i stand by my statement in saying that the paladin MURDERED a DEFENSELESS prisoner.

D&D has a specific definition for defenseless, which doesn't easily apply to these situations. He's definitely not defenseless in D&D terms in this situation. He still has his AC, and from my reading of the OP, he did not take the time to undo his shield, and was thus still armed. That he was very disadvantaged doesn't mean the paladin could have automatically killed him, or that he couldn't have fought back to try and take someone down with him. Was his situation hopeless if he chose to fight? Yes. Was he incapable of fighting back, which is what defenseless means? No. Had the paladin as of that point taken him prisoner? No.


What if the Paladin knocks out the goblin without accepting his surrender? Is it no longer a principled evil and therefore no longer subject to accusations of hypocrisy?

In theory, and it's something I'd sometimes recommend, but in practice, I find when you go in swinging at -4 to hit, you miss and then they tend to fight back and get killed anyway. It's pretty much impossible to tell if a sword swing is non lethal or not in character until one connects. So definitely a better choice, but frankly it's frustrating enough that "it's a game" becomes a useful mantra.


No, he was a member of a goblin patrol ambushed and disabled by a paladin who subsequently refused his surrender and killed him. As I said before, the keen strategy of "they can't see me from there, so turn around and ride in the other direction and come back after" would have avoided the situation entirely. But if the Paladin's behavior up to the point of the goblin's surrender was acceptable (campaign-dependent, I'm sure), I don't think anything he does with the goblin will make him fall.

Eh. As I've said, he would have dealt with them through violence or some other means eventually, as they were engaged actively in slave trading. That aside, as I've said earlier as well, the rules for hiding in wait for someone are much more freindly than the rules for actually avoiding a patrol without fighting.

[Friend Computer]

I think these discussions would more often be on the same plane if we renamed the alignments:
Good: Blue
Evil: Orange
Law: Shiny
Chaos: Sparkly

Then we wouldn't have to worry people confusing Good and good, Evil and evil, and so on...

[Crow]

Still following along;

The Paladin hadn't verbally accepted the hobgoblin's surrender. He only waited probably a few seconds to make his decision to kill him. The hobgoblin did technically still have his shield, I only mentioned that the weapon had been dropped (I'm not a perfect DM, description-wise), but the implication was that he had dropped his shield as well, which the Paladin understood. The case for murder is pretty strong at this point.

The camp where the other prisoners were being held was still a good one day's travel from where they came across the patrol, give or take a half-day as they were in pretty dense forest and unsure which ways were passable (the map wasn't particularly accurate). The only people in condition to fight were the Paladin and the Boy King. They knew they would need time to prepare a plan that wouldn't result in the other prisoners being killed. They did not have advance notice of what the camp's general layout would be. This is what makes things pretty muddy.

The elf prisoners they had rescued were quite malnourished and weak. The woman had her son with her, and a newborn as well. More mud.

The boy King wanted to arm the boy and his mother with weapons off of the fallen hobgoblins, but the Paladin did not allow it. He also objected to attempting to arm the prisoners being held at the camp. Not sure what to make of this one, really.

The Paladin was opposed to going to the camp to begin with. Probably not an exalted position to take.

[Shatteredtower]

Ahem.

It's interesting that some of the arguments decrying high standards for good characters criticize them as comic book morality, while others decry them for allowing villains to return again and again--as though, like villains in a comic book, they were compelled to return to their wicked ways. At least there's no inconsistency, as no one's made both of these arguments.

I've been accused of arrogance for expecting standards to mean something, a common reaction to values one doesn't share. Even so, the reasoning behind it has nothing to do with "pride" or "arrogance" or other petty buzzwords ascribed to it by those who value pragmatism more highly. It has to do with belief that as much as life matters, one should not compromise the 'soul' (whatever you deem that to be) for it.

In D&D, the existence of an immortal soul is an established fact. Life ends. It is precious, and should be preserved, but the condition of the soul matters more. Death is less of a failure than assuring life by dubious means, though neither are ideal. Straying or leading another from the celestial path is a more unfortunate fate by that standard.

I've seen the argument that war doesn't allow for such niceties. Sure it does. We only make excuses when we pretend otherwise. No matter how we justify an action that kills children or pillages their lands, leaving them without food or shelter, it's still evil. When we acknowledge that, we're more likely to strive to avoid it. When we don't acknowledge the evil, we'll keep perpetuating it, calling it unavoidable or even necessary.

Some have insisted that a hobgoblin had to die because otherwise he'd just escape, warn others, and get the paladin, the king, and the captives killed. If any of this is inevitable in your D&D games, you need to find a more mature DM, one capable of playing your opponents as creatures capable of both thought and emotion.

Yes, your hobgoblin might escape and possibly do so in time to sound an alert. If said foe has a personality, however, rather than a program, other courses of action are possible. Fleeing because one is too ashamed to report to superiors after having been so easily bested is one example. The hobgoblin might be left dumbstruck, perhaps even humbled, to be left alive and abandoned by a paladin that, were positions reversed, would have been either enslaved or killed. Maybe the paladin was dealing with a lawful creature that could have been held to its word if it agreed to stay put until he returned. Maybe the hobgoblin escapes too late to do anything. Maybe the escape comes in time, but the reaction diverts a number of other hobgoblins away from camp. Maybe it comes in time and changes nothing. Maybe the DM realizes that the mechanics of the game do not have to dictate when a hobgoblin will regain consciousness and escape, and the escape never happens at all--and the paladin, boy-king, and prisoners still die.

Now if the hobgoblin was killed, but the paladin and everyone he sought to protect still died, was the paladin justified in his actions? If you argued that it was necessary to protect the boy king, you should acknowledge that it was not. The killing would have had no bearing on the outcome, and therefore could have been avoided without further risk.

If the boy king grows to become a tyrant that never grants quarter to his enemies, is the paladin responsible for the example he provided to an impressionable youth? A good person would admit he was. Ultimately, the king is responsible for his own conduct, but that doesn't excuse the paladin for setting the poor example.

If lack of quarter causes hobgoblins to stop taking prisoners among the so-called "civilized" peoples and just kill everyone, does the paladin bear any responsibility for behaviour that contributed to that decision? He does, even if no one else ever finds out what he did. If he hadn't, there'd at least be one example that humans sometimes granted quarter to surrendering foes. Again, his conduct does not justify a policy of "Destroy all humans," among hobgoblins. He's still responsible for encouraging such a foreseeable reaction.

Good isn't dumb. It only looks that way to people who don't understand its values. It's only weak in the eyes of people that think only short-term (as immortals measure it) results matter. It's not above getting its hands dirty when that means wading through sewers--or fire--for the sake of a life. It still take a dim view on the idea of spilling blood to avoid bloodshed, even when it can't be avoided. Neutrals may congratulate themselves for knowing better, voicing hypocritic accusations of "arrogance" as they do so. They deserve pity for choosing to live such shallow lives. Let them take offense at that; any shame they feel is of their own choosing.

Does that tick you off? Such a reaction is understandable, though not helpful. A game that ensures good behaviour toward evil creatures always leads to more evil is much the same, but nothing new. So many DMs and players have ridiculed "Good" as unworkable or dumb over the years that I've come to suspect they fear such standards. They find them too easy to beat, which completely misses the point. Sure, you can set up circumstances making it impossible for a good character to accomplish anything while still remaining good, but you could do the same thing to any character of any alignment -- or none at all. Turning your "intelligent pragmatist" into a frothing mass murderer is child's play. You wouldn't hesitate to cry foul if I did it by the book, and rightly so. It would be nice if people playing good characters were given the same consideration, but "realists" have an amusing bias when it comes to such things.

Take the hobgoblin above, for example. Is there any chance this experience could cause a change of heart, opening the soldier's eyes to the possibility of good? Was there any chance the hobgoblin in question might not have been evil in the first place and therefore all too happy to stop fighting at the first opportunity? These things don't matter to a pragmatist. They should matter to a paladin.

Perhaps said hobgoblin will escape to become the scourge of civilization in years to come, and the paladin will have to deal with that issue. So what?Maybe the child your paladin saved from drowning grows up to become the leader of a diabolic cult. Such unforeseeable consequences had nothing to do with your conduct, though it would be understandable if you felt it was your duty to address them personally. What matters is whether you displayed honour and respect for life (and not just "the right kind of life") when someone surrendered to you.

Here's an easy way to have avoided the killing: leave the king to guard the prisoner. It's not like he'd be in any more danger than would come from bringing him to invade a hobgoblin camp on a rescue mission. Why bring another target into a hostage situation?

But no, of course that wouldn't work. The hobgoblin would simply escape, kill the king, and alert all of the guards before the paladin got halfway to the prisoners. Said prisoners would, of course, be executed at once, leaving the paladin alone against an expertly prepared ambush that only took a few seconds to organize.

Sure, overstatement... but to what degree? Judging by the number of arguments I've seen that there was "no choice" in this matter, it looks to be a very small one, save perhaps on the subject of the expertly prepared ambush. (Unfortunately, I've encountered DMs for whom that would be right on the money. Never accept any DM that considers John Kreese a good role model.)

Let's back up a bit, then. Maybe the boy-king gets captured by a wandering patrol -- the same sort that would sound an alarm after finding hobgoblin corpses of evidence of a struggle. Maybe he's forced to kill the prisoner during an escape attempt, which ought to provide a roleplaying opportunity to the player. Maybe he refuses to be left behind for such a task, leading to another roleplaying opportunity and possibly another encounter, if the player doesn't keep the discussion short or quiet. Maybe the king gets treated less like a plot token and NPC and more like the person being represented.

The more I look at it, the more it seems that Neutral just isn't all that bright either. It's got every angle covered, so long as the opposition is programmed to do everything it can to beat you no matter what you do, as though Evil was also dumb!

Alignment isn't for amateurs, boys and girls. It should only be handled by seasoned professionals, under the most controlled of conditions. Never leave it unattended. Don't feed it after midnight. May react poorly to lawyers, lobbyists, or other people getting paid to argue.

Neutral is a valid alignment option. It's valid for those who only get involved when the alternative becomes unacceptable. It's valid for those who only get involved for the right reward. And it's valid for those who are always getting involved, but whose priorities are decidedly different than those who inspire to good. It is no more or less vulnerable to corruption than good is. Conversely, it can be as resistant to redemption (as measured by the good standard) as evil is.

In any case, what matters is choice. You may not agree with it, but there's a reason the PHB had each alignment described as "the best" within its own entry. Choices that cause us to change alignment or lose paladin status should not be viewed as a player's failure, but as one more step in a character's development. Does the paladin turn his back on the gods for failing him, or does he accept responsibility for the transgression? Does he choose to atone or will he consider himself unworthy? (If ever there was a case where you should consider class retraining, it's in the case of a fallen paladin that feels unworthy to atone.)

It's true that the alignment system isn't necessary to demonstrate the popular convention of having a good person fall from grace. What it does do well is something that tends to offend more people: it grants even complete monsters a chance of redemption, even exaltation. Maybe some of us aren't comfortable with that idea because it makes it harder to justify killing monsters on sight. Maybe some of us aren't comfortable with that for reasons similar to the objections to Anakin Skywalker's redemption. You know what? That's a great reaction! We can work with that.

"Your children may forgive you,but I won't. The gods may make you their champion, but I still remember what you are. Monster."

It's easy to play a paladin that falls to Miltonic levels. Playing an exalted, vows of peace and nonviolence, paladin that was formerly the baby-eating destroyer of dwarven civilization, six elven capitals, and the world's most popular restaurant franchise for halfling cuisine, where everyone recognizes you on sight as the former and acts accordingly, no matter how many times you save their lives from world devouring horrors? That's a challenge.

Coming back to point, that's what playing an exalted character or paladin is about: the challenge. You can get that from the mechanics or how quickly/throroughly you can fulfill an assigned quest or for any number of any things. That's fine, if you find them fulfilling. Some, on the other hand, prefer the opportunity of trying to meet a standard of conduct in a game that doesn't seek to punish them for trying.

One of the best paladins I knew slaughtered every adult and child in an accursed village. Knowing of no other way to contain the threat they now represented to the region, he first prayed for guidance, begging for any alternative to the one he saw. Receiving none, he carried out the executions, retained his status, and still sought to atone for having caused such bloodshed. He never sought to justify the carnage, even if he saw no other option. He never tried to pretend there was nothng wrong with it.

The BoED takes a similar view on the subject of wanton killing, in a game that many believe to be all about having a chance to kill acceptable targets. Naturally, its material has been exploited by people who have no interest in that sort of thing and who were only interested in acquiring one more edge.(Let's not get into real world parallels, please.) So be it. It's more useful to players who aren't satisfied with such objectives.

Maybe our original paladin is such a player. If so, he'd be fine with learning that he'd crossed a line in this case, and with making atonement--or not, if he feels that's the direction he'd want for his character. The DM and player are free to handle it differently between themselves. The fact that they discussed it afterward is a good sign. I disagree with the decision, but if they came to an agreement, that's all that matters for that table. I'd say the same if the paladin had been justifying the devouring of live baby orcs, though I'd come down harder against that sort of thing.

Amen.

[Yukitsu]

Ahem.

It's interesting that some of the arguments decrying high standards for good characters criticize them as comic book morality, while others decry them for allowing villains to return again and again--as though, like villains in a comic book, they were compelled to return to their wicked ways. At least there's no inconsistency, as no one's made both of these arguments.

I've been accused of arrogance for expecting standards to mean something, a common reaction to values one doesn't share. Even so, the reasoning behind it has nothing to do with "pride" or "arrogance" or other petty buzzwords ascribed to it by those who value pragmatism more highly. It has to do with belief that as much as life matters, one should not compromise the 'soul' (whatever you deem that to be) for it.

In D&D, the existence of an immortal soul is an established fact. Life ends. It is precious, and should be preserved, but the condition of the soul matters more. Death is less of a failure than assuring life by dubious means, though neither are ideal. Straying or leading another from the celestial path is a more unfortunate fate by that standard.

This is overtly selfish. You're basically saying you'll let any number of individuals die or be enslaved so long as you get your little seat in Celestia. To be honest, I'd rather condemn myself to hell than negligently let innocent people die.


I've seen the argument that war doesn't allow for such niceties. Sure it does. We only make excuses when we pretend otherwise. No matter how we justify an action that kills children or pillages their lands, leaving them without food or shelter, it's still evil. When we acknowledge that, we're more likely to strive to avoid it. When we don't acknowledge the evil, we'll keep perpetuating it, calling it unavoidable or even necessary.

Some have insisted that a hobgoblin had to die because otherwise he'd just escape, warn others, and get the paladin, the king, and the captives killed. If any of this is inevitable in your D&D games, you need to find a more mature DM, one capable of playing your opponents as creatures capable of both thought and emotion.

Yes, your hobgoblin might escape and possibly do so in time to sound an alert. If said foe has a personality, however, rather than a program, other courses of action are possible. Fleeing because one is too ashamed to report to superiors after having been so easily bested is one example. The hobgoblin might be left dumbstruck, perhaps even humbled, to be left alive and abandoned by a paladin that, were positions reversed, would have been either enslaved or killed. Maybe the paladin was dealing with a lawful creature that could have been held to its word if it agreed to stay put until he returned. Maybe the hobgoblin escapes too late to do anything. Maybe the escape comes in time, but the reaction diverts a number of other hobgoblins away from camp. Maybe it comes in time and changes nothing. Maybe the DM realizes that the mechanics of the game do not have to dictate when a hobgoblin will regain consciousness and escape, and the escape never happens at all--and the paladin, boy-king, and prisoners still die.

Sorry, but have you ever read about the feats done by people captured by their enemies, even if they had surrendered and were properly treated? People just don't do what you're describing except in children's stories. They pick up a gun and shoot your adancing troops in the back first chance they get most of the time, and the rest just wait until they get out to join back up with whatever group they were with before hand.


Now if the hobgoblin was killed, but the paladin and everyone he sought to protect still died, was the paladin justified in his actions? If you argued that it was necessary to protect the boy king, you should acknowledge that it was not. The killing would have had no bearing on the outcome, and therefore could have been avoided without further risk.

That assumes predestiny. That argument can't be used in any instance at all for morality, unless the individual being asked the moral question is omnicient. I could just as easily assert that that one goblin absolutely would kill the king and hostages. No, you weigh the risks and talley the costs, and sometimes, yes, you will be wrong. In either direction.

You have to ask, what's realistically likely given the situation. The hobgoblin waking up and sending the camp a message even if knocked out in a day? Likely. Dying of dehydration if tied to a tree? Almost guaranteed. Alerting the guards half a day in? Possible. Escaping at night to alert the guards? Give how D&D works, very likely, unless you were knocking him out every hour (and even Hamishpence agrees that would be evil)


If the boy king grows to become a tyrant that never grants quarter to his enemies, is the paladin responsible for the example he provided to an impressionable youth? A good person would admit he was. Ultimately, the king is responsible for his own conduct, but that doesn't excuse the paladin for setting the poor example.

Ideally, he'd have other mentors. Most people don't learn only from one experience, though if you read the source material, elven lords aren't exactly reputed for their mercy. Rather the contrary, the chaotic good elves tend to eliminate anything that goes near their realms with no mercy. So in all probability, that shouldn't be a surprise to the paladin.


If lack of quarter causes hobgoblins to stop taking prisoners among the so-called "civilized" peoples and just kill everyone, does the paladin bear any responsibility for behaviour that contributed to that decision? He does, even if no one else ever finds out what he did. If he hadn't, there'd at least be one example that humans sometimes granted quarter to surrendering foes. Again, his conduct does not justify a policy of "Destroy all humans," among hobgoblins. He's still responsible for encouraging such a foreseeable reaction.

Considering they're slave traders, and already practice an ethical equivalent (enslaving everyone they conquer, rather than killing them all) I don't know that this is much of a downside. This way they don't gain any labourers, and actually weaken as a faction.


Good isn't dumb. It only looks that way to people who don't understand its values. It's only weak in the eyes of people that think only short-term (as immortals measure it) results matter. It's not above getting its hands dirty when that means wading through sewers--or fire--for the sake of a life. It still take a dim view on the idea of spilling blood to avoid bloodshed, even when it can't be avoided. Neutrals may congratulate themselves for knowing better, voicing hypocritic accusations of "arrogance" as they do so. They deserve pity for choosing to live such shallow lives. Let them take offense at that; any shame they feel is of their own choosing.

Good is dumb when your own honour overrides all sensibility. In this case, guarding the king and a pair of enfeebled individuals has to be balanced with ones sense of mercy, and the risks that entails.


Does that tick you off? Such a reaction is understandable, though not helpful. A game that ensures good behaviour toward evil creatures always leads to more evil is much the same, but nothing new. So many DMs and players have ridiculed "Good" as unworkable or dumb over the years that I've come to suspect they fear such standards. They find them too easy to beat, which completely misses the point. Sure, you can set up circumstances making it impossible for a good
character to accomplish anything while still remaining good, but you could do
the same thing to any character of any alignment -- or none at all. Turning your "intelligent pragmatist" into a frothing mass murderer is child's play. You wouldn't hesitate to cry foul if I did it by the book, and rightly so. It would be nice if people playing good characters were given the same consideration, but "realists" have an amusing bias when it comes to such things.

This is a totally false paradime. Most circumstances, I whole heartedly agree that paladins must seek to redeem villains, but this isn't most circumstances. Give me a rescue missions without the civilians, without the king and I'd be all over the falls camp in an instant, but you can't just ignore the risks in favour of your code of conduct. That lack of mental flexibility is the very definition of stupidity.


Take the hobgoblin above, for example. Is there any chance this experience could cause a change of heart, opening the soldier's eyes to the possibility of good? Was there any chance the hobgoblin in question might not have been evil in the first place and therefore all too happy to stop fighting at the first opportunity? These things don't matter to a pragmatist. They should matter to a paladin.

Why would it do all that? Do people who are arrested have sudden changes of heart? Do the people in POW camps suddenly join up with the army they were raised to fight? No, people continue to resent and demean the people they were fighting. Redemption is not easy, nor instant gratification that comes from punching a guy's lights out. It comes from a slow, long process of mentorship.


Perhaps said hobgoblin will escape to become the scourge of civilization in years to come, and the paladin will have to deal with that issue. So what?Maybe the child your paladin saved from drowning grows up to become the leader of a diabolic cult. Such unforeseeable consequences had nothing to do with your conduct, though it would be understandable if you felt it was your duty to address them personally. What matters is whether you displayed honour and respect for life (and not just "the right kind of life") when someone surrendered to you.

Realistically, the hobgoblin will go back to slave trading, and the king will be a "meh" king like every other. And of course, this doesn't adress that later on in life, the king and two others may be dead because of you. Oh yeah, and there's probably another slave trader. While you can't say that you know exactly what's going to happen, you shouldn't shoot down likely claims. Most slavers that don't get justly executed and are released just go back to slave trading. It's what they know, and it's what their associates do for a living. Most kings are pretty much like any other. It's a pretty famous few that do something truly exceptional in either direction.


Here's an easy way to have avoided the killing: leave the king to guard the prisoner. It's not like he'd be in any more danger than would come from bringing him to invade a hobgoblin camp on a rescue mission. Why bring another target into a hostage situation?

I don't know. This sounds like a low level game, and the king only seems a decent combatant. That and he's the one that seems to personally want this done. Have you ever seen a random encounter table? "The king and a hobgoblin were eaten by a hag" would be a pretty random and odd end to his reign. The statement "don't split the party" exists for a reason. It being that in smaller groups, you have a much higher chance of someone dying.


But no, of course that wouldn't work. The hobgoblin would simply escape, kill the king, and alert all of the guards before the paladin got halfway to the prisoners. Said prisoners would, of course, be executed at once, leaving the paladin alone against an expertly prepared ambush that only took a few seconds to organize.

I doubt very much that the king would be killed by the hobgoblin. I suspect that he's more likely to get randomly eaten by a bear over 2 days time. Or alternatively, the hobgoblin alerts a patrol that the king is hiding from, and he gets killed that way.


Let's back up a bit, then. Maybe the boy-king gets captured by a wandering patrol -- the same sort that would sound an alarm after finding hobgoblin corpses of evidence of a struggle. Maybe he's forced to kill the prisoner during an escape attempt, which ought to provide a roleplaying opportunity to the player. Maybe he refuses to be left behind for such a task, leading to another
roleplaying opportunity and possibly another encounter, if the player doesn't keep the discussion short or quiet. Maybe the king gets treated less like a plot token and NPC and more like the person being represented.

It's an NPC. A) that would go on behind the scenes, and B) that's an argument against leaving the prince behind, not for. I don't know why it's better leaving him behind to be potentially captured, though I still think "eaten by a random monster" is a more likely epithet.


The more I look at it, the more it seems that Neutral just isn't all that bright either. It's got every angle covered, so long as the opposition is programmed to do everything it can to beat you no matter what you do, as though Evil was also dumb!

Actually, it doesn't matter what evil does. The goblin is dead and the party isn't split, which is the safest way for things to be, no matter how the hobgoblins react.


Alignment isn't for amateurs, boys and girls. It should only be handled by seasoned professionals, under the most controlled of conditions. Never leave it unattended. Don't feed it after midnight. May react poorly to lawyers, lobbyists, or other people getting paid to argue.

What about people who have been paid to argue about morality?


In any case, what matters is choice. You may not agree with it, but there's a reason the PHB had each alignment described as "the best" within its own entry. Choices that cause us to change alignment or lose paladin status should not be viewed as a player's failure, but as one more step in a character's development. Does the paladin turn his back on the gods for failing him, or does he accept responsibility for the transgression? Does he choose to atone or will he consider himself unworthy? (If ever there was a case where you should consider class retraining, it's in the case of a fallen paladin that feels unworthy to atone.)

Have you ever tried playing a low level paladin who suddenly lost every one of his class features? Until you can afford an atonement or qualify for blackguard to trade in dead levels, the game is very rapidly not fun anymore. A level or two sure. Not the time it takes to scrape together enough for an atonement, especially over something people will literally thank you for. Leave that for when you're high enough a level that you can afford it in a level or two without having to sell everything.


It's true that the alignment system isn't necessary to demonstrate the popular convention of having a good person fall from grace. What it does do well is something that tends to offend more people: it grants even complete monsters a chance of redemption, even exaltation. Maybe some of us aren't comfortable with that idea because it makes it harder to justify killing monsters on sight. Maybe some of us aren't comfortable with that for reasons similar to the objections to Anakin Skywalker's redemption. You know what? That's a great reaction! We can work with that.

Luke didn't have to protect 3 other people from Palpetine. And if he did have to, killing Palpetine while Vader was down would have been more than appropriate, because he likely wouldn't be doing it in anger.


It's easy to play a paladin that falls to Miltonic levels. Playing an exalted, vows of peace and nonviolence, paladin that was formerly the baby-eating destroyer of dwarven civilization, six elven capitals, and the world's most
popular restaurant franchise for halfling cuisine, where everyone recognizes you on sight as the former and acts accordingly, no matter how many times you save their lives from world devouring horrors? That's a challenge.

Eh. Been there done that. Difficult is not the same as interesting or entertaining. Though then again, I suppose while I qualified for them and followed the tenants, I never actually did take any of those exalted feats. I wonder if I had if my DM would have thrown ambiguous moral situations which could only be "passed" if my actions matched his view of alignment.


Coming back to point, that's what playing an exalted character or paladin is about: the challenge. You can get that from the mechanics or how quickly/throroughly you can fulfill an assigned quest or for any number of any things. That's fine, if you find them fulfilling. Some, on the other hand, prefer the opportunity of trying to meet a standard of conduct in a game that doesn't seek to punish them for trying.

It's a game, they should both be valid options.


The BoED takes a similar view on the subject of wanton killing, in a game that
many believe to be all about having a chance to kill acceptable targets. Naturally, its material has been exploited by people who have no interest in that sort of thing and who were only interested in acquiring one more edge. (Let's not get into real world parallels, please.) So be it. It's more useful to players who aren't satisfied with such objectives.

Still stand by the fact that it's a game. Much like I don't believe you should have to be a diseased, perverted puppy eater to use the BoVD like they seem to recommend, I don't think you have to use "the code" verbatum in every single situation if you want to use exalted. Because simply put, that isn't a game anymore.


Maybe our original paladin is such a player. If so, he'd be fine with learning that he'd crossed a line in this case, and with making atonement--or not, if he feels that's the direction he'd want for his character. The DM and player are free to handle it differently between themselves. The fact that they discussed it afterward is a good sign. I disagree with the decision, but if they came to an agreement, that's all that matters for that table. I'd say the same if the paladin had been justifying the devouring of live babiy orcs, though I'd come down harder against that sort of thing.

Amen.

Well at least I can agree with that.

[hamishspence]

To quote Champions of Valor: "Heroes who put captured opponents to the sword are little better than common murderers."

The question is whether an enemy who is disabled, has dropped their weapon, and has said "I surrender" qualifies as de facto captured or not.

I've seen numerous "paladins are nobles- with the powers of high justice" suggestions- but this particular paladin is a VOP one- which means he has no lands, no wealth- possibly no authority to do this kind of thing?



Eh. As I've said, he would have dealt with them through violence or some other means eventually, as they were engaged actively in slave trading.

Where did the OP say that? He said that hobgoblin/human bandit group had taken prisoners, but not that they were actively slave trading.

And slaving doesn't really go well with banditry in the first place, unless the bandits have a foreign country to go to to trade their prisoners to- since, as bandits, they have the local knights hunting them, and can't trade with nearby towns unless those towns are exceptionally lawles

[Leon]

To quote Champions of Valor: "Heroes who put captured opponents to the sword are little better than common murderers."


So Champions of Valor is BoED Lite?

[FatR]

Tell me then, how is killing a helpless surrendered oponent, who cant even RUN without starting to bleed to death, make this character a good person? much less a Good character.
Not any less that fighting hobbos in the first place. The pally accepted that it is a-OK to gank members of the gang he opposes for interfering with his mission in particular and to off them as evil slavers in general. By surrendering, the hobbo does not cease to significantly interfere with his mission and does not stop deserving death due to being an evil slaver. Therefore it is not any less OK to gank him. Any other answer in this particularl situation is merely justifying following BoED for the sake of following BoED. Do note, that in the presence of support structure that the prisoner can be safely entrusted to, I'd actually expect mercy from a Good character in similar situation, because then an act of mercy wouldn't be directly threatening innocents and Good, in general, is supposed to treat people better than they deserve. But in this particular situation burdening oneself with a prisoner was not a good act, but a dangerously stupid one.

Judging from a followup post by OP, the paladin seems to behave strange, though. Perhaps a conversation with the GM about paladin values, as the GM sees them, should be in order.

[hamishspence]

So Champions of Valor is BoED Lite?

Champions of Ruin and Champions of Valor are like sequels to BoVD and BoED respectively- they provide more Vile (and Exalted) feats and prestige classes, discuss the psychology of Good (and Evil) raise questions like "Can a character who does evil for a "good cause" be evil (yes), and so on.

They're Faerun-centric- but much of the concepts are applicable to any campaign.

On the subject of Justice vs Mercy, there was a rather good post in the "How does Good tempt Evil" thread:



Lawful Good is based on three pillars: Justice, Duty, and Mercy. Without all three, you cannot have Lawful Good. Too much devotion to Duty, without Mercy or Justice, pushes you towards LN. Too much devotion to Mercy without Justice or Duty pushes you towards NG. Too much Justice without Duty or Mercy pushes you towards true neutrality.

In my opinion, the characteristic far too many people forget in talking about Good is Mercy. Even in the D&D universe, Evil is not absolute and unwavering... the evil can become good. But it MUST be shown Mercy to be allowed to develop into Good. Justice will come. Duty should be adhered to. But without Mercy for the evil... without being willing to stay your hand, to let a threat to YOU survive and repent... Good diminishes into Neutrality.

[Snake-Aes]

Now, Yukitsu, I want you to carefully consider your own replies so far. If you read a reply with the idea that "good is dumb" already set on your mind, there's little reason to stay here. Just like you claimed "good is dumb when it trumps sensibility", remember that what you are calling sensibility is "Not wanting to bear the burden of truly caring even for those you don't like". Good people do. If they know it's much harder to do the good thing, they'll gladly do it.

This is overtly selfish. You're basically saying you'll let any number of individuals die or be enslaved so long as you get your little seat in Celestia. To be honest, I'd rather condemn myself to hell than negligently let innocent people die.Wrong. The statement about caring about the soul over the life does not apply only to himself, and it doesn't mean he cares little for life.

Sorry, but have you ever read about the feats done by people captured by their enemies, even if they had surrendered and were properly treated? People just don't do what you're describing except in children's stories. They pick up a gun and shoot your adancing troops in the back first chance they get most of the time, and the rest just wait until they get out to join back up with whatever group they were with before hand."People just don't do it", or was the example never been given? Yeah, it's very likely the guy will still just hate and resent his captors, but you're forgetting that it's worth it to make sure he remains harmless even with all his hate, until the conflict is over.
That assumes predestiny. That argument can't be used in any instance at all for morality, unless the individual being asked the moral question is omnicient. I could just as easily assert that that one goblin absolutely would kill the king and hostages. No, you weigh the risks and talley the costs, and sometimes, yes, you will be wrong. In either direction.It's now about redeeming a soul when you know it will be redeemed. It is about redeeming someone when there is the possibility to do so. You say "You don't know that", and the guy says "there is a chance". A Good person doesn't stop trying just because everyone else before him did.

You have to ask, what's realistically likely given the situation. The hobgoblin waking up and sending the camp a message even if knocked out in a day? Likely. Dying of dehydration if tied to a tree? Almost guaranteed. Alerting the guards half a day in? Possible. Escaping at night to alert the guards? Give how D&D works, very likely, unless you were knocking him out every hour (and even Hamishpence agrees that would be evil)Ultimately, he could restrain the gob to the best of his ability, which does not mean "instant escaping and killing everyone else in a 100 feet radius" unless your dm just doesn't care about the personalities of the npcs.
If he was heading for the camp anyway, the gob could be bound. Manacles aren't that hard to obtain, even for a VoP character. Bindings can be improvised. Promises can be extracted(a high sense motive will tell you whether he's serious or not about it so you can act accordingly).
The issue here is not what the paladin did, but what the paladin could have done. As mr Crow, the OP, said himself, the case for murder is pretty strong here. The paladin didn't try anything. And before you say "the only sensible solution was killing the gob", no, it wasn't the only sensible solution. The paladin did not try and seek for ways to preserve the gob's life and show him new ways. Killing the gob is convenient, not "the only sensible solution".

Ideally, he'd have other mentors. Most people don't learn only from one experience, though if you read the source material, elven lords aren't exactly reputed for their mercy. Rather the contrary, the chaotic good elves tend to eliminate anything that goes near their realms with no mercy. So in all probability, that shouldn't be a surprise to the paladin.
Other mentors? So, because you have a wife, she'll do the example for your kids instead of you? That logic is invalid. As a Good character, he sets the example for everyone, it's his personal duty, not his assigned duty.
Also, your "CG ELVES KILL ON SIGHT" example is tricky. You're talking about a community, and in a community, the CG alignment is not absolute. They are "usually cg". CG elves are even rarer than LE hobgoblins, going by their stated alignments.

Considering they're slave traders, and already practice an ethical equivalent (enslaving everyone they conquer, rather than killing them all) I don't know that this is much of a downside. This way they don't gain any labourers, and actually weaken as a faction.We don't know that they are slave traders. They took prisioners. They'd definitely do something nasty with them, but we don't know they are slave traders. What exactly they do to those prisoners doesn't affect the outcome of this event until the hostiles are all under control.

Good is dumb when your own honour overrides all sensibility. In this case, guarding the king and a pair of enfeebled individuals has to be balanced with ones sense of mercy, and the risks that entails.Remember that what you are calling "sensibility" is "the most guaranteed course of action". That's not what good characters think about. They want to achieve their goals while setting the example for all involved. That is often harder, and if they know they can pull it off, they'll strive for that. That does not mean he'll throw the king in the middle of the armed camp so he shows that he wants to share his ways. He announces his goal, beats those who resist(preferably with nonlethal damage) and try to set the bar. If he can't reasonably restrain them, THEN he'll consider what else can be done. He'd never just kill them "because most of them will just return to evil". That would disrespect their lives just as much as letting them do evil would disrespect innocents'.

This is a totally false paradime. Most circumstances, I whole heartedly agree that paladins must seek to redeem villains, but this isn't most circumstances. Give me a rescue missions without the civilians, without the king and I'd be all over the falls camp in an instant, but you can't just ignore the risks in favour of your code of conduct. That lack of mental flexibility is the very definition of stupidity.
When is the right circumstance then? When there is an entire society willing to 'rehab' them? When others can do it for you? A Good character doesn't give up his ways just because it's harder now than it was when he was backed by the entire world. Stupid would be to slaughter them because of a chance. Stupid would be to fail his mission because he wasn't properly careful. He should try to do both. And yes, it's harder than just escorting the king away. And the good character will do it.

Realistically, the hobgoblin will go back to slave trading, and the king will be a "meh" king like every other. And of course, this doesn't adress that later on in life, the king and two others may be dead because of you. Oh yeah, and there's probably another slave trader. While you can't say that you know exactly what's going to happen, you shouldn't shoot down likely claims. Most slavers that don't get justly executed and are released just go back to slave trading. It's what they know, and it's what their associates do for a living. Most kings are pretty much like any other. It's a pretty famous few that do something truly exceptional in either direction.Giving up before trying is not the trademark of good. "Realistically" doesn't mean "absolutely, surely, completely and without doubt". A smidgen of hope is hope enough. Giving up because it's hard is accepting failure.


It's an NPC. A) that would go on behind the scenes, and B) that's an argument against leaving the prince behind, not for. I don't know why it's better leaving him behind to be potentially captured, though I still think "eaten by a random monster" is a more likely epithet.
This is called "Your dm doesn't care about the game out of a hack-n-slash way". If that's the only type of DM you know, then I suggest you seek new dms. That is, if you wish to experience portraying those.

Actually, it doesn't matter what evil does. The goblin is dead and the party isn't split, which is the safest way for things to be, no matter how the hobgoblins react.Safest, but not what a paladin would do. See the above quotes.

Have you ever tried playing a low level paladin who suddenly lost every one of his class features? Until you can afford an atonement or qualify for blackguard to trade in dead levels, the game is very rapidly not fun anymore. A level or two sure. Not the time it takes to scrape together enough for an atonement, especially over something people will literally thank you for. Leave that for when you're high enough a level that you can afford it in a level or two without having to sell everything.
So, because it's hard to be an actual paladin, you want to handwave what it truly takes to be one? As far as personalities go, paladins are people who are driven by an extremely powerful will do be and do good, and to uphold his ideals. If he failed those at level 1, he failed those at level 1. Whether he redeems, accepts it or denies it is up to his personality.


I stop here because whenever replying to a thread reaches this level of mass quoting, it has reached unworthy levels. All I ask is that, if you recognize that you can be biased towards practicality, then you just aren't a player that would play what an exalted character in the ways they're supposed to be(unless you wanted to play their downfall, which is nice, but i'm talking about being exalted and remaining exalted). Instead of denying what they can be, accept that it's just a matter of bias.

[Hague]

It's simultaneously hard to live as a paladin of slaughter. You know why? Because you can't be good AT ALL. You can never just be nice to someone, so kiss your character's chances at a stable relationship away. Heck, you might have a very hard time even completing some tasks for someone for cash since your actions might invariably be for the better good and subsequently violate your code.

This particular paladin should fall and pick up the Paladin of Tyranny variant... he could try for some Vile feats instead.

[hamishspence]

Of the various evil paladin variants, the LE variant in Dragon 312 is probably the easiest to play- because it isn't forbidden to commit Good acts- it's only forbidden Chaotic ones.

[Hague]

Sounds like a Knight or a Samurai to me.

[hamishspence]

It uses the paladin class as a basis, but with little adjustments to give it a slightly different flavour.

Hmm- imagine if all 4 of the "corner alignment" paladins came in two variants- each emphasising one of their two alignment traits.

The standard LG paladin emphasises good- and there would be a counterpart that's still LG, but emphasises Law, and falls for Chaotic acts.

In the same way, the Dragon LE paladin is the counterpart to the Paladin of Tyranny- and falls for Chaotic acts rather than Good ones.

(In 2nd ed, standard paladins did fall for committing any Chaotic acts- and fell permanently for any Evil ones).

[Yukitsu]

I stop here because whenever replying to a thread reaches this level of mass quoting, it has reached unworthy levels. All I ask is that, if you recognize that you can be biased towards practicality, then you just aren't a player that would play what an exalted character in the ways they're supposed to be(unless you wanted to play their downfall, which is nice, but i'm talking about being exalted and remaining exalted). Instead of denying what they can be, accept that it's just a matter of bias.

Since you're stopping I won't bother fully replying, but I've already said I don't support exalted. I've stated that taken verbatum, exalted is lawful, not good.

[Hallavast]

. . . .

I've seen numerous "paladins are nobles- with the powers of high justice" suggestions- but this particular paladin is a VOP one- which means he has no lands, no wealth- possibly no authority to do this kind of thing?


We are discussing whether this is an evil action, yes (hence fallworthy)? Are you saying that since, the paladin was not nobility and had no wealth, his actions were illegitimate an thus evil? Or does this violate his code somehow? Just because he's not a lord? Would you ever agree that a lord of a foreign land has any authority over you when both you and they are in a land that is not their own?

The notion that wealth = righteousness is absurd, sir. We're talking about good and evil. Not politics.

[Stephen_E]

The notion that wealth = righteousness is absurd, sir. We're talking about good and evil. Not politics.

Sadly for many people "good/Evil" IS politics.:smallfrown:

Stephen E

[FelixG]

We are discussing whether this is an evil action, yes (hence fallworthy)? Are you saying that since, the paladin was not nobility and had no wealth, his actions were illegitimate an thus evil? Or does this violate his code somehow? Just because he's not a lord? Would you ever agree that a lord of a foreign land has any authority over you when both you and they are in a land that is not their own?

The notion that wealth = righteousness is absurd, sir. We're talking about good and evil. Not politics.

The point was, that if he were a noble, not wealthy, and depending on the law of the land, he may have been justified in executing a prisoner.

If say the law of the land was that nobles could pass sentence on criminals. Were the paladin a noble and that law ere the case he could have said "You are a criminal convicted of attempted regicide, trafficing in Sentients ect ect...I find you guilty of these charges. Your sentence is death." Then he could have been lawful, though i wouldn't quite consider it Good

Though the statement, states simply that the Paladin was a vow of poverty, he has forsaken all things like wealth land ect that would typically associate him with a noble, and likely a VoP character would give up nobility as well. Thus making what he did an unlawful act by executing a prisoner without first consulting with a higher authority and letting a verdict be passed down.

[hamishspence]

That was the point I was getting at- if the paladin has no authority to execute (as seems apparent) and someone is present who does have that authority, the paladin should defer to them on whether the person is to be executed or not.

While vigilante justice might be appropriate when the law has massively broken down- an agent of the law is present here- the king.

[Snake-Aes]

The point was, that if he were a noble, not wealthy, and depending on the law of the land, he may have been justified in executing a prisoner. Doesn't work like that. It's already mentioned that these characters enter in conflict with their society. "My society approves of this" doesn't mean he also does.

[hamishspence]

True- but BoED does point out that "the death penalty for serious crimes does not qualify as evil"- so an Exalted character doesn't have any moral grounds to interfere in someone's execution.

They may not approve- they might feel it would be wiser in the long term to show mercy- but it won't be a case of "you have people executed- this is consistantly offending against my moral code- I can't stay with you"

They can't be merciless themselves- but that doesn't mean they are obliged to thwart all executions.

That said- exalted characters can't do things like hand over prisoners which have already been sentenced to torture- since torture is evil and even handing prisoners over to torturers rather than doing it yourself, qualifies as evil.

So in a truly medievalistic society, an Exalted character will be extremely at odds with the authorities.

[Hallavast]

True- but BoED does point out that "the death penalty for serious crimes does not qualify as evil"- so an Exalted character doesn't have any moral grounds to interfere in someone's execution.

And what about political executions? This hobgoblin was not a subject of this king (presumably). Neither (also presumably) were the acts in question committed within the borders of the king's territory.



So in a truly medievalistic society, an Exalted character will be extremely at odds with the authorities.

Indeed. So I will pose this question: Can the concept of a King (or any other form of state with the power to determine executions [or assassinations] at a whim) be Good? Not asking if the monarch, personally, can be good or not. But the system of government.

Making an execution legal doesn't make it good. In fact, any legality or presence of station as per the executioner or judge/court is quite irellevant to the situation on the Good/Neutral/Evil scale. The fact that the paladin is a commoner or the god-emperor of mankind makes no difference. The question should be limited to whether the act is either a)evil or b)in gross violation of the code.

Personally, I'd think there's a strong case for claiming an unnecessary execution (he could have at least TRIED to subdue the prisoner instead) of an unarmed, mercy-seeking prisoner, carried out for convenience, is rather Evil.

[Yukitsu]

Inversely though, I think that people should accept that an on field killing may be no more evil than a perfectly justifiable or even necessary execution. It's ultimately, simply less lawful.

[Ravens_cry]

Inversely though, I think that people should accept that an on field killing may be no more evil than a perfectly justifiable or even necessary execution. It's ultimately, simply less lawful.
Sorry, I can't. Considering the other options that simply do not require one to kill a surrendering foe, more expedient or not, it is still wrong.

[Math_Mage]

Inversely though, I think that people should accept that an on field killing may be no more evil than a perfectly justifiable or even necessary execution. It's ultimately, simply less lawful.

This only works if you can apply equal justification in both cases, of course.

[Yukitsu]

This only works if you can apply equal justification in both cases, of course.

Exactly. It's the reason that matters, not a court decision.

[Axolotl]

In my group such an act would probably had the Paladin not on fall but get kicked out of the group.

I'm honestly surprised this would even be an issue to be honest.

[The Rose Dragon]

In my group such an act would probably had the Paladin not on fall but get kicked out of the group.

I'm honestly surprised this would even be an issue to be honest.

Why would he be kicked out of the group? He's not obviously disrupting the game (he might be, of course, but nothing in the first post suggests that), and he's playing his character well. Is it because he's a paladin? Is it because he's Exalted? Is it because he has a Vow of Poverty? Is it because he chose to be a warrior (which is pretty much his class description) instead of a pacifist?

There might be a good reason why your group would do that, but if you don't supply that reason, kicking him out seems arbitrary and doesn't speak highly of your group.

[Axolotl]

Why would he be kicked out of the group? He's not obviously disrupting the game (he might be, of course, but nothing in the first post suggests that), and he's playing his character well. Is it because he's a paladin? Is it because he's Exalted? Is it because he has a Vow of Poverty? Is it because he chose to be a warrior (which is pretty much his class description) instead of a pacifist?

There might be a good reason why your group would do that, but if you don't supply that reason, kicking him out seems arbitrary and doesn't speak highly of your group.Because it's a morally objectionable act. In real life I would never associate with sch a person and I doubt any good aligned PC would either. I'll note we wouldn't eject the player, just the character.

[Tiki Snakes]

Because it's a morally objectionable act. In real life I would never associate with sch a person and I doubt any good aligned PC would either. I'll note we wouldn't eject the player, just the character.

You seriously have a group of players capable of playing characters who could not, would not associate with someone who was only capable of living up to a Lawful Good standard as opposed to an Exalted standard?

Wow. In my neighborhood, I'd count the hobgoblin lucky if he was tortured, hobbled and pressed into 'extended indentured servitude' the moment they'd done taking all of his worldly possessions.

[Coidzor]

In my group such an act would probably had the Paladin not on fall but get kicked out of the group.

I'm honestly surprised this would even be an issue to be honest.

Y'know, if you hate paladins that much you could just houserule that they don't exist rather than going through the trouble of recruiting a paladin player and then kicking him out midsession after a few sessions.

It's a lot easier on your soul/psyche/blood pressure/bloodstains on the carpet quota.

Ah. Ok, good you clarified it was the character not the player, but, still, uh... You play D&D without any morally questionable acts being allowed? That's... rather bizarre.

[Axolotl]

You seriously have a group of players capable of playing characters who could not, would not associate with someone who was only capable of living up to a Lawful Good standard as opposed to an Exalted standard? My group would consider somebody who executes people when they surrender to be Evil.

[Axolotl]

Ah. Ok, good you clarified it was the character not the player, but, still, uh... You play D&D without any morally questionable acts being allowed? That's... rather bizarre.Why? We play the good guys not the morally questionable guys. Even in games with no morality system and a much more medieval society than DnD we try not to kill and give our enemies oppertunities to surrender.

[Tiki Snakes]

With my group, I'd consider it a pretty good aligned day if they went to the trouble of putting said prisoner down humanely as possible, So yeah.

YMMV a little. :smallbiggrin:

and the less said about the Elven Cleric who-definately-wasn't-a-halfling-rogue the better.

[Ravens_cry]

Because it's a morally objectionable act. In real life I would never associate with sch a person and I doubt any good aligned PC would either. I'll note we wouldn't eject the player, just the character.
I think you need to do a little bit of septation between fantasy and reality. I enjoy playing Paladins, but I have played other types, like a barbarian who collected souvenirs and a rather pragmatic witch who sometimes enjoys striking terror a little too much. And yet, I like to think of myself as nice, if fundamentally odd, person. I play role playing games because it allows me to be someone I am not. But when I go home, I am me.

[Lhurgyof]

Blech, moral ethics. I say, if the DM let it fly, then it's fine. I like giving him a warning, because he did have much less evil options left to him.

The point is that the person was surrendering and he could've been subdued really easily.

Edit: Axolotls rule!

[Axolotl]

I think you need to do a little bit of septation between fantasy and reality. I enjoy playing Paladins, but I have played other types, like a barbarian who collected souvenirs and a rather pragmatic witch who sometimes enjoys striking terror a little too much. And yet, I like to think of myself as nice, if fundamentally odd, person. I play role playing games because it allows me to be someone I am not. But when I go home, I am me.I do seperate them, in fantasy games I kill people, which is cxertainly not something I'd do in real life. It's just the playstyle of my group but, we platy good guys, even in a 40k style setting where everyone else is evil and corruptm we play to feel like we're improving things.

[Coidzor]

I do seperate them, in fantasy games I kill people, which is cxertainly not something I'd do in real life. It's just the playstyle of my group but, we platy good guys, even in a 40k style setting where everyone else is evil and corruptm we play to feel like we're improving things.

Isn't that like playing a game of Paranoia and fixing the computer?

[The Rose Dragon]

Isn't that like playing a game of Paranoia and fixing the computer?

Friend Computer is perfectly functional and is in no need of fixing, citizen. Suggestions that the Friend Computer is not perfect and in need of your help is treason. Please report immediately to the nearest termination center, and have a happy day cycle.

[Tiki Snakes]

Isn't that like playing a game of Paranoia and fixing the computer?

Attempting to. By which I mean, if you hold to the fluff and the concept of the setting, trying to play an outright Good-Guy in 40k universe is a nice way to cause some really far-reaching damage, really.

Of course, you are equally able to play 40k with the idea that you can genuinely improve the place by being nice as you are to have had enough and run some debugging on friend computer, if that's the game that the group wants to play. :smallsmile:

Course, a last minute turn-around would be delicious in the Paranoia case.

"Debug program intiated!"
"No Errors Found. At all. The Computer is your Friend, Citizen! Doubting the Computer's Sanity is Treason, please report for termination immediately."

[Axolotl]

Isn't that like playing a game of Paranoia and fixing the computer?Considering there was a Paranoia module where you do exactly that. Yes, yes it is.

[Coidzor]

Considering there was a Paranoia module where you do exactly that. Yes, yes it is.

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z205/iamlittledevotional/Pokemon/psyduck.jpg

My mind. It is. Blown.

[Devils_Advocate]

WOW, this thread has grown quickly! There's LOTS that I could reply to, but I'll just try to address a few oft-repeated points for now, I think.

Killing is only absolutely necessary when it's logically impossible not to kill. At least, that's the most absolute form of necessity that I know of. So long as you have the choice to just let someone slaughter a whole village, for example, stopping him isn't necessary in an absolute sense, even if there are means of stopping him without killing. The intended meaning of "absolutely necessary", as I've seen it used, seems to be "mandated by my preferred moral system, and not just by your preferred moral system, which sucks". But if anyone using the phrase had something different in mind, please do let me know.

As ProfMoriarty pointed out earlier, taking Good to its "logical conclusion", as it were, actually means not killing at all. But more than that, it actually means not even hurting anyone. Hurting, oppressing, and killing others is Evil, so if being Good means not doing Evil, then being Good means not doing those things. So Good characters attempt to prevent Evil solely through non-violent means. After all, who are you to decide what the long-term consequences of some violent act will be? The ends don't justify the means, and all that.

That's a moral position that's pretty much entirely unsuited to be tied to Good alignment in D&D, but it does make internal sense. But the BoED doesn't take that position. It says that "violence is an appropriate means of stopping further acts of evil" (p. 9). But then it explains that Good characters must accept surrender, "no matter how many times the villains might betray that kindness of escape from captivity to continue their evil deeds". For some reason, surrender means that you are no longer allowed to use violence against a foe, no matter how great a threat that the foe might yet be.

Sense Motive isn't infallible, so implying that it could guarantee the hobgoblin's cooperation seems really odd :smallconfused:, but it's technically not relevant, because accepting surrender is mandatory. Oh, what's that, you have lie-detecting magic? Oh, you can even read your enemy's mind and know that he's planning on knifing you in the back the first chance he gets? Well, too bad! He surrendered, so you have to accept. No exceptions. How do ya like them apples?

But, hey, at least you don't have to worry about trying to redeem Evil outsiders. You can just kill them. Never mind that outsiders aren't irrevocably tied to their alignments, and devils were once angels, and there are likewise risen fiends. Don't concern yourself with such details.

And it goes on like this. Specific things, like ability-damaging poison and particular spells, get classed as inherently Evil, but swords and fireballs aren't, because they don't necessarily have to be used to inflict pain and harm, and can be put to other uses. So... is it Evil to use swords and fireballs to inflict pain and harm, or is that supposed to be somehow not Evil because they can instead be used for other things? The former leads to a pretty non-standard sort of game where violence is inherently Evil, which seems to contradict the bit from page 9 above, and is something that the book really should just come out and say if that's the position that it's meant to endorse. The latter makes absolutely no sense, but that seems to be what's being subtly implied here; and certainly the book should just come out and say that, if it's going to endorse such a counterintuitive position.

Oh, right. Another possibility is that being stabbed or set on fire hurts a lot less than being poisoned in D&D, for some bizarre reason. But if they're going to introduce a setting detail as unexpected as that, they should really just come out and say... well, you get the idea.

And do you know why the book looks like this? It's because Exalted isn't actually about adhering to a moral standard. Of any sort. It's not about minimizing suffering, nor maximizing happiness, nor respecting the absolute, fundamental moral right that all beings have to self-determination so long as they do not interfere with the self-determination of others. It's not even about following a collection of independent proscriptive axioms (at most one of which should be associated with one half of one alignment axis); that may be what all of this crap adds up to in practice, but that's not what it's about. These restrictions on Exalted characters' behavior don't derive from any particular moral philosophy. They're there to be restrictive. They're there to hamstring the characters.

"Hmmm. Truly noble individuals are characterized by their strong moral restraints, right? So, obviously, the status of well and truly being extra super morally upstanding has to come with lots of moral restraints attached. So, lets come up with a whole lot of restraints that sound 'moral' but that don't make the game completely unplayable. And add optional, additional, more challenging restraints while we're at it! Yeah, that's the ticket! After all, we dictate the objective morality of the setting. It's not like there are external standards by which anything that we say could be proven incorrect, and so long as we say stuff that sounds reasonable, it shouldn't be too objectionable to anyone. Why, we'll sound like we're promoting moral ideals, and we will be, even! Players will get to feel good about playing truly heroic characters, and maybe they'll even be inspired to act a little better in real life. Everybody wins."

There are... problems with this approach, well-intentioned as it might be. First off, human moral intuitions are not necessarily consistent with each other, which is a major reason why moral philosophy even exists. Because this inconsistency means that if you just throw a bunch of intuitions together, you can wind up with contradictions.

Secondly, if you try to compile a list of as many reasonable-sounding moral restraints as you can come up with, you're inevitably going to need a standard of reasonableness lower than "unambiguous principle that almost everyone agrees on" in order to fill up your list. To be honest, you might wind up including some things that sound reasonable to you but that most people think are more than a little nuts, because you're weird. Everyone is weird in one way or another, when you get right down to it, and only "normal" in some -- maybe many, but never all -- regards.

Also, the game doesn't just use a Good/Evil dichotomy, but a Good/Neutral/Evil trichotomy and a Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic trichotomy. Jamming everything into the Good/Evil axis means that there's nothing left over for poor, neglected Law and Chaos. Speaking of which... wasn't following a whole bunch of rules supposed to be Law's shtick, actually? So wouldn't that make Exalted a subset of Lawful Good in particular, rather than an option for all Good alignments?

But finally and most importantly, if being Good ultimately means following the standards laid out in the Book of Exalted Deeds, well... then "being Good" ultimately means "following the standards laid out in the Book of Exalted Deeds". You know, the splatbook, which doesn't exist in the game world. Even if the in-game artifact contains the same standards, a given Exalted character probably hasn't read it. So why is she driven first and foremost not by, say, compassion, but by the specific text of a book that she's never seen? Well, because her player is making her, obviously.

At that point, you're arguably not roleplaying a heroic character, because you're arguably not roleplaying. Not just your character's decisions, but her very values, are based on -- are rooted in -- out-of-character knowledge. Is this not metagaming?

Too black and white for you? Could not, you might ask, all Good faiths preach these tenets? Could they not thus be known in-character? Well... I'm sorry, no. Good is supposed to be a fundamental cosmic force. It ought to precede specific tenets. Each Good religion should have its own teachings; Good ought simply to be what they have in common. Benevolence, or kindness, or altruism... or maybe something decidedly different, if not unrelated. But not something internally convoluted. Not "presence on the official list of things that are Good". It should not have a designed-by-committee feel, as the result of actually having been designed by an actual committee. That not only breaks my suspension of disbelief worse than fire damage to creatures immune to fire, it turns Good into a special variety of Law. And fiating specific bits of it to not count as Law really just exacerbates the problem here.

So, that's why Exalted shouldn't equal Good.

My apologies if I've rambled incoherently a bit, but hopefully I've gotten my basic point across.

[hamishspence]

It's possible that some of the basic ideas in Exalted Deeds- like it being evil to use poison, or for the PCs to kill enemies who have surrendered, or torture them, are holdovers from earlier editions.

I think there was something said about Gygax being the guy who first used "poison use is evil" to prevent it being overused in games.

I know that "killing prisoners is not appropriate for Good characters" and "torturing prisoners is not appropriate for Good characters" were present in the Eric Holmes version of Basic D&D (which had five alignments) as examples of behaviours which should change the alignments of Good characters to Neutral or Evil.