Good or Evil act?

[Zeikstraal]

I'm DMing again since last week. And i trew in Some NPCs to support the lvl 1 party, and to see how far I can go with encounters. So they got 3 encounters last session and they are lvl 2 now. So one of the NPCs poisoned them and ran away. Everyone is dead except the PCs.

Now here is the problem I have with someone. The PC Ranger wants to loot the dead NPC Ranger. But the Paladin wants to bury them with their gear, cause they have fought together in Combat and they helped the PCs alot, and they where Warriors so he wants to bury them with honor.

The Paladin said to me and our Ex-DM that when the Ranger still want to loot the NPC he will punch him with a non lethal blow.

The Ex-DM says that punching someone is against his Code of Conduct, and that his character will attack the Paladin.

I say that if someone does not listen, the paladin has the right to do that. It would be pretty lame if the only thing the Paladin could do is to say: I dont like you!!! :smallmad:

The discussion has gone on and on. And now Im asking for help from the playground.

[hamlet]

I wouldn't say it's an evil act, but it's certainly one that shouldn't have come up. Seems to be an example of two adults who can't work out their difference of opinion and are now behaving like children.

Why didn't the Paladin and Ranger talk to each other about the situation and come to a mutually agreeable compromise?

[Serpentine]

...I find the idea that a Paladin wouldn't be allowed to punch someone they think is being Evil quite amusing :smallamused:
He possibly should try to negotiate first, but noone ever said Paladins have taken a vow of pacifism.

[ILM]

...I find the idea that a Paladin wouldn't be allowed to punch someone they think is being Evil quite amusing :smallamused:
He possibly should try to negotiate first, but noone ever said Paladins have taken a vow of pacifism.
Even Vow of Nonviolence, an Exalted feat (so for the best of the Good) allows nonlethal damage.

[Taelas]

The paladin is perfectly within his code of conduct, but it is a rather silly thing to do.

[Forged Fury]

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

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Focusing on the issue at hand, the issue is whether the paladin punching someone is a violation of their code. One important thing to note is that the Paladin's Code of Conduct applies to their actions rather than the actions of those around them. There are a couple of issues to consider:

1) The actual act of punching: The paladin is giving advance warning (albeit it sounds like it may have been OOC), so he isn't suckerpunching the guy (which could be presumed as not acting with honor). With that said, the paladin doesn't quite have the same restrictions as the Knight class from PHBII, so it's iffy if suckerpunching a guy would be so dishonorable that a paladin would be in trouble.

2) The reason for the punch: Here's where it gets tricky. Paladins can't just go around smiting people because they disagree with their actions. The actions themselves have to pretty much be evil in order for a paladin to be able to back up the talk. The ultimate question is whether the ranger stripping the bodies of dead NPCs is evil. I don't really think so and the paladin's resistance to the action seems more along the lines of a cultural or personal code rather than something divinely ordained.

TL; DR: Paladins don't have carte blanche to smack anyone with whom they disagree. The person being smacked must have committed a greivous, most likely evil, act.

[Taelas]

That's not at all correct. It is well within the paladin's code of conduct to attack someone he has a disagreement with. The only situations in which he cannot do so if it is an Evil act or if it would push the paladin away from a Lawful Good alignment. He warned him, and the ranger is not an authority figure. Perfectly legitimate.

But silly.

[Zeikstraal]

Yep I have asked the Paladin if he wouldnt talk first with the Ranger. He will do that, but he thinks that it wouldnt help. And the Ranger would certainly get Backup by the other 3 companions. There are already camps made. The one is the Paladin and the other is the rest of the party.

And the Pally doesnt deserve that.
The Ex Dm plays a halfling who hates Humans that will carry out the Law. The other is his sister, in real life and in game. We have the Dwarven ranger and his brother.

But I take it that the Pally can punch though I would not encourage it.

Edit: Ranger is CN as is everyone else in the party.
He will first ask him ingame to stop looting if he would not do that than he will give him a non lethal punch. Just so that the Ranger understands that he isnt joking.

[Yuki Akuma]

Punching someone for stealing from corpses isn't Evil. It's not really Chaotic either.

I'd call it firmly Neutral. Maybe Lawful Neutral.

Although why someone would play a Paladin in the same party as a halfling who hates "humans who would carry out the Law" is beyond me. Is there some OOC trouble behind this?

[Shpadoinkle]

I say that if someone does not listen, the paladin has the right to do that.

No, he doesn't. Paladins do not NOR HAVE THEY EVER HAD the right to police the party.

I also agree that this isn't a 'good' or 'evil' thing. Looting the dead is neither (graverobbing is a different story, but that's not really what's happening here.)

"Do not loot the dead" isn't a part of the paladin's code of honor (unless he came up with a custom one before the game... which is going to make things difficult as that's where a lot of PC wealth is expected to come from.)

If the paladin REALLY has THAT much of a problem with something like this then he should probably leave the party. "A paladin won't willingly associate with someone who constantly offends his moral code" and such.


The Ex Dm plays a halfling who hates Humans that will carry out the Law.

This + paladin in the party = BEGGING for trouble and stupid PvP crap is going to be inevitable. Probably one (preferably both, actually, so neither feels singled out) of the players should change characters, and make sure they're characters who can get along with each other and the rest of the party.

[Talya]

The paladin is in a lose-lose situation (primarily because he has yet to remove the lawful-stupid stick from his colon.) The ranger is not doing anything evil--it is merely practical to use the gear available to you. it's not like the dead have any more use for it.

So the paladin attacks for non-lethal, perfectly allowable. In self-defense, the ranger starts swinging swords - which isn't even an evil act, but if it was, the ranger has no code of conduct. At this point, the paladin must either (1) keep doing non-lethal (at a major disadvantage), or (2) risk losing his paladin powers for committing an evil act. He cannot claim to be defending himself, he initiated the combat against the ranger, who is not evil. If he kills the ranger, he will lose his powers for attacking and killing a non-evil party member. If the ranger kills the paladin, they go on their merry way.

[Forged Fury]

That's not at all correct. It is well within the paladin's code of conduct to attack someone he has a disagreement with. The only situations in which he cannot do so if it is an Evil act or if it would push the paladin away from a Lawful Good alignment. He warned him, and the ranger is not an authority figure. Perfectly legitimate.

But silly.
So a paladin who decides that others shouldn't consume alchohol can legitimately punch random drunks in a tavern if they don't put the mead down? Because the paladin said so? That makes no sense. There has to be an actual basis to support the paladin's argument.

The paladin's code is something frequently argued about on the boards. In the interest of not starting another lengthy argument concerning a very fluffy class feature, this will be my last comment on it since it never goes anywhere.

[Yuki Akuma]

No, he doesn't. Paladins do not NOR HAVE THEY EVER HAD the right to police the party.

Actually from an IC stand poiint, yes, yes they do. That's what being a Paladin is.

They're not allowed to travel with people who constantly violate their code.

Whether they have the OOC right to do it or not depends on whether the other players like the idea. If not... distract the Paladin when your character is evil!

Other players don't have the right to force the Paladin's player to retire his character or lose all his class abilities either, you know.


So a paladin who decides that others shouldn't consume alchohol can legitimately punch random drunks in a tavern if they don't put the mead down? Because the paladin said so? That makes no sense. There has to be an actual basis to support the paladin's argument.

There is a difference between "What you are doing morally offends me", i.e. drinking, and "What you are doing is actually morally wrong", i.e. stealing from the dead.

The fact that most adventurers do it as a matter of course doesn't make it right.

[hamlet]

Yep I have asked the Paladin if he wouldnt talk first with the Ranger. He will do that, but he thinks that it wouldnt help. And the Ranger would certainly get Backup by the other 3 companions. There are already camps made. The one is the Paladin and the other is the rest of the party.

And the Pally doesnt deserve that.
The Ex Dm plays a halfling who hates Humans that will carry out the Law. The other is his sister, in real life and in game. We have the Dwarven ranger and his brother.

But I take it that the Pally can punch though I would not encourage it.

Edit: Ranger is CN as is everyone else in the party.
He will first ask him ingame to stop looting if he would not do that than he will give him a non lethal punch. Just so that the Ranger understands that he isnt joking.

Actually, it sounds like a player problem rather than a role playing problem.

1) Paladin player is a little uncompromising and doesn't seem eager to try and work things out.

2) Other players seem intent on disliking the Paladin inherently (a rather tiresome theme round these parts actually).

3) IIRC, Rangers in 3.x are still required to be good aligned, so you might want to ask the Ranger himself why he's looting the bodies of fallen comrades. If out of greed, then maybe his alignment is infracted. If out of need, then maybe a compromise can be had. "Look, we need at least some of these items in order to survive and complete our mission for the greater good. I don't like it any more than you, but we have to take them."

[Shpadoinkle]

Other players don't have the right to force the Paladin's player to retire his character or lose all his class abilities either, you know.

Nor does the paladin have the right to force all the other PCs to shove sticks up their butts like he has.

I don't think anybody's wrong here, I just think these PCs have fundamentally different worldviews that they're dedicated to, and the clash of such different values IS going to lead to a lot of conflict between them and headaches for the entire group.

[Talya]

There is a difference between "What you are doing morally offends me", i.e. drinking, and "What you are doing is actually morally wrong", i.e. stealing from the dead.



It's impossible to steal from the dead. They're dead. They don't own anything anymore.

Anyway, at worst it's a chaotic act, not evil.

[Kaeso]

The paladin is in a lose-lose situation (primarily because he has yet to remove the lawful-stupid stick from his colon.) The ranger is not doing anything evil--it is merely practical to use the gear available to you. it's not like the dead have any more use for it.

That's debatable. The way I see it, burrying a fellow companion with his gear is a sign of respect. You don't just loot the corpse of a friend when he's dead. The, slightly macabre, real life variant would be stealing the wallet of a friend who died in an accident because dead men don't need money.

[Shpadoinkle]

3) IIRC, Rangers in 3.x are still required to be good aligned.

Nope. It specifically mentions in the PHB that rangers can be evil (only evil rangers are allowed to take their own race as their favored enemy.)

[Zeikstraal]

Punching someone for stealing from corpses isn't Evil. It's not really Chaotic either.

I'd call it firmly Neutral. Maybe Lawful Neutral.

Although why someone would play a Paladin in the same party as a halfling who hates "humans who would carry out the Law" is beyond me. Is there some OOC trouble behind this?

He rolled his Paladin a week before the Halfling rolled his. And he was aware of it that he would play a Paladin.
I do think that there is some OOC trouble from the halflings side.

The Paladin does not care if they loot BBEG and other random mobs. He does not want this cause these NPCs where their allies.

[Yuki Akuma]

It's impossible to steal from the dead. They're dead. They don't own anything anymore.

So his family has no right to his former possessions, then?

[Shpadoinkle]

So his family has no right to his former possessions, then?

If that's the case and the paladin wants to do the right thing, then he should be insisting they get the dead NPCs stuff back to their families, not bury it with them.

[Talya]

If that's the case and the paladin wants to do the right thing, then he should be insisting they get the dead NPCs stuff back to their families, not bury it with them.


Exactly. Which they won't get anyway if you die of starvation because you won't eat his trail rations while saving them for his family...


The way I see it, burrying a fellow companion with his gear is a sign of respect.

It may be. But even if so, respect is not good, nor is a lack of it evil. Furthermore, "respect" or "honor" in the manner you describe is subjective to the ethics of the person involved. It does not make one lawful or chaotic, good or evil, to not have this hangup about practicality and using the effects of the dead. They are not part of the alignment system. In fact, one could argue that it shows respect for the dead and what they stood for to continue using their assets toward the cause that they supported.

[Zeikstraal]

Thats exactly what I mean Keaso. I shall suggest some of these replies to them and will act on that.

[Yuki Akuma]

Personally I think both characters are in the wrong. I won't say anything about the players.

Really, the Paladin and the halfling should not be in the same party, and the guy who rolls up a character specifically designed to be antagonistic to another really shouldn't be playing at all.

[Kaeso]

It may be. But even if so, respect is not good, nor is a lack of it evil. Furthermore, "respect" or "honor" in the manner you describe is subjective to the ethics of the person involved. They are not part of the alignment system.


"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.

Looting the corpse of a faithful companion would certainly be a lack of respect for his dignity as a sentient being. Of course, there are some exceptions (such as, say, the holy symbol of a cleric when you're in the middle of the Abyss), but I assume the OP didn't talk about such an exception.

Furthermore, ethics in DnD are hardly subjective, almost every act can be put somewhere on the alignment scale.

Of course, I'm not saying the paladin did the right thing in the given situation, but I do commend him for his respect for his fallen ally.

[Pigkappa]

They should compromise both in game and out of game. The paladin could let the ranger take that NPC's items and then bury him with a sacred ritual (paying a few money for the holy water and some tributes).

Playing an extremely rigid paladin in a mostly chaotic group will work out very bad if they aren't open to compromise.

[Kaeso]

Playing an extremely rigid paladin in a mostly chaotic group will work out very bad if they aren't open to compromise.

So much truth in these words, especially the part about compromising.

[Talya]

Looting the corpse of a faithful companion would certainly be a lack of respect for his dignity as a sentient being. Of course, there are some exceptions (such as, say, the holy symbol of a cleric when you're in the middle of the Abyss), but I assume the OP didn't talk about such an exception.

Furthermore, ethics in DnD are hardly subjective, almost every act can be put somewhere on the alignment scale.


I disagree.


In fact, one could argue that it shows respect for the dead and what they stood for to continue using their assets toward the cause that they supported.

The greatest respect would be to take his stuff, and accomplish what he wanted to accomplish with it. Make his death mean something, and get the job done.

[Malkav]

The Ranger is a naturalist and doesn't want man made things being buried in nature.

The Paladin is honor bound and doesn't want to disrespect his fallen comrade.

This exact thing came up in a game I was running a long time ago. It was resolved by burying the party member with all their gear and the Rogue taking first watch and digging out the valuable gear.

Another option would be for them to discuss the merits of each argument and agree that keeping the fallen comrades gear will help them fight evil better in the future. Burying the npc with his gear could give a necromancer an armed and equipped minion if it is left.

As for disrespecting him by reclaiming his possessions: I do not think it is absolute. It could be disrespecting him by leaving it. It depends on the attitude of the NPC when he was alive. They are too low level to use speak with dead. But if I died in a rl zombie apocalypse and my friends left my shotgun with me out of honor, I would smack them from the afterlife. I wouldn't feel disrespected by them taking my gear, I am dead it now belongs to them or the dirt.

Think like Dune. The water(gear) of each member of the tribe(party) belongs to the party. When a member falls, they are given a ritual burial and what can be used by the tribe(party) are returned to the group.

[Kaeso]

The Ranger is a naturalist and doesn't want man made things being buried in nature.

The Paladin is honor bound and doesn't want to disrespect his fallen comrade.


If this were the case, it'd make for an interesting clash of cultures. However, the OP only stated that the ranger wanted to loot the NPC, not that it had anything to do with his vision of respecting nature etc.


This exact thing came up in a game I was running a long time ago. It was resolved by burying the party member with all their gear and the Rogue taking first watch and digging out the valuable gear.

Another option would be for them to discuss the merits of each argument and agree that keeping the fallen comrades gear will help them fight evil better in the future. Burying the npc with his gear could give a necromancer an armed and equipped minion if it is left.

Discussing the merits could be the best course of action from a meta-gaming perspective, but doing the right thing is almost never doing the easiest thing. If you're discussing the merits, you're purely discussing utalitarianism instead of wether or not it's right or wrong to rob a fallen comerade of his gear.

So I still stand by my opinion that the paladin shouldn't fall despite not doing the smartest thing. However, I'm not saying that the paladin should force the ranger to follow his alignment. IMHO it could be solved with the paladin scolding and berating the group and then moving on (of course, in the long term the paladin should get a compensation for not getting any phat lewt) and the ranger switching to a non-good alignment if he keeps displaying this kind of behavior (I'd say neutral).


The greatest respect would be to take his stuff, and accomplish what he wanted to accomplish with it. Make his death mean something, and get the job done.

That is a good point. It's a shame we don't have more context about the situation OP gave to us.

[Telonius]

Possible compromise...

Ranger: "Look, okay, he's dead and everybody here agrees that he needs a decent burial. But do we know if he has any legitimate heirs? If so, they'd lawfully inherit his possessions, wouldn't they? Is that sword, or that armor, an heirloom? Right now, we just don't know. The way I see it, we have a responsibility to at least make an effort to find out. So let's set the gear aside and bury him properly. We'll keep his stuff in trust until we know for sure. And it may be that we need to use it in order to stay alive until we deliver it to the proper owners - I don't think they'd grudge us that. If it turns out the gear doesn't belong to anybody we can always inter it, or sell it and give the money to [NPC Ranger's favorite charity], or whatever."

IMO, the "proper burial" issue is more an issue of Law/Chaos than of Good/Evil. Each culture has its own burial rites, and respecting the particular rites is a matter of respecting the cultural norms - that is, the Law of the culture. A single Chaotic act does not usually cause a Paladin to fall.

The inter-party conflict is a bit trickier. The Paladin can certainly take a firm stand on respecting what he or she believes to be the Law. In fact I'd expect that of a Paladin. However, I would also expect the Paladin to have a sense of proportionality. Tearing the tag off a pillow does not merit a fight; highway robbery would. Where exactly "follow these specific burial customs" falls along the line would determine what the appropriate response would be.

[Malkav]

IMHO it could be solved with the paladin scolding and berating the group and then moving on (of course, in the long term the paladin should get a compensation for not getting any phat lewt) and the ranger switching to a non-good alignment if he keeps displaying this kind of behavior (I'd say neutral).

Looting friends or reclaiming items for future use in the fight against evil isn't an evil act imho.

We also have to figure out what the Paladin's code of ethics is. Given the OP we know that the Paladin has a problem with it. But being the lawful person that the paladin is, he could easily be convinced of logic that proves he is still operating within his CoC.

[Malkav]

Possible compromise...

he needs a decent burial

I like this.

You could also use his gear for now and use gentle repose on him until you can determine the affairs of the dead NPC's estate.

[Talya]

Relevant points:

(1) reclaiming items from dead comrades to use against evil in the future and continue their legacy is not necessarily disrespecting them, and may actually be what they would want.

(2) why should "stealing from the dead" be evil, when stealing from the living is only chaotic?

(3) Even assuming it's disrespectful, disrespecting the dead is not showing a disrespect for life. In fact, death is the opposite of life. The dead are a decaying shell, nothing more. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter.

Under no circumstance would the ranger's actions be "evil." They are, at worst, chaotic -- neutral on the good/evil axis. At best, they are the most noble sort of good and lawful.

[Taelas]

The paladin is in a lose-lose situation (primarily because he has yet to remove the lawful-stupid stick from his colon.) The ranger is not doing anything evil--it is merely practical to use the gear available to you. it's not like the dead have any more use for it.

So the paladin attacks for non-lethal, perfectly allowable. In self-defense, the ranger starts swinging swords - which isn't even an evil act, but if it was, the ranger has no code of conduct. At this point, the paladin must either (1) keep doing non-lethal (at a major disadvantage), or (2) risk losing his paladin powers for committing an evil act. He cannot claim to be defending himself, he initiated the combat against the ranger, who is not evil. If he kills the ranger, he will lose his powers for attacking and killing a non-evil party member. If the ranger kills the paladin, they go on their merry way.

Just... no.

If the paladin makes a non-lethal attack and the ranger retaliates by doing lethal damage, the paladin is perfectly within his rights to defend himself with lethal damage. Paladins have no compunctions against killing people of non-Evil alignment if they are attacking them.

[Yorae]

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.


Looting the corpse of a faithful companion would certainly be a lack of respect for his dignity as a sentient being.

Corpses aren't sentient beings.

Well, barring intelligent undead, of course.

I kind of doubt the ranger thinks he is commiting an evil act, simply a practical one. He and the paladin have differing ethics.

[Quelstaman]

Hello everyone,

I am the paladin in question here, and as a man of my word i'm here to defend my actions (wich i have yet to take, but do plan on taking if things go as i think they will). If you can present a good argument, i am willing to discuss it.

(also, what is up with this ridiculous registration :O)

[Toofey]

The paladin is being unreasonable (my opinion, but you need to decide what you think his god would think) IMO the paladin is useful resources that could continue to be used to fight evil, or to save the party so it can fight evil, into the ground. Which I would say is wasteful and makes it harder to fight evil. So while not thrilling to an LG type, if the gear is needed/useful it should be permissible. BUT this is based on primarily DMing paladins of Torm who is the god of duty who's priority is getting stuff done. If the Paladin's god's priority is respect for property, or honoring the dead etc... it could just as easily go the other way.

I really try and get my Paladins to be less "I am Lawful Good so I am the same as every other Lawful Good person" and more focused on what in particular concerns their gods. There's no reason two people of the same alignment should automatically have the same opinions or priorities.

[Taelas]

So a paladin who decides that others shouldn't consume alchohol can legitimately punch random drunks in a tavern if they don't put the mead down? Because the paladin said so? That makes no sense. There has to be an actual basis to support the paladin's argument.

The paladin's code is something frequently argued about on the boards. In the interest of not starting another lengthy argument concerning a very fluffy class feature, this will be my last comment on it since it never goes anywhere.

The paladin can certainly do that, assuming he does not disrespect legitimate authority in doing so. Nothing in the code of conduct prevents a paladin from being an ass.

[Ozymandias]

Clearly looting the dead and using their gear is an evil act. It belongs in a museum (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrq0w2m1Zh4)!

More seriously, looting for practical purposes is a neutral-chaotic act, depending on the general mores - if it's standard practice for adventuring bands, it's just neutral. It's certainly not evil.

Where does the paladin even see this ending up? He knocks out the ranger and they're buddy-buddy from then on? The only consequence of this is going to be in- and out-of-character resentment toward the paladin and his player. It's just not cool, and it's not really realistic unless the paladin is incredibly shortsighted and sanctimonious.

Besides, physically hurting someone for what is at most a minor chaotic act is itself probably evil.

Edit:
If you can present a good argument, i am willing to discuss it.


How's this:
A) Hitting the ranger has no tangible benefit to the dead people.
B) It raises the possibility that he will up the stakes, and risk serious injury to your character and possibly himself.
C) It hurts group cohesion, which makes the party less effective at fighting evil in the future.
D) All else being equal, it's bad to hit someone. ""Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others," from the SRD. Since no good comes from the action, it seems like it would be evil to hit him.

I can understand a character being angry and not thinking things through, especially if looting was particularly offensive to him or her for whatever reason. But Paladin's are kind of expected to hold themselves to much higher standards.

[Talya]

Just... no.

If the paladin makes a non-lethal attack and the ranger retaliates by doing lethal damage, the paladin is perfectly within his rights to defend himself with lethal damage. Paladins have no compunctions against killing people of non-Evil alignment if they are attacking them.

Paladin started the attack. If you are attacked by someone else, lethal or not, defense is defense. You don't know what they're going to do with you when they're done hitting you. The best defense against someone punching you is most certainly using a weapon.

The paladin is 100% at fault for any altercation that occurs. The ranger was doing nothing evil, and some crazy guy starts beating him up for no reason? Damn straight the ranger has a right to defend himself with lethal force, much like any court in most civilized countries is going to exhonerate you for shooting a man who walks up to you and starts beating the crap out of you.

[McSmack]

Yeah there's really no reason that a compromise could not be reached. OP said the NPC's were poisoned. If so, a case could be made for using the NPC's gear to avenge their deaths. Even temporarily the gear could be used to help other heroes defend themselves from evil.

'Looting' the dead NPC's could come across as harsh as harsh and disrespectful. However, taking their gear to further the causes the fought and died for could be viewed as very respectful. Or giving the gear to their family/charity/hometown.

As long as the party makes a good case to the Paladin, he should back down. Especially if they're giving the NPC's a proper burial and not just rolling the bodies into a shallow grave.

Even have the ranger make it out to be a ranger love thing. The PC ranger could vow to use the NPC ranger's bow to 'slay a hundred' of the NPC's favored enemy. Hard for a paladin to claim that's disrepectful to the dead.

[jmelesky]

I see no class-breaking or alignment-breaking actions being planned or taken by any of the characters. Nothing prevents the paladin from having opinions on honor, and attempting to enforce them in a non-lethal manner.

That said, i do see party-breaking actions being taken. And it's not clear to me that this party should exist. A LG paladin traveling with three CN partymembers is a recipe for discord.

As a GM, i'd throw it back at the players. Everyone apparently knew the player had built a paladin when they decided they were going to make their CN characters. So part of the character creation process should have been asking the question "why are you traveling with a paladin"? And the players should provide a RP response.

(and if the response is "so we can eventually steal his Holy Avenger", this party should probably not be played together)

Likewise, eventually you need to ask the paladin player "why are you traveling with these people?", and he/she should provide a RP response.

Those reasons should help forestall the party completely disintegrating. If the players are just looking at their own class and alignment, then LG/CN will fall apart quickly.

[Quelstaman]

looting for practical purposes is a neutral-chaotic act, depending on the general mores - if it's standard practice for adventuring bands, it's just neutral. It's certainly not evil.

Im not, and never will claim that the act of looting a corpse is evil. It is simply against the morale of my paladin, and he will try to stop this act. I didnt create this paladin with the intent to police my party, nor do i intend to. I am willing to turn the other cheek so that other players can have there fun, as i have mine. But in this situation, it is the only thing i can do.




Where does the paladin even see this ending up? He knocks out the ranger and they're buddy-buddy from then on? The only consequence of this is going to be in- and out-of-character resentment toward the paladin and his player. It's just not cool, and it's not really realistic unless the paladin is incredibly shortsighted and sanctimonious.

I'm not going to compromise my roleplay by not doing stuff because its not cool for the other guy to have his "phat lewt". I will play as my character would behave.



Besides, physically hurting someone for what is at most a minor chaotic act is itself probably evil.

I will give the player a clear warning, that he should not loot our friends corpses, as they deserve a honerable grave. If he doesnt listen to this well withing reason request. I will have to back up my word or loose all my leverage within the party. i hardly think its an evil act to punch someone who goes against your morale.

[Toofey]

I really have to disagree, on condition that the party is actually fighting an evil threat, making use of equipment as opposed to burrying it with the dead is not IMO a CN act, and is at worst a CG act.

If they're just looting it because they want it, then it is a CN act. But I always assume that the characters are on a quest of some sort that needs getting done.

IMO a bow that makes the ranger more effective in fighting evil: permissible to loot, a scarf the ranger really likes: very questionable.

[Quelstaman]

That said, i do see party-breaking actions being taken. And it's not clear to me that this party should exist. A LG paladin traveling with three CN partymembers is a recipe for discord.

I am willing to look the other way now and then so that they can steal the kings crown for all i care. But now and then, i will have to make a stand, as a paladin. Im not willing to compromise RP because of the party build. I am willing to sometimes look the other way (not in roleplay ofcourse, but out of character for example i could go and take a piss or some ****). I think everyone should be able to do the thing they like in this party, and i will try to make that happen.

[hamishspence]

Paladins have no compunctions against killing people of non-Evil alignment if they are attacking them.

respect for life? This would generally mean a paladin will want to avoid killing if it's not necessary- and if the goal can be accomplished without it.

If the nonevil attacker was vastly weaker than the paladin, or "not in their right mind" this would be among the reasons to try not to kill them.

More importantly- the other guy isn't the attacker, but the defender.

On stealing- it may actually be closer to Evil than chaotic if you go by BoVD.

However- the act might not qualify as stealing depending on the DM.

[Ozymandias]

Im not, and never will claim that the act of looting a corpse is evil. It is simply against the morale of my paladin, and he will try to stop this act. I didnt create this paladin with the intent to police my party, nor do i intend to. I am willing to turn the other cheek so that other players can have there fun, as i have mine. But in this situation, it is the only thing i can do.

I'm not going to compromise my roleplay by not doing stuff because its not cool for the other guy to have his "phat lewt". I will play as my character would behave.

I can understand that, but Paladin's have the (rather stupid) "code of conduct" restriction. So if you react unreasonably, you have to deal with the consequences.

Second is that it's a game, and if your actions are making the rest of the players and the DM have less fun, you might want to consider changing your character to make him more amenable to their actions. Of course, if this makes you stop having fun you should probably just roll another character, or leave the group.


I will give the player a clear warning, that he should not loot our friends corpses, as they deserve a honerable grave. If he doesnt listen to this well withing reason request. I will have to back up my word or loose all my leverage within the party. i hardly think its an evil act to punch someone who goes against your morale.

I guess we have to disagree. Violence, even "nonlethal" violence, is pretty abhorrent to me and, I think, to most people. In my opinion, any instance of intentionally harming someone else is by default evil, unless they are doing so in service of the greater good (and sometimes then). Your paladin is clearly doing this because he is offended, and not even morally offended. This is realistic behavior for a normal person, but Paladins aren't allowed to be normal people.

What kind of loot does a level 1 NPC warrior have, anyway? If it's just a mundane longsword I'd tell the ranger player to just leave it off...

[Quelstaman]

How's this:
A) Hitting the ranger has no tangible benefit to the dead people.
B) It raises the possibility that he will up the stakes, and risk serious injury to your character and possibly himself.
C) It hurts group cohesion, which makes the party less effective at fighting evil in the future.
D) All else being equal, it's bad to hit someone. ""Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others," from the SRD. Since no good comes from the action, it seems like it would be evil to hit him.


A) Defending their honer will be my paladins reason for this action, and in his believes, it is tangible in the afterlife even.

B) If he decides to attack me, then that is his choise not mine. I will not compromise out of fear for death, thats kinda a paladin thing :)

C) I really cant see how we cant all be friends after this, i just make a stand, maybe he will punch me back, maybe he wont. If i dont do this now, as i have said before, i loose all my credebility

D) So, stealing is a chaotic act. If i punch a thief in the face, will it be an evil act? no it wont. Im defending someones honner, if not as a paldin, then my character will do it as a person. Im shure it isnt evil tough

[hamishspence]

This article by The Giant

http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html

had some interesting things to say on this sort of issue.

[Yorae]

Sounds to me like this at best results in a partial dissolution of the group and at worst results in a dead paladin.

Realistically, I think the paladin character would realize that his code of conduct is not conducive to traveling with these people, become disgusted with their perceived barbarism, and leave, even if it isn't terribly rational. Unless, of course, this would constitute abandoning an important righteous cause the paladin had, in which case he might just have to grin and bear it

In the end, remember that is it a game that people play for fun.
If you are actively doing things that diminish your or the party's enjoyment of the adventure, then you should probably reconsider.

[Telonius]

I
I'm not going to compromise my roleplay by not doing stuff because its not cool for the other guy to have his "phat lewt". I will play as my character would behave.

...
I will give the player a clear warning, that he should not loot our friends corpses, as they deserve a honerable grave. If he doesnt listen to this well withing reason request. I will have to back up my word or loose all my leverage within the party. i hardly think its an evil act to punch someone who goes against your morale.

Just realize, out of character, that if the other players play their characters like they would behave, your Paladin is likely to be stranded in the wilderness or wake up with a knife in his throat. If you're okay with that, then I see no problem.

Punching someone who goes against your morals? That goes into the "proportionality" thing I was talking about. If it's a disproportional response - summary execution for jaywalking is an extreme (and silly) example, but you get the idea - then it is evil. So, is the response proportional? That's something for you and the DM to decide.

[Yorae]

The article referenced by hamishspence above looks like it could be helpful -- Do you think that the paladin could react in a way that both sticks to his character AND doesn't destroy the party?

[Ozymandias]

B) If he decides to attack me, then that is his choise not mine. I will not compromise out of fear for death, thats kinda a paladin thing :)

That's not the way it works. Assault and self-defense are not "equal choices." If you hit him you are responsible for what he does to defend himself.


C) I really cant see how we cant all be friends after this, i just make a stand, maybe he will punch me back, maybe he wont. If i dont do this now, as i have said before, i loose all my credebility

You could, I don't know, offer to pay for equivalent items, promise him a share of your treasure, appeal to his sense of honor, etc. You won't "lose credibility" because these courses of action all make more sense and are actually Good.

And do you really expect him to not care? They're not even lawful.


D) So, stealing is a chaotic act. If i punch a thief in the face, will it be an evil act? no it wont. Im defending someones honner, if not as a paldin, then my character will do it as a person. Im shure it isnt evil tough

Theft is inherently only chaotic, but it's typically evil because it causes harm to good people. Stealing to survive is chaotic, stealing someone's last loaf of bread is evil. Punching the first person is certainly evil.

[Quelstaman]

Just realize, out of character, that if the other players play their characters like they would behave, your Paladin is likely to be stranded in the wilderness or wake up with a knife in his throat. If you're okay with that, then I see no problem.

Punching someone who goes against your morals? That goes into the "proportionality" thing I was talking about. If it's a disproportional response - summary execution for jaywalking is an extreme (and silly) example, but you get the idea - then it is evil. So, is the response proportional? That's something for you and the DM to decide.

Believe me, the party is already plotting to kill me (Out of character they are making their plans). This is kinda relevant to the conversation i had with the ex-DM and now player of the party. Basicly, i told him our characters are almost 2 oposites of each other, while his character knows this, my paladin does not. I told him i didnt make this character just to be anti him (Obviously, because my paladin whas the first to be made). And that we should agree to never ever kill each other. I would now and then walk away if he stole from someone, or scammed someone. And he wouldnt turn on me if things in the party would go out of control. We agreed to this and i tought we had a nice party balance this way, incase we could both do whatever the **** we wanted and still be in the same party playing the character we wanted to play.

Obviously, things got out of hand rather quick. Do i have a problem with my character dying. Ofcourse, i have put alot of time and effort in making it, both on the sheet, and in my mind. But if he thinks that killing me like this is his only option so be it. I will save my chars story on my PC and make a CN character. But no, no i wouldnt like it.

I'm not going to discuss the aligment system in terms of vieuw of what is, and what is not evil. Because we both know where that will end up ;D

[Just_Ice]

This topic will be hilarious forever.

This is a two-way street. I think the issue that you should consider is this: how much does the ranger really need that suit of armour?

Is it made of gold and jewels, and therefore buy them enough stuff to survive longer or complete their quest? Does the ranger have armour? Is it nearly worthless and he's just pawning it off?

The degree of need should overpower the Paladin's moral code if the party stands beside it. The Paladin should bend for such things, acknowledging that the party A) doesn't adhere to his code B)Likes living very much. He shouldn't allow, and he really shouldn't be forced to allow them horking the armour as vendor trash. That warrants the paladin's non-lethal fist of justice.

Let's not forget that, if the other player was pushed, it'd be a blade. The fist is showing firm restraint, and is the difference between a terrible paladin and a decent one. A great paladin needs neither, but I don't know any great paladins. I'm beginning to think they don't exist.

tl;dr: Whether this is bullying someone taking a necessary or incredibly helpful action or protecting an honoured teammate's death should be decided by the party based on how much they need what they're taking. That's what co-operative roleplaying is all about.

[Taelas]

Paladin started the attack. If you are attacked by someone else, lethal or not, defense is defense. You don't know what they're going to do with you when they're done hitting you. The best defense against someone punching you is most certainly using a weapon.
Which means absolutely nothing with regards to the paladin's status as a paladin.


The paladin is 100% at fault for any altercation that occurs. The ranger was doing nothing evil, and some crazy guy starts beating him up for no reason? Damn straight the ranger has a right to defend himself with lethal force, much like any court in most civilized countries is going to exhonerate you for shooting a man who's beating the crap out of you.
Not really, no. The paladin began it, but the ranger escalated the situation. It is illegal to use lethal force in most civilized countries as self-defense unless you are in life-threatening danger, so no, one punch does not authorize you to kill whoever punched you.



respect for life? This would generally mean a paladin will want to avoid killing if it's not necessary- and if the goal can be accomplished without it.
Not necessarily only whether or not the goal can be accomplished -- it could be that it would have to be accomplished without endangering yourself or innocents unnecessarily.


If the nonevil attacker was vastly weaker than the paladin, or "not in their right mind" this would be among the reasons to try not to kill them.
Neither of which is the case with the ranger here.


More importantly- the other guy isn't the attacker, but the defender.
Disproportionate retaliation; paladin isn't at fault for that.

[Quelstaman]

tl;dr: Whether this is bullying someone taking a necessary or incredibly helpful action or protecting an honoured teammate's death should be decided by the party based on how much they need what they're taking. That's what co-operative roleplaying is all about.

This, i totally agree on. Ofcourse i would allow a ranger to pick up a +5 epic mother****ing bow of death. But this is more the likes of grave robbing then anything else. Basicly, it wouldn't make a difference in our Conquest against evil. (not that we are doing that right now, but the idea counts :))

[Ozymandias]

But if he thinks that killing me like this is his only option so be it. I will save my chars story on my PC and make a CN character. But no, no i wouldnt like it.

Well, you seem to think that hitting him is your only option.

It sounds like you should just have the Paladin be so offended that he leaves the party, and roll a new character. Because what you're doing really isn't a workable paradigm - you want to authentically roleplay a character, and at the same time want to avoid conflicts in a party that's inherently antithetical to him.

If you really don't want to play a character that actually fits into the party, just leave the group.


I'm not going to discuss the aligment system in terms of vieuw of what is, and what is not evil. Because we both know where that will end up ;D

Unfortunately, it ends up being one of the Paladin's class features.

[Zeikstraal]

I shall ask the party why they all rolled a CN character while they where aware of him playing a paladin. Especially the Paladin hating Halfling. If it will come to Pvp I think the Paladin will be the last man standing. Everyone else sucks. But if that happens I dont think there ever will be a normal party with the Paladins, cause he killed their character.

[Luckmann]

In relation to OP (I only skimmed through the rest of the thread), I don't see the problem. Unless he's a member of a extremely peaceful order or worships some kind of pacifist god, slapping those that goes against the tenets of his faith is amongst the mildest things he's fully in his right to do. :smallsigh:

[Quelstaman]

Well, you seem to think that hitting him is your only option.

Ofcourse it is not my only option, but it is an option i intend on taking this time.



It sounds like you should just have the Paladin be so offended that he leaves the party, and roll a new character. Because what you're doing really isn't a workable paradigm - you want to authentically roleplay a character, and at the same time want to avoid conflicts in a party that's inherently antithetical to him.

This option i have certainly considered. I am willing tough, to try playing with this party setup. We havent played long yet, if the situation is unworkable, yes i will leave. If and when i have to compromise my roleplay so significantly that my paladin isnt a believable genuine character, then yes i will quit the party with this character.





Unfortunately, it ends up being one of the Paladin's class features.

Well, fortunately im on the same line with this as the DM

[Zeikstraal]

The loot is a Masterwork leather armor and a Composite +1 Longbow. So nobody will get killed if they burry it with them.

[Callista]

IMO, the "proper burial" issue is more an issue of Law/Chaos than of Good/Evil. Each culture has its own burial rites, and respecting the particular rites is a matter of respecting the cultural norms - that is, the Law of the culture. A single Chaotic act does not usually cause a Paladin to fall.I agree here. I would really want to know the personalities involved, of course; but assuming that this is a Good or Neutral party (they are traveling with a paladin, after all; they must have some purposes in common), it seems like their primary goals would be something like:
1. Honor their dead ally.
2. Complete their mission.

Honoring the dead is a Lawful value, of course; so the paladin and whoever else is lawful and/or honorable (neutral and chaotic types can believe in honor, if they are chaotic in other ways) will probably be arguing for burying him in an honorable way. However, this need not include keeping him in his armor and with his weapons.

It depends very much on the cultures involved. If anybody comes from a culture where burial is significant, where it's mandated that you should be buried with something or other, then that might add some additional factors.

An honorable burial really just means cleaning them up, wrapping the body in something, and burying it deep enough to stop anything from digging it up (or sinking it in water, or building a cairn--the intent being that the body will not be disturbed). The gear can be distributed as the survivors see fit. Most soldiers would not mind their living friends using their equipment to survive.

Then there's the question of the dead man's relatives. Getting news to them somehow should be a priority (though not above the priority of urgent missions). Sending a letter with a messenger next time they get to a town should be sufficient. If the gear is expensive and represents a decent amount of money to the relatives, then the gear should be sent back to them (or sold and the money returned). Of course you have to find the relatives. But leave the man his clothing, even if it is expensive; burying a body without clothing is considered disrespectful in many areas, if you do not have a shroud (presumably not, since you are traveling).

If the man had a family ring, brooch, holy symbol, or other kind of family or religious emblem, there may be special considerations about that. Taking it with you to identify him by is a good idea; or else his religion might mandate that it be buried with him (a Knowledge: Religion check helps here). If he is buried with it, you can use Locate Object on it to find the grave later.

Marking the grave is also a good idea in most situations. You want to be able to find it again so that his family can pay their respects. However, you don't want people looting it. If this is in enemy territory, magic would be a good idea--a wizard could set his arcane mark on the grave, for example; and then when they got near the place, a Detect Magic sweep would reveal it. (Locate Object is a good divination spell too; the body is an object.)

If it's in friendly territory, a makeshift gravestone could be crafted; use a minor fire spell to inscribe an epitaph or use an adamantine or magical weapon to carve the man's name. In extreme circumstances, when you are worried about necromancy, burning the body is probably best. Magical fire works very well for cremation; a single fireball or Burning Hands is generally enough, especially if you pour oil on the body first. Ashes can be sprinkled into a body of water to disperse properly. If you plan on raising the NPC later on, wrap the body up and have the cleric memorize Gentle Repose the next day, then carry it around in a bag of holding until you find someone capable of doing the resurrection.

In general, the paladin in the party shouldn't be opposed to looting a dead ally. The exceptions would be if he comes from a culture where keeping the dead together with their equipment is considered important--ancient Egypt, for example. It also depends on his deity. Most deities would not be opposed to it; all Lawful deities and most Good ones would, however, demand a proper burial. The Good angle on this is mostly a matter of respect for life, which can express itself in respect for the body of someone who has just died, as well as respect for the person's relatives; but Good-aligned people would in most cases care more about the living than the dead, and care more about the relatives of the dead man than about the man's body. Deities like Pelor might insist that the body be blessed to prevent it rising as undead.

[Ozymandias]

Ofcourse it is not my only option, but it is an option i intend on taking this time.

Okay, as long as you're willing to deal with the consequences.


This option i have certainly considered. I am willing tough, to try playing with this party setup. We havent played long yet, if the situation is unworkable, yes i will leave. If and when i have to compromise my roleplay so significantly that my paladin isnt a believable genuine character, then yes i will quit the party with this character.

Well, think about it. Why is your character associating with these people in the first place, especially since he finds them so abhorrent? It seems like any genuine interaction between them is going to lead to situations like this. You could have the paladin just happen to be taking a nap when the rest of the party plays out their characters authentically, but then why are you even playing together in the first place? It really isn't believable for a paladin to say, "Ok, I'll punch you, all is forgiven" and then keep letting them scam commoners and whatnot, to me, at least.


Well, fortunately im on the same line with this as the DM

Then I guess there really isn't anything else to say, is there?

[Zeikstraal]

The loot is a Masterwork leather armor and a Composite +1 Longbow. So nobody will get killed if they burry it with them.

Edit: got an error and now its there twice.
Well as for their background, the restrictions where that everybody would be childhood friends, or just friends, family etc.
The rest of the characters are an paladin hating halfling bard, his sister the halfling rogue who entirely focuses on stealing. An Dwarven Ranger and his brother the dwarven fighter. Those did not even had a background the first session and they had a month time of writing it.

[Callista]

Paladin plus CN party members... well, it's a little odd, yeah. Building your party together in the beginning can really make a difference here; that's water under the bridge, though. Next time you start a new campaign, make sure everybody's connected to everybody else.

If you have a common goal--you've been sent on the same mission, etc.--your character would not have a problem working with them. Since they're neutral, they probably won't want to do extreme evil to begin with* and probably will have their biggest conflict with your character on the Law-versus-Chaos axis. Thankfully this isn't most paladins' biggest issue, and you may well be playing a character whose primary attachment to Law is in personal honor, discipline, and such--things that don't really extend to insisting others behave the same way. Leading by example is a good idea here. Also, talk to the other players out-of-game, and explain you want to make this work--find reasons for your characters to work together. Friendship is a good reason; so is finding things to admire about each other. Maybe your CN friend loves his family or can't stand to see a woman hurt. Maybe your CN friends admire your skill with weaponry or diplomacy.

I'm LG in real life, and have a few CN friends; and we find common ground. (CN is very common where I live; I'm a college student, after all!) We've often agreed that once we understand each others' positions on various topics, we won't argue about it anymore; nobody will be convinced and big arguments will just damage our friendship. And I have to admit that I like their spontaneity and they like my dependability--there's no reason why we should learn to get along with only those who believe exactly what we believe. Diversity is a good thing. Think about your own life--the different outlooks you and your friends have--and yet you remain friends. Try to capture that vibe in your party, and it'll work out okay.

*Unless they're those CN-in-name-only who are really CE. Those are annoying.

[Delwugor]

Make them role play out the argument. They make their arguments and then skill checks (diplomacy/bluff/intimate/sense motive) to determine how well they got their points across. Maybe the other characters join in the argument one one side or another. No matter what try to keep the role playing fun and keep it in character.

[Duskranger]

Let yourself (Zeikstraal) be the big bad guy. They find out that the stuff has been stolen from the corpses in the moments they were talking amd arguing.

Ranger and paladin will have the same goal from that moment on though for different reasons.

Seems to me though that the ranger tries to be a Dutchie, selling everything and looting everyone. It does not work, on the other hand why did the partymembers make all a CN character knowing a Paladin would be in the party? That seems just wrong.

[Talentless]

Honestly, these are the situations that make me cry/burn out on DMing. When the other people in the party specifically know what kind of character a player will be playing, and decide to make a character that actively despises what the other player's character stands for.

Making a CN character for a game with a Paladin? Normally not too much of a problem if the player is mature about it. A CN character who specifically is racist against the Paladin's race AND hate's what a Paladin stands for? That's just metagame trolling to be a **** IMO.

There are other options for a Paladin in this situation, but most of them hinge on the party/party member in question being Reasonable. In this case, as described, I am just not seeing a player who specifically makes a character to screw with the party Paladin as being reasonable about this, and punching said character is, again IMO, a perfectly acceptable response to this situation.

As for possible lethal damage response from the Ranger, as long as he is of equal level to the paladin, he should be fully capable of responding with non-lethal force. He isn't required to do so, but as he is fully capable of it, choosing to up the ante to lethal force frees the Paladin to defend himself equally. Sure, the Paladin instigated the fight, but the Ranger knowingly upped the stakes when he didn't have too, resulting in mutual blame, which in the given situation, isn't enough for an instant fall by the Paladin. Putting him on notice so that next time something similar happens the Paladin will fall? Yes, yes it should. Instant karmarific fall such as Miko's? No.

[Reficule]

None of that matters, the paladin will not fall over it. Just because something is unreasonable or unjustifiable does not make it capital E Evil. You are forgetting that every action does not need to be defined as "Good" or "Evil", there is Law, Chaos, and Neutrality, none of which endanger paladin status outside of radical alignment shift.

Alignments are a character's worldview and a general metric for actions. Alignments do NOT shift after each and every action to fit the characters behavior in the last five minutes. In fact, most actions should not even be given an alignment of their own, instead opting for a retrospective generalization of "What kind of person is he." A paladin is completely within his rights to start an altercation and to match any escalation. If you will remember, Miko did not fall until she murdered her liege, therefore nothing Miko did before then was Evil. This paladin is certainly a hell of a lot less violent than MIKO.

[Yorae]

Make them role play out the argument. They make their arguments and then skill checks (diplomacy/bluff/intimate/sense motive) to determine how well they got their points across. Maybe the other characters join in the argument one one side or another. No matter what try to keep the role playing fun and keep it in character.

Ooh! I like the idea of using skill checks to solve this -- it ends the conflict nice and cleanly, and the DM can ultimately determine that one side convinced the other and settle the matter, proceed with the adventure, and not lose anyone.

[Callista]

Well... it's an option. But really, PC-vs.-PC should be settled with role-play. If you have to resort to skill checks, it's getting pretty bad.

On the other hand, using skill checks can be interesting. Just roll the skill check first, before you do the role-play. That way, if you flub the skill check, you know you're going to make a bad argument or accidentally insult someone; or if you have a lot of ranks, maybe just make a mediocre sort of point. On the other hand, if you get a high check, then you can make the best argument you can think of. But this is very RP-heavy, and it seems to me like if you're doing skill checks because the players don't want to RP, then this won't work too well either.

Seriously, why do people have it in for paladins so much? They're a perfectly good class. They're the archetypal knight-in-shining-armor. Mechanically a little weak; but then, if everybody else is playing around the same tier and/or you have a group of cooperative-style players, there's not going to be a big issue there. Of course there are the jerk paladin players; but you could say the same for rogues and wizards and every other class. Sometimes I start to wonder whether it isn't just a matter of real-life bleeding over into the game world... that some people just don't like the idea of living by rules, and will get so upset over it that even in a fictional world they'll try to pull down a fictional character who has a black-and-white sort of ethos.

In my RL gaming group, the one or two people who truly hate paladins are like that... they're the kind of people who go on the warpath if you dare to mention that there's ever a right or wrong choice, that anything is ever more than relative, that there's any reason not to do something other than "I might get caught"... They're very immature people. It's not the moral relativism (I know other moral relativists who are quite mature); it's more like they just react with a sort of reflexive "NO!" when faced with the idea that there are limits on what a person should do. It's almost like it's a trigger with them or something. It really confuses me... I mean, it's a game. I wanna play St. George and slay a dragon. I wanna have fun playing the absolutely dependable guy who saves little kids and might as well be wearing a Superman costume made out of chain mail, the guy who stands up for his friends and his town and his king, and maybe speaks in Shakespearean English if I feel like it. And they have to bring all their baggage into it...

[ffone]

I say stripping dead NPC bodies is Good b/c of you don't, eventually the graves will get looted by someone else and the gear as likely as not will get (sold one or more times then) used for Evil. Dudes might go around with Detect Magic sort of like those guys in RL who go along beaches with metal detectors. And fresh graves are usually visibly evident.

[Gnaeus]

Should the paladin fall? No.

Should the paladin leave the party? Yes. Skill checks may resolve this problem this time, but next time they will just skip the argument phase.

If you don't like the other players, leave the group.
If you do like the other players, be more mature than they are, go to them, ask what kind of character you can build that they will not screw with.

Ask the DM to have your paladin reappear several levels later as an NPC lawman with a posse and a grudge.

[Quelstaman]

Should the paladin leave the party? Yes. Skill checks may resolve this problem this time, but next time they will just skip the argument phase.

I dont intend on using checks to resolve the problem at hand, i will just RP it out. As for me leaving the party, maybe. We havent played this party long and im trying to get this to work.



Ask the DM to have your paladin reappear several levels later as an NPC lawman with a posse and a grudge.

In any case, i will never let my characters played by someone else. A lot of very bad experiences with those situations.

[Quelstaman]

I say stripping dead NPC bodies is Good b/c of you don't, eventually the graves will get looted by someone else and the gear as likely as not will get (sold one or more times then) used for Evil. Dudes might go around with Detect Magic sort of like those guys in RL who go along beaches with metal detectors. And fresh graves are usually visibly evident.

this is just ridiculous...

[ffone]

this is just ridiculous...

I vehemently disagree; it's not like grave robbing is historically uncommon. In a world where:

1. there is a class of people with short life expectancies who often carry valuable gear (adventurers)
2. there is magic to detect the most valuable of said gear (Detect Magic, IIRC there are some metal-detecting spells), and a few people have Permanencied it on themselves so they can walk around using it everywhere
3. a lot of the currency / trade goods consistent of precious metals and gems

I'd expect grave robbing to be at least as common. And grave robbers are probably at least as likely to be Evil as random joes, so if you are a Good party, you can

1. use the stuff, contributing to your Good objectives
2. leave it for whomever

2. might be more 'honorable' to some people. But it's almost certainly less utilitarian. And it's not quite The Trolley Problem since you're not doing anything concretely bad to anyone (it's not like killing a rich, innocent person so you can use their wealth to add to your WBL and help do other Good deeds).

[Yorae]

I vehemently disagree; it's not like grave robbing is historically uncommon. In a world where:

1. there is a class of people with short life expectancies who often carry valuable gear (adventurers)
2. there is magic to detect said gear (Detect Magic, IIRC there are some metal-detecting spells)
3. a lot of the currency / trade goods consistent of precious metals and gems

I'd expect grave robbing to be at least as common. And grave robbers are probably at least as likely to be Evil as random joes, so if you are a Good party, you can

1. use the stuff, contributing to your Good objectives
2. leave it for whomever

2. might be more 'honorable' to some people. But it's almost certainly less utilitarian.

Or build an impenetrable super-tomb.

Although, come to think of it, that would probably attract adventurers even faster.

[ffone]

Or build an impenetrable super-tomb.

Although, come to think of it, that would probably attract adventurers even faster.

lol. And it takes a lot of time and resources away from doing Good Deeds.

[Stormageddon]

This is why players should create their characters as a group. :smallconfused: Honestly this is a pretty small problem. What's going to happen when bigger questions of morality start to spring up?

It sounds like there some OOC character angst in the party. The guy with the halfling built his character just to be an ass to the paladin. I don't know if he just doesn't like paladins or doesn't like the guy playing the paladin, but I would suggest sitting down as a group and try to figure out what the OOC problem is.

[Quelstaman]

I vehemently disagree; it's not like grave robbing is historically uncommon. In a world where:

1. there is a class of people with short life expectancies who often carry valuable gear (adventurers)
2. there is magic to detect the most valuable of said gear (Detect Magic, IIRC there are some metal-detecting spells), and a few people have Permanencied it on themselves so they can walk around using it everywhere
3. a lot of the currency / trade goods consistent of precious metals and gems

I'd expect grave robbing to be at least as common. And grave robbers are probably at least as likely to be Evil as random joes, so if you are a Good party, you can

1. use the stuff, contributing to your Good objectives
2. leave it for whomever

2. might be more 'honorable' to some people. But it's almost certainly less utilitarian. And it's not quite The Trolley Problem since you're not doing anything concretely bad to anyone (it's not like killing a rich, innocent person so you can use their wealth to add to your WBL and help do other Good deeds).

1. Its not magic, nor metal.
2. the party is in the middle of nowhere right now.

It may be unfair to call it ridiculous because you didnt understand the situation. But i hardly believe that metal dedector mages run around the middle of nowhere. (the idea just makes me laugh im sorry)

[Laendri]

A good paladin will talk the ranger to do not do that, explaining things about honor, dignity and such. If the ranger persist he have two options, declare the ranger intentions evil and becoming his enemy ( not killing him, but maybe trying to kick him off hte group) or sacrifice his own equipment to the ranger for a pacifist solution ( like: "Please ranger, if you want loot so bad, take this gold coins and buy some, but let the deads rest in peace")

Also the situation might be "Ranger: I need his bow because we need to defeat that superbad guy and mine sucks" or might be "Ranger: He was a ranger like me, we take what we can be provided by our surrounding to survive. I think he would like me to have his bow and revenge his dead with it."


But leading to a situation of "you do that I punch you" means they cant roleplay at all.

[Quelstaman]

A good paladin will talk the ranger to do not do that, explaining things about honor, dignity and such. If the ranger persist he have two options, declare the ranger intentions evil and becoming his enemy ( not killing him, but maybe trying to kick him off hte group) or sacrifice his own equipment to the ranger for a pacifist solution ( like: "Please ranger, if you want loot so bad, take this gold coins and buy some, but let the deads rest in peace")

Indeed, at first i will talk to him, and i will warn him that i will take actions against him if he does take it.



Also the situation might be "Ranger: I need his bow because we need to defeat that superbad guy and mine sucks" or might be "Ranger: He was a ranger like me, we take what we can be provided by our surrounding to survive. I think he would like me to have his bow and revenge his dead with it."

If the ranger would start persuading me i would most certainly play along to avoid party conflict. However i do not believe this will be the case at this point.



But leading to a situation of "you do that I punch you" means they cant roleplay at all.

No, No and again no.

first of all, i will reason, and explain consequentes when he decides to take that action. I will make a friendly request, and more serieus semi-threats to leave the loot alone. If he doesnt respond, or persists on doing it, it is well within normal standerd that someone would back up his word. That is not bad roleplay, that is roleplay.

[Delwugor]

This is why players should create their characters as a group. :smallconfused: Honestly this is a pretty small problem. What's going to happen when bigger questions of morality start to spring up?
You have a good time role playing it out in game? You are correct that this is very small for a Paladin moral issue.


But leading to a situation of "you do that I punch you" means they cant roleplay at all.
I would interpret it as their characters are settling a situation by fighting.


I dont intend on using checks to resolve the problem at hand, i will just RP it out.
Skill checks are an option and hardly necessary to role play.


Indeed, at first i will talk to him, and i will warn him that i will take actions against him if he does take it.

If the ranger would start persuading me i would most certainly play along to avoid party conflict. However i do not believe this will be the case at this point.

No, No and again no.

first of all, i will reason, and explain consequentes when he decides to take that action. I will make a friendly request, and more serieus semi-threats to leave the loot alone. If he doesnt respond, or persists on doing it, it is well within normal standerd that someone would back up his word. That is not bad roleplay, that is roleplay.
*Bows* This is very good!

[Zeikstraal]

In any case, i will never let my characters played by someone else. A lot of very bad experiences with those situations.

Hahaha, my super tough and strong Dwarven Barbarian that turned into a Bunny hugger:smallbiggrin:

We wont do it with skill checks, then the Paladin Hatin Bard will win. Unless he has some very unlucky rolls.
I hope they will roleplay it, and come with a solution. And I hope everyone will act as an adult.

I asked the Paladin hater why he played Someone who hated humans who have authority and carry out the law. He responded that he only hates humans who have authority and carry out the law by ways of violence. I told him about the Vow of non violence that allowed non lethal damage. And that the Paladin will not kick the crap out of him but just would give him a punch to show that he isn't someone to be messing with.
Also asked him when someone is caught stealing and a townguard sees it and punch the thief and put on some manacles. He would jump at the guard and try to kill him?

Haven't got an response back yet.

[druid91]

The paladin is in a lose-lose situation (primarily because he has yet to remove the lawful-stupid stick from his colon.) The ranger is not doing anything evil--it is merely practical to use the gear available to you. it's not like the dead have any more use for it.

So the paladin attacks for non-lethal, perfectly allowable. In self-defense, the ranger starts swinging swords - which isn't even an evil act, but if it was, the ranger has no code of conduct. At this point, the paladin must either (1) keep doing non-lethal (at a major disadvantage), or (2) risk losing his paladin powers for committing an evil act. He cannot claim to be defending himself, he initiated the combat against the ranger, who is not evil. If he kills the ranger, he will lose his powers for attacking and killing a non-evil party member. If the ranger kills the paladin, they go on their merry way.

How is this lawful stupid? This is good roleplaying. You bury your dead in their armour with their weapon. Prefferably surronded by the weapons of his slain enemies.

That's the point it may be practical, but it's also practical to simply animate their ally as a zombie. Good is not about being practical, being a paladin even less so.

As for your assesment, no at the very least if I were DMing, the paladin punches him to knock some sense into him the halfling could respond in kind and I wouldn't think anything of it. But if he proceeds to pull out swords I'd happily drop him to evil. Meaning the paladin could happily tear his head off.

And I play evil characters. The halfling is the problem, not the paladin.

[Delwugor]

The halfling is the problem, not the paladin.
This is the way I see it also.

[hamishspence]

Personally I think both are at fault- the paladin for punching when punching was a disproportionate response, the halfling for escalating it further.

From the The Giant article I linked to earlier:


Decide to React Differently: Have you ever had a party break down into fighting over the actions of one of their members? Has a character ever threatened repeatedly to leave the party? Often, intraparty fighting boils down to one player declaring, "That's how my character would react." Heck, often you'll be the one saying it; it's a common reaction when alignments or codes of ethics clash.

However, it also creates a logjam where neither side wants to back down. The key to resolving this problem is to decide to react differently. You are not your character, and your character is not a separate entity with reactions that you cannot control. I can't tell you how many times I've heard a player state that their character's actions are not under their control. Every decision your character makes is your decision first. It is possible and even preferable for you to craft a personality that is consistent but also accommodating of the characters the other players wish to play.

When you think about a situation, ask yourself, "Is this the only way my character can react to this?" Chances are, the answer is, "No." Try to refine your character so that you can deal with situations that conflict with your alignment/ethos without resorting to ultimatums, threats, etc. This will often mean thinking in terms of compromise and concession to your fellow players, or at the very least an agreement to disagree.

Here's another example: In a campaign I DM'd, the party's bard lifted a magical sword behind the back of the party's Lawful Good monk. The monk had basically decided that the bodies of several fallen knights would be buried without looting, and rather than argue, the bard just grabbed the sword. The bad news was, the sword was cursed; it was the blade that had belonged to a ghost that roamed the castle, and whenever the bard drew it, the ghost materialized and attacked him (and only him). Eventually, the bard 'fessed up that he had stolen the sword. The monk (and the monk's player) became furious, and declared that he could no longer travel with the bard. Either the bard had to leave, or he would. It became a huge argument between characters and players, and it was entirely unnecessary. The monk did not have to react with an ultimatum; the monk did not even have to be angry, no matter what his alignment was. The bard had already suffered the misfortune of having his Charisma drained by the ghost repeatedly; the monk could have chosen (for example) to lecture the bard on how his theft had brought him nothing but misery. He chose to create player conflict when it was just as easy to not.

Personally, I blame the paladin for this. The original paladin class created the precedent for one player thinking he has the right to dictate the morality of other players. That drives me nuts. Ever since, players who select a Lawful Good character automatically assume it is up to them to police the rest of the party, and too often, the rest of the party lets them. As far as I'm concerned, no player has the right to tell another player how to act. Lawful Good is not the "right" way to be, and it is unacceptable to push your character's ideals on other players whether they want them or not.

[Rei_Jin]

I think the problem is the rest of the party. Anytime I see people playing a CN alignment, alarm bells go off for me. But this time, it's multiple CN PCs in a party with a Paladin (who was made before them) which just screams "trolling" to me.

I don't play with people who do that sort of thing, because all it can lead to is arguments and bad feelings. I wouldn't be surprised if the player of the Paladin gets trolled even if he remakes and comes in with a CN PC.

Sometimes, it's not worth playing.

[noparlpf]

Ick. A completely CN party except for the poor Paladin? I really hate it when players default to CN. It's a very self-serving alignment. I personally tend towards NG because it and CN are the easier ones for me to play and I dislike defaulting to CN.

Anyhow, the questions at hand:
1. Is looting a dead body an evil act?
2. Is fighting the Ranger to stop him from looting the bodies an act outside of a Paladin of Honor's code of conduct?

For Question 1, I would say that looting a body disrespects the dead but is definitely in line with the general description of CN in 3.5e, not evil. However, from a Heironean perspective it might be considered to be evil. I would tend to say that the act isn't evil in and of itself, but it's DM's call.

For Question 2, I would say that fighting the Ranger over this is completely within the Paladin's code of conduct. Disrespecting the dead is dishonorable, and a Paladin who feels strongly about burying the dead could get into a fight over it. Besides, it sounds like he even warned the Ranger that he would fight to stop him from looting the dead. That is a fair warning, and if the Ranger then proceeds to loot the bodies anyway, the Paladin is not acting dishonorably or evilly if he punches the Ranger. If he had said that he would fight to protect the dead using his full power, the Paladin would even be within his rights to attack lethally with his sword because he gave fair warning.
I recently played a Heironean Paladin in a six-month roleplay-heavy campaign, so I had to get very familiar with my code of conduct and spent a good amount of time out of game thinking about what was moral for a Paladin. Unfortunately, the government of our city turned out to be horribly corrupt and my DM called that I would have to multiclass into Paladin of Freedom from Unearthed Arcana to turn against the government, even though I would have said that fighting a corrupt government and holding the greater good as the highest law fits into LG as long as the character's actions follow a firm moral code.

This is why I write wills for my characters. I've looted bodies before, even as good characters, for various reasons. I just don't like it done to me.

[Quelstaman]

Personally I think both are at fault- the paladin for punching when punching was a disproportionate response, the halfling for escalating it further.

First off, i don't agree that non-lethal damage is out of proportion in this situation. Second, i did read the article. Altough i do agree with the article, and as i said before i am willing to back down on it. But to be honest, this isnt a one way street here. This might sound selfish, but i made my character first, everyone knew my character and what he would stand for. If they decide to make an anti-me for whatever reason, then that is there choise. And even after that happened, i still try to let everyone have there fun, and compromise. I will listen to reason.

[Gwendol]

I really, really, dislike CN characters. That said, resorting to violence against a team mate seem to be a complete break down of communication. The real issue is however OOC and thus, needs to be settled there before allowing the game to proceed. The CN team seems to be created as a direct response to the Paladin, which means even if this issue is resolved the next conflict will probably not be more than an encounter away.

[druid91]

Personally I think both are at fault- the paladin for punching when punching was a disproportionate response, the halfling for escalating it further.

From the The Giant article I linked to earlier:

No punching was nowhere near a disproportionate response. A disproportionate response would be stabbing the halfling.

Just so it's clear, I as a DM wouldn't really care if two characters came to blows over something, They are rough and tough adventurers for crying out loud! They are going to have disagreements, and when your primary skill is killing things those disagreements are going to become sparing matches.

However if you pull out a weapon (For my purposes magic counts as a weapon:smalltongue:) and intend to kill or wound your teammate? That's an instant drop to evil. The only exception would be if it's all part of some crazy PC plan.


I think the problem is the rest of the party. Anytime I see people playing a CN alignment, alarm bells go off for me. But this time, it's multiple CN PCs in a party with a Paladin (who was made before them) which just screams "trolling" to me.

I don't play with people who do that sort of thing, because all it can lead to is arguments and bad feelings. I wouldn't be surprised if the player of the Paladin gets trolled even if he remakes and comes in with a CN PC.

Sometimes, it's not worth playing.

CN can work with paladins, or at least paladin like personalities. I once played a game where everyone was chaotic something, either good or neutral, except the wizard. He was lawful good. It was fantastic until half the party died, he switched characters to the wizards daughter, and my guy retired because of a destroyed character sheet and the fact that he could probably beat nearly anyone in his druid sect in a fight.

[PetterTomBos]

Hmm, let's look at this from a story-like perspective. I can imagine the party gathering around his grave (or funeral pyre for that matter), saying out some last words. The ranger goes:

"These should not be left behind for animals, or enemies, to eat or dishonor" and picks up some iconic item or two. (Like his wellmade longbow which equal is not made these times , or w.e) the scene could be awesome. It could be the ranger's last respect to the NPC.

Then someone, perhaps the paladin, agrees and swears to bring the NPCs gold to his family, to keep them fed and well.

We leave our heroes as they shovel dirt over the NPCs body, still intact with clothing and minor stuff (like his waterskin, and masterwork dagger). That could be a good, honorable end for the NPC!

What would look tacky and weird would be for the ranger to go shifting trough the body, taking anything with a listed price.. Before turning around, leaving the paladin to quickly say the few words he can before moving on.

The ranger should consider some RP with the NPCs, what would be cooler than a long talk about the fact that not everyone might make it trough ? Quite a tacky example perhaps, but the manowar song "riders of the song" has some lines going "If I should die in battle, you brothers who stand by my side, gather my horse and weapons, tell my family how I died". The CN "myself first" guy could be doing this partly just to get that paladin out of his face, but the pally doesn't need to know that..

Just some ideas :)

[hamishspence]

No punching was nowhere near a disproportionate response. A disproportionate response would be stabbing the halfling.

The paladin's code says they "punish those that harm or threaten innocents".

So if someone's act they object to, does not qualify as either of these, they don't really have an excuse to initiate violence.

Forged Fury said it best:


Paladins can't just go around smiting people because they disagree with their actions. The actions themselves have to pretty much be evil in order for a paladin to be able to back up the talk. The ultimate question is whether the ranger stripping the bodies of dead NPCs is evil. I don't really think so and the paladin's resistance to the action seems more along the lines of a cultural or personal code rather than something divinely ordained.

TL; DR: Paladins don't have carte blanche to smack anyone with whom they disagree. The person being smacked must have committed a greivous, most likely evil, act.

[Taelas]

The paladin's code says they "punish those that harm or threaten innocents".

So if someone's act they object to, does not qualify as either of these, they don't really have an excuse to initiate violence.
Uh, no. They can initiate violence whenever they want as long as doing so does not conflict with their alignment or their code of conduct.

Paladins are people, too. They can get in a bar fight without falling from grace.

[DwarfFighter]

Sorry I skipped most of this discussion, but I'd just like to throw in a suggestion here. Since the instinctive nature of both players is to resolve the issue in-game, it appears the party needs a suitable game mechanic for resolving these conflicts:

Each player that has involved themselves in the conflict gets to roll a d20, and who-ever scores the highest "wins".

I wouldn't recommend resolving this as an opposed check that involves character abilities or skills. This is a conflict of interest between the players.

The reason I would prefer a roll-off to a vote is that the vote will usually defeat the "disruptive" interests of the minority every time, thus pretty much negating their influence on the game. If the group is 20% lawful then that should come into play 20% of the time.

I would also prefer that only the players that have stated a clear opinion on the matter (even if it's simply "I agree with Bob") get to make a roll. After all, if they have no opinion on the matter then they certainly aren't going to solve anything if they win the roll-off.

After the roll-off it's up to the players to role-play the result: The paladin successfully persuades the ranger that honoring the fallen is more important than the short-term gain of a new bow; or the ranger persuades the paladin that it is appropriate that the dead ranger's bow be used as an instrument of justice.

And at least the players can only complain about their lousy luck when they don't get their way.

-DF

[hamishspence]

Uh, no. They can initiate violence whenever they want as long as doing so does not conflict with their alignment or their code of conduct.

Paladins are people, too. They can get in a bar fight without falling from grace.

Initiating an unnecessary bar fight is "causing unnecessary suffering"- which is evil by most moral principles.

Now intervening in a bar fight to protect people who are being unjustly attacked- that's fine- but paladins should be careful whenever they initiate violence, that they have just cause and good intentions (BoED).

Not to mention that assault is a crime- and paladin's are supposed to avoid committing crimes where reasonably possible.

Going right back to the PHB "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others".

I perceive these three acts, as ones that require justification, otherwise they qualify as evil. Whenever you hurt someone- you need a reason- a good reason. Which is to say, one that involves protecting somebody- including the self.

[druid91]

The paladin's code says they "punish those that harm or threaten innocents".

So if someone's act they object to, does not qualify as either of these, they don't really have an excuse to initiate violence.

Forged Fury said it best:

Considering the draconomicon has a dragon paladin who will swat people with her tail (Just the tip, the dragon equivalent of punching for nonlethal) for merely being rude....


Initiating an unnecessary bar fight is "causing unnecessary suffering"- which is evil by most moral principles.

Now intervening in a bar fight to protect people who are being unjustly attacked- that's fine- but paladins should be careful whenever they initiate violence, that they have just cause and good intentions (BoED).

Not to mention that assault is a crime- and paladin's are supposed to avoid committing crimes where reasonably possible.

Now, this is tricky, a paladin can't get involved in a bar fight just for the sake of having a good fight. It isn't evil but definitely isn't paladiny.

However, say for example the paladin is talking to a barmaid and someone makes a rude comment about her. And she obviously dislikes it.

From there it would be perfectly acceptable for the paladin to first demand an apology for the girl, and if it comes to that start a barfight.

No paladins are supposed to remain lawful and good. It's pretty much their job to bash peoples heads in.

[hamishspence]

Considering the draconomicon has a dragon paladin who will swat people with her tail (Just the tip, the dragon equivalent of punching for nonlethal) for merely being rude....

A Lawful Good dragon. Not the same thing as a paladin dragon. Good characters can occasionally do morally dubious things and remain Good.


No paladins are supposed to remain lawful and good. It's pretty much their job to bash peoples heads in.

While respecting legitimate authority. Which means, obeying its laws where reasonably possible.

The line between "evil violence" and "nonevil violence" can be a tricky one for a DM to define, true, and a paladin might feel the need to "defend their honor/that of someone else, when it comes under attack" (after all, not all attacks are physical).

But it's still a case of defense.

[Silfir]

If the ranger goes "Yoink! I'll be taking these" and tells the protesting paladin "Bite me" then he deserves a punch in the face. Looting the corpse of a former ally for reasons of selfishness and with no regards for the implications is evil and it's the paladin's duty to try and stop him, at least by persuasion (punch in the face ranks as persuasion in a roughneck adventurer group).

All the ranger has to do is whip up a halfway reasonable excuse, basically. Point out that his own understanding of loyalty and the afterlife differs from the paladin's, and that he himself would allow, even expect, his comrades to use his equipment to further the goals of the party. Something to show that he is at least considering the ethics of the situation, even if the paladin and him don't share the same view. A Chaotic character values personal freedom, so he would make the point that it is first and foremost up to the deceased how he wishes to be treated after death, and that the paladin should not assume his view is the same as the deceased's unless he knows otherwise. Offer that while he will take the items for now and might sell them to ease transport, he promises that if the party can locate any of the dead NPC's relatives or dependants, they will receive the items in addition to news of the NPC's death.

Basically, unless the ranger delivers a reasoning that makes looting the corpse of a former ally a chaotic neutral act rather than a chaotic evil "Because I want them and I dont care about that guy", the paladin has no choice but to interfere. Give proper reasoning and perhaps a compromise, and the paladin may be - grudgingly - able to tolerate the act. This is no less a sacrifice from him than it might be for the Chaotic Neutrals to have to explain their motives.

[hamishspence]

I'd say it's more obligatory when the evil act is one that "harms or threatens innocents".

Absent that, the paladin may have more discretion.

If the act is not evil at all, but simply one that "offends against the paladin's personal beliefs"- violence might not be justified at all.

As in the previously mentioned example of a teetotaler paladin who disapproves of drinking, punching someone for drinking.

[druid91]

A Lawful Good dragon. Not the same thing as a paladin dragon. Good characters can occasionally do morally dubious things and remain Good.



While respecting legitimate authority. Which means, obeying its laws where reasonably possible.

The line between "evil violence" and "nonevil violence" can be a tricky one for a DM to define, true, and a paladin might feel the need to "defend their honor/that of someone else, when it comes under attack" (after all, not all attacks are physical).

But it's still a case of defense.

Really?:smallconfused: Coulda sworn it was a gold dragon paladin that did that.

And here is the thing, The paladin is defending the NPC's honor, his right to be buried with his gear.

Did they take Kamina's sword when he died? No they tied his cloak to it and used it as a headstone.

[Silfir]

It does threaten to ensure that the dependants of the dead NPC will lose their rightful possessions, on which they might come to depend for survival - that's why the ranger might suggest that he will take over the responsibility of caring for them, should he find them, as compensation for taking the stuff. That is at least one way in which innocents might come to harm in a more direct manner by this particular act of evil, and the ranger might be able to alleviate this concern.

More broadly, it might also cause principles of loyalty and alliances to decay - by betraying this ally, the ranger will fuel mistrust in others who witness what happens. Your typical Crapsack World is one in which everyone betrays anyone and no one can trust on your fellow man to do right by you. Everytime someone gets away with breach of trust and loyalty, the world turns one step darker, and innocents are one step closer to harm. In other words, there are no acts of evil that do not threaten to harm innocents in some manner. Paladins can pick their battles to some degree - they cannot fight all evil at once so they might resolve to fight the more harmful evil first and with greater fervor - but not to the point they can simply ignore an evil act for the sake of party cohesion.

[hamishspence]

Really?:smallconfused: Coulda sworn it was a gold dragon paladin that did that.

Nope- it's an ordinary gold dragon. None of the sample dragons in that section of the book have class levels.

I'm not sure about the "there are no acts of evil that do not threaten to harm innocents in some way" argument.

Destroying the soul of an exceptionally evil villain is still an evil act- but what innocents were harmed?

A case could be made that by committing evil acts, even ones that don't directly harm innocents, a character is increasing the influence of the cosmic force Evil- which with that extra influence, is able to increase the amount of harm it does.


Paladins can pick their battles to some degree - they cannot fight all evil at once so they might resolve to fight the more harmful evil first and with greater fervor - but not to the point they can simply ignore an evil act for the sake of party cohesion.

True- they can't ignore it- but they might be expected to restrict their response to admonitions.

When a LN cleric of Wee Jas rebukes undead in order to protect the party- that's an evil act by the PHB- but it's so minor a one, that the paladin really shouldn't punch the cleric for doing it.

[druid91]

Nope- it's an ordinary gold dragon. None of the sample dragons in that section of the book have class levels.

I'm not sure about the "there are no acts of evil that do not threaten to harm innocents in some way" argument.

Destroying the soul of an exceptionally evil villain is still an evil act- but what innocents were harmed?

A case could be made that by committing evil acts, even ones that don't directly harm innocents, a character is increasing the influence of the cosmic force Evil- which with that extra influence, is able to increase the amount of harm it does.

Well, if you destroy the soul, all that evil that was locked up inside is now loose, and you are likely to have tainted the area where it happened forever.

Some kids accidentally hit a ball into the "haunted" woods and pressure little billy to go and get it, he is never heard from again, but now travelers are being attacked by the "beast of nowhere" A tiny manlike creature with eyes of green flame, followed by a horde of mutated animals...

[hamishspence]

If the villain and you were already in the Lower Planes, there won't be a zone of "evil-ified terrain" formed.

"Destroyed" in this case, might mean "pushed into a sphere of annihilation" (doing that destroys the soul according to Complete Divine).

BoVD does say that certain evil acts can actually make the area tainted slightly, true.

But, at the low end of the scale, rebuking one undead would not be expected to cause that kind of taint.

[Silfir]

@hamishspence: And I think that is where our paladin's view ties in; his view is that simple admonitions don't have any meaning if they could simply be shrugged off or ignored. So his view seems to be that if he thinks his concerns did fall on deaf ears he would have to give a last warning that this might be the end of his contribution to the party. And that warning needs to have (sorry) some punch behind it if it is to perceived as such. These are some rough dudes, after all. Communication can be physical.

A simply "I'm sorry you feel that way" might be all that is required to satisfy the paladin's need to hear his admonition acknowledged.

[Marnath]

Even if punching someone for looting the dead after you asked them nicely not to was acceptable by a LG viewpoint(I say it's completely unreasonable for something so minor) there's still the point that a smart paladin would realize he's outnumbered, what, 4 to 1? If he strikes the ranger the ranger is well within his rights to defend himself. Sounds to me like the rest of the party is on his side too which could easily lead to the paladin being cast out of the party, assuming they don't just kill him for assaulting a fellow party member for(by their view) no good reason. Way better response for the paladin is to grin and bear it, and leave the party if it really bothers him so much.

*edit: OOC? It's a really jerk move to make a CN character just to troll the party paladin.

[hamishspence]

I suppose, when it comes to beings as tough as adventurers, it wouldn't really be "causing unnecessary suffering".

"The punch as instrument of communication" might be a different thing from "the punch delivered with the intention of making the victim suffer".

Discworld trolls have unusually physical communication- but they have the advantage of being made of living rock.

[Quelstaman]

The paladin's code says they "punish those that harm or threaten innocents".

So if someone's act they object to, does not qualify as either of these, they don't really have an excuse to initiate violence.


Obviously, paladins have a strict code of conduct. But the way i see a paladin, is not just a paladin, an emotionless walking law and code of conduct book. No i whant my paladin to have emotions, and have him make stupid decisions now and then. (not implying that my decision to take action is stupid) He is just human after all. Isnt that what good RP is :)

[Quelstaman]

Even if punching someone for looting the dead after you asked them nicely not to was acceptable by a LG viewpoint(I say it's completely unreasonable for something so minor) there's still the point that a smart paladin would realize he's outnumbered, what, 4 to 1? If he strikes the ranger the ranger is well within his rights to defend himself.

As my paladins point of view, he would rather die protecting the honner of his fallen comrads, then to live a coward, regretting every step of the rest of his life.

[Quelstaman]

Hmm, let's look at this from a story-like perspective. I can imagine the party gathering around his grave (or funeral pyre for that matter), saying out some last words. The ranger goes:

"These should not be left behind for animals, or enemies, to eat or dishonor" and picks up some iconic item or two. (Like his wellmade longbow which equal is not made these times , or w.e) the scene could be awesome. It could be the ranger's last respect to the NPC.

Then someone, perhaps the paladin, agrees and swears to bring the NPCs gold to his family, to keep them fed and well.

We leave our heroes as they shovel dirt over the NPCs body, still intact with clothing and minor stuff (like his waterskin, and masterwork dagger). That could be a good, honorable end for the NPC!

What would look tacky and weird would be for the ranger to go shifting trough the body, taking anything with a listed price.. Before turning around, leaving the paladin to quickly say the few words he can before moving on.

The ranger should consider some RP with the NPCs, what would be cooler than a long talk about the fact that not everyone might make it trough ? Quite a tacky example perhaps, but the manowar song "riders of the song" has some lines going "If I should die in battle, you brothers who stand by my side, gather my horse and weapons, tell my family how I died". The CN "myself first" guy could be doing this partly just to get that paladin out of his face, but the pally doesn't need to know that..

Just some ideas :)

i like this idea, i really do. i hope this would be the case. But i fear this wont be the way it will play out.

[hamishspence]

The question is- is the ranger really being "dishonored" by not being buried in weapons and armour?

And did they specifically request it before they died?

[Marnath]

Obviously, paladins have a strict code of conduct. But the way i see a paladin, is not just a paladin, an emotionless walking law and code of conduct book. No i whant my paladin to have emotions, and have him make stupid decisions now and then. (not implying that my decision to take action is stupid) He is just human after all. Isnt that what good RP is :)

That's a reasonable goal I guess.


As my paladins point of view, he would rather die protecting the honner of his fallen comrads, then to live a coward, regretting every step of the rest of his life.

Wow, overeaction much? It's a freaking bow and some armor, not the kings crown jewels or the silver coins to pay the boatman with in the afterlife.


i like this idea, i really do. i hope this would be the case. But i fear this wont be the way it will play out.

Multiquote is your friend, just like how I did it. It's the little quote mark in the bottom corner there.

[Arbitrarious]

So a couple of questions:

Does the ranger actually NEED what the dead NPC ranger had? I could see taking all but a token handful of arrows and the bow since more arrows are always good. But shouldn't any ranger worth his class have a decent ranged weapon? If the NPCs was better then you could exchange them and bury him the other. If he doesn't actually need the weapon and just wants the money it's greed. Not straight evil, but paladins are just as lawful as good and I would side with him. In the long run the DM will make the WBL right. However considering the party make-up it might be best to tally the instances like and leave at 3 rather then trying to force the issue.

Second, why do people always downplay the L/C aspect of alignment conflict? Chaos vs Law should be as big, or small, an issue as Good vs Evil. You RP and make it work or swap characters. I am actually playing a paladin-esque LG character (not class, but following a strict coc) in a (formerly) chaotic party. I make compromises often, but there are times I draw hard lines. Since my party respects me and knows I compromise for them they grant me the same consideration when I ask for it. Once though, there was one CG PC who asked me why I diplomanced with a LE group of half dragons rather then just fight them. They were in their own territory (we were the outsiders) and they didn't initiate hostilities. I turned to him and said "Your alignment is as far away from mine as theirs." It took him awhile to realize the implications of that statement.

[Quelstaman]

The question is- is the ranger really being "dishonored" by not being buried in weapons and armour?

And did they specifically request it before they died?

To my paladin, it would be dishonered to the death.

They did not request it before they died.



Wow, overeaction much? It's a freaking bow and some armor, not the kings crown jewels or the silver coins to pay the boatman with in the afterlife.


Im just protecting its honner, its not like im killing the ranger, just a correctional punch in the face :)



So a couple of questions:
Does the ranger actually NEED what the dead NPC ranger had? I could see taking all but a token handful of arrows and the bow since more arrows are always good.

He doesnt really need it. a token would be fine, but i fear this will be more the likes of grave robbing. Trowing the dead npcs in their graves, stripped to the underwear. (If they are lucky)



Multiquote is your friend, just like how I did it. It's the little quote mark in the bottom corner there.

why thank you kind sir

[Marnath]

He doesnt really need it. a token would be fine, but i fear this will be more the likes of grave robbing. Trowing the dead npcs in their graves, stripped to the underwear. (If they are lucky)

Let me put it to you this way: how many people in real life do you know who get buried with their tools/computer/stuff they did their job with? It's not dishonorable to be buried in just a nice suit of clothes. Now, it is something to be said that the possessions go the heirs, but those laws may not exist in the country your party is in, or among NPC ranger's people. Ask your DM what the laws of the area are concerning burial and the possessions of the deceased. It's important because your paladin would know them, and if the law happens to state that the deceased's possessions are divided among his friends or something, you wouldn't be outraged because it's the proper way.

[Quelstaman]

Let me put it to you this way: how many people in real life do you know who get buried with their tools/computer/stuff they did their job with?

imagine this: you, me and our best friend frank are walking down the road. Just chillin havin fun. then all of the sudden, frank gets hit by a ****ing truck. And i quickly reach down to frank and take his wallet. And i kinda liked his shirt. So what the hell, i take that to.

[Taelas]

Initiating an unnecessary bar fight is "causing unnecessary suffering"- which is evil by most moral principles.
I never used those qualifiers, so good luck with the straw man.

As long as the paladin does not break his code of conduct, does not commit an Evil act, and does not become a different alignment than Lawful Good, everything's gravy as far as his paladin status is concerned.


Now intervening in a bar fight to protect people who are being unjustly attacked- that's fine- but paladins should be careful whenever they initiate violence, that they have just cause and good intentions (BoED).
I would advise against looking at the BoED when it comes to alignment issues. It is a very poorly written book.


Not to mention that assault is a crime- and paladin's are supposed to avoid committing crimes where reasonably possible.
They are supposed to 'respect legitimate authority'. In other words, yes, I agree, I just don't see the point. What is 'reasonable' is, unlike alignment, subjective.


Going right back to the PHB "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others".

I perceive these three acts, as ones that require justification, otherwise they qualify as evil. Whenever you hurt someone- you need a reason- a good reason. Which is to say, one that involves protecting somebody- including the self.
He had justification.

[hamishspence]

I would advise against looking at the BoED when it comes to alignment issues. It is a very poorly written book.

Maybe- but it does define some of the basic principles behind Good characters and violence by them- that is, that it must have just cause, it must have good intentions- and that it must be discriminatory (that is, it should avoid taking out noncombatants along with combatants).

The big issue is "is the act evil"- and if the justification is insufficient, it may be- revenge is not an acceptable reason for violence, for strongly Good character- though stopping further evil acts from being committed, as opposed to "paying them back" for past acts, is acceptable.

BoVD and BoED are the main definers of acts evil and good- in fact, for campaigns like Living Greyhawk, the FAQ suggests using BoVD when the question "what counts as an evil act" comes up.


Paladins are people, too. They can get in a bar fight without falling from grace.

And the point I was making was- this is an oversimplification. Whether or not they fall from grace may depend on whether they started the fight, and for what reason.

[Marnath]

imagine this: you, me and our best friend frank are walking down the road. Just chillin havin fun. then all of the sudden, frank gets hit by a ****ing truck. And i quickly reach down to frank and take his wallet. And i kinda liked his shirt. So what the hell, i take that to.

Touche. :smalltongue: Now I might punch you for that, if it was just us. But if our 3 other friends are standing by saying basically "dude that's fine, he won't need it" I would probably tell you that's not cool but I doubt I'd hit you since everyone else is on your side. Now I'm true neutral not lawful good, but in this scenario I'm not in danger of being stabbed by a bunch of potential psychos for hitting you either.

*edit: my point which I seem to have missed adding, is that while the LG guy might be inclined to throw a punch or two in this situation, he probably wouldn't if it would lead to a full on fight. If he dies for that he can't continue to stop greater crimes like murder, etc.

[hamishspence]

Tou*edit: my point which I seem to have missed adding, is that while the LG guy might be inclined to throw a punch or two in this situation, he probably wouldn't if it would lead to a full on fight. If he dies for that he can't continue to stop greater crimes like murder, etc.

And even if it doesn't end in death, if it takes place in a civilized area, it might bring shame on the paladin, to be arrested for brawling.

[Zeikstraal]

Hmm, let's look at this from a story-like perspective. I can imagine the party gathering around his grave (or funeral pyre for that matter), saying out some last words. The ranger goes:

"These should not be left behind for animals, or enemies, to eat or dishonor" and picks up some iconic item or two. (Like his wellmade longbow which equal is not made these times , or w.e) the scene could be awesome. It could be the ranger's last respect to the NPC.

Quite a tacky example perhaps, but the manowar song "riders of the song" has some lines going "If I should die in battle, you brothers who stand by my side, gather my horse and weapons, tell my family how I died".


if the Ranger will act like this, I am certain that the Paladin would agree with the Ranger.
But I am also pretty sure that Ranger will just go: Ooh nice bow...Mine!!!!
I hope that your scenario will happen instead of what im thinking. If the Ranger does that, I will almost encourage the Pally to whack him with his Sword:smallbiggrin:

The song called Warriors of the World:smallwink: But Its a good example.

[Quelstaman]

Touche. :smalltongue: Now I might punch you for that, if it was just us. But if our 3 other friends are standing by saying basically "dude that's fine, he won't need it" I would probably tell you that's not cool but I doubt I'd hit you since everyone else is on your side. Now I'm true neutral not lawful good, but in this scenario I'm not in danger of being stabbed by a bunch of potential psychos for hitting you either.

I fully accept the consequenses for taking on the ranger in a fist fight. The party is already plotting my death out of character, and there is a change i will die. But i do not whant that to effect my roleplay, if my paladin dies now. i will just play him in a better suited party for it, and accept the fact that this is not the right party for him.

[Zeikstraal]

I fully accept the consequenses for taking on the ranger in a fist fight. The party is already plotting my death out of character, and there is a change i will die. But i do not whant that to effect my roleplay, if my paladin dies now. i will just play him in a better suited party for it, and accept the fact that this is not the right party for him.

And I can confirm that. Got a Text message from him the other day, that he told me that if he punched him he would... It was not meant for me cause why wold he text me of something he just said.

The Ranger wants the bow cause I think in his eyes it was worth very much. Cause I described the Npcs with great detail. He had some nice carvings in his bow. But the only thing that will do the Ranger good is thr +1 damage. So he could just leave it.

[AFS]

SOLUTION:

Make a side quest that the group agrees to return the bodies to the families. The families thank the party and ask if they want anything in return. Party replies with the gear. The family responds with their blessing and the gear.

This only solves this problem once as you can't spend all the time returning corpses to the families. A social contract needs to be agreed upon. As silly as this may sound by a comprise could be that the gear is looted and the next time the group is in a civilized area they can find any living relatives. Then let the dice decide if there is any relatives and how willing they are to part with the gear. This should add some fun RPing. A local garrison of troops should make the looters more apt to hand over the gear if the families want the gear returned. This would promote more RPing from the looters and the families and could lead to tons of quests down the road. I see endless chances for future RPing. I remember reading somewhere in this topic about others looting the corpses once the party leaves. I'm reminded of two silly examples. One being the prime directive of star trek fame.

"Star Trek: The Next Generation: A Matter of Time (#5.9)"
Yes, Professor, I know. What if one of those lives I save down there is a child who grows up to be the next Adolf Hitler, or Khan Singh? Every first-year philosophy student has been asked that question since the earliest wormholes were discovered.

And Tom Hanks in saving Private Ryan. For those that have not seen the movie then stop reading here. They let that German soldier go and he ends up killing TH in the end.

The point I'm trying to make is leaving the gear behind for some child or larger form of evil seems to be a very bad idea. Lets agree as a group to take it and return what we can when we find the families.

Does the paladin have any issues taking gear off enemy corpses?

[Arbitrarious]

Really if they are planning your death then you don't have any options. You can resist and they kill you or you can be their doormat and they use you like a minion. Really is it the PC or the player that they are gunning for? If it's the PC just roll a crusader or a diff flavor of pally. If it's the player then they are really not people you, or possibly anyone, should be playing with.

[Zeikstraal]

Good option AFS thanks. I see that working out.
The Paladin does not have any problem with looting enemys. This for him is just about looting allies.

[druid91]

Well to be honest at this point, If it were me, I'd shrug and let the ranger go ahead. Warn him that this isn't the end of this matter, and leave.

Then go gather up a sizable group of paladins, and hijack the quest, arresting the ranger in the process.

A mission as important as this cannot be entrusted to someone so unstable for the greater good he will be imprisoned until after the world/kingdom/universe/whatever is saved... Etc.

Leave and work out the details of what's going on with your paladin with the DM in private.

Make a substitute character who is obviously evil, or a criminal, but otherwise fits the party perfectly. And then when your paladin returns you have even greater reason to imprison them.

Sure it's a bit of a jerk move, but so is designing the party around trolling one player.

After all this has happened, whichever way it goes, retire the paladin and bring up why all this happened.

Then hopefully you can get on with playing.

[Rei_Jin]

I guess the question no-one has asked yet, is how old are these players, and how mature are they? If we're talking about a bunch of 12 year olds, the way to handle this is very different to what it is if they're all 32.

Also, how much experience do the players have with roleplaying, and the fantasy genre?

The paladins actions in wanting to see his ally buried with his equipment, is no different to what happened in Lord of the Rings (the movie) when Boromir died. They put him in a boat with his belongings, and sent him on to the afterlife. He had a sweet horn, a very good sword and shield, and who knows what else... but they were his, so out of honour for a fallen comrade, they left it with him.

That decision was made by a human ranger, an elven archer (ranger?) and a dwarven fighter, so it's hardly a paladin type action.

The other players are just trolling for this guy, and if they're already planning on how to kill the LG paladin (an evil action in and of itself that should warrant an alignment shift) so I don't see how this can be resolved IC. The DM could step in and bash some heads, tell people to grow up and stop trying to antagonise one another, and see what happens.

But I don't think it will work.

[AFS]

This all seems to be more OOC than IC IMO.

[Callista]

If you're gonna play a paladin, he's got to be more than just "a paladin". They're not all the same, you know.

Some love a good fistfight; others are pacifists. Some will fight to the death to stop grave-robbing; others believe that the dead are of value only to the extent that disrespect would affect the living. You've got young paladins, old ones, paladins who are naive innocents, paladins who've clawed their way out of the worst ranks of evil and are trying to make up for their past, paladins who are the fifth generation of paladin in their families and have to live up to Grandpa's famous fight with the dragon.

There are paladins who were orphans raised in the temple, paladins who were recruited from a mercenary guild, and paladins who don't even know they're paladins, or that paladins exist. There are those who fight with careful strategy, every move planned, and those who fight with single-minded determination. There are emotional ones and intellectual ones.

They might be celibate, or be hopeless romantics, or have no-strings-attached relationships with anyone who's up for a night of pleasure. They might be dedicated to a deity, near-fanatic; or they might believe that Good is more important than any god. They could be part of a huge order of paladins with a careful hierarchy, or they could be working and traveling alone. They might have answered the call as teenagers or grandparents. They come from all races and countries, and even from extraplanar locations.

And you try to stuff all of that into "a paladin"? No freaking way. Paladins are individuals. You can't just play "a paladin". That means about as much as saying, "Oh, I'm American," and assuming we now know everything about you.

When people come on here and say, "Well, what should a paladin do?" I always want to respond, "Which paladin?" They're supposed to be fully fleshed out characters, not identically robotic clones.

[Quelstaman]

SOLUTION:
Make a side quest that the group agrees to return the bodies to the families. The families thank the party and ask if they want anything in return. Party replies with the gear. The family responds with their blessing and the gear.

The point I'm trying to make is leaving the gear behind for some child or larger form of evil seems to be a very bad idea. Lets agree as a group to take it and return what we can when we find the families.

Does the paladin have any issues taking gear off enemy corpses?

No i dont have any issues taking gear off the enemy, because

A) They dont deserve a honnerable grave
B) They didnt deserve that gear in the first place, they are evil after all.

I find it very unlikely that an evil baddy will just happen to stumble on the graves of our companions (in the middle of nowhere) and decide to dig out these graves.

The returning it to the family idea is a good one.


Really if they are planning your death then you don't have any options. You can resist and they kill you or you can be their doormat and they use you like a minion. Really is it the PC or the player that they are gunning for? If it's the PC just roll a crusader or a diff flavor of pally. If it's the player then they are really not people you, or possibly anyone, should be playing with.

I'm afraid the ex-DM is setting this up to show "who is boss". I did question hes decitions as a DM from time to time (Not a lot, just now and then). Problem is we get along just fine OOC. So yeah... mixed signals really.


Well to be honest at this point, If it were me, I'd shrug and let the ranger go ahead. Warn him that this isn't the end of this matter, and leave.

Then go gather up a sizable group of paladins, and hijack the quest, arresting the ranger in the process.

A mission as important as this cannot be entrusted to someone so unstable for the greater good he will be imprisoned until after the world/kingdom/universe/whatever is saved... Etc.


I like the idea, altough i think a major screw over of the party would turn things explosive ;P. I will discuss this option with the DM tough.


I guess the question no-one has asked yet, is how old are these players, and how mature are they? If we're talking about a bunch of 12 year olds, the way to handle this is very different to what it is if they're all 32.

Also, how much experience do the players have with roleplaying, and the fantasy genre?

But I don't think it will work.

Everyone in the group is around 20ish. The problem with this group really is bad RP. (For example, one played a lesbian elf ranger (Yeah i know)).Roleplay wise, i would age them around 16 or so ;P.

As for experience in roleplaying the fantasy genre. Some have played well over 5 years, some 1 year. a Few hardly roleplay at all.


This all seems to be more OOC than IC IMO.

I am starting to believe this is the case indeed.


If you're gonna play a paladin, he's got to be more than just "a paladin".

They're not all the same, you know. When people come on here and say, "Well, what should a paladin do?" I always want to respond, "Which paladin?" They're supposed to be fully fleshed out characters, not identically robotic clones.

I totally agree.

[AFS]

This is just screaming that it will not end well no matter what happens.

[Quelstaman]

This is just screaming that it will not end well no matter what happens.

i fear this aswell. I will update the treath how this will end :)

[Lonely Tylenol]

The loot is a Masterwork leather armor and a Composite +1 Longbow. So nobody will get killed if they burry it with them.

Edit: got an error and now its there twice.
Well as for their background, the restrictions where that everybody would be childhood friends, or just friends, family etc.
The rest of the characters are an paladin hating halfling bard, his sister the halfling rogue who entirely focuses on stealing. An Dwarven Ranger and his brother the dwarven fighter. Those did not even had a background the first session and they had a month time of writing it.


And I can confirm that. Got a Text message from him the other day, that he told me that if he punched him he would... It was not meant for me cause why wold he text me of something he just said.

The Ranger wants the bow cause I think in his eyes it was worth very much. Cause I described the Npcs with great detail. He had some nice carvings in his bow. But the only thing that will do the Ranger good is thr +1 damage. So he could just leave it.

See, it's posts like these and others (especially from the DM) that make me think that the group consists of a Paladin and half a dozen Chaotic Stupid trolls who are actually antagonists dressed like PCs.

The thing that bothers me the most about this situation isn't that the Paladin and the Ranger are at an impasse here, or that there could even be a legitimate reason for each character to want things their way that isn't being properly expressed because one character is overextending... It's that, out-of-character, the latter seems to be doing this just for the purpose of getting the former's goat. A character with a deep-seated hatred for Humans who have a strong sense of law teaming up with a Lawful Good Human Paladin is already on incredibly shaky grounds, especially considering the Paladin came before the Paladin-hater; with that in mind, this situation is incredibly unlikely because it takes a healthy dose of metagamed, out-of-character aggression for these two to even tolerate each other long enough to get on the same bandwagon. This is blatant Chaotic Stupidity by the rest of the party--and I think the DM needs to let them know that, especially when the mindset of the collective seems to be "It's all part of our master plan, too--to team up and single out/mercilessly gank the Paladin whose character concept we've been arbitrarily adversarial towards since day one!"

The point is, the party has no reason to have ever joined up with the Paladin if there is not only an alignment difference, but a written-in deep-seated hatred for the Paladin and their race as a whole; if you know somebody else in the party is rolling X character, perhaps "I know! I'll create a character who hates everything X character represents for some reason!" isn't a very healthy mindset to be taking, and if this is where you go, you should step back, think on it for a few days, and think up another concept. Using this as a launching pad for aggressively antagonizing the Paladin over trivial manners (because, let's face it, +1STR composite shortbows and masterwork studded leather are nothing to write home about, even at level 1 or 2) is just absurd, and if you, as the DM, don't directly step in to intervene against this nonsense, I hope at the very least that the moment their intentions are revealed in-character, the CN characters' true alignments are revealed to the Paladin, so at the very least, he is allowed to Smite Evil to remain on an even keel; and, for that matter, if you happen to "look the other way" on Smite Evil's daily restrictions, you'll get a nod of approval from me.

[Gnaeus]

The Ranger wants the bow cause I think in his eyes it was worth very much. Cause I described the Npcs with great detail. He had some nice carvings in his bow. But the only thing that will do the Ranger good is thr +1 damage. So he could just leave it.

To the people who are saying that the Ranger doesn't need it. How does he know? He knows the armor is fancy, and the bow is probably magical. He doesn't know how much better the bow is than his current MW bow. He doesn't know that the MW armor isn't magical, unless he cast detect magic on it. Until someone casts Identify, he doesn't know that it isn't something he totally needs.

With regards to the analogy in which Frank gets hit and killed by the truck, I agree that taking his wallet is a shady move (although maybe still justifiable, depending on what you knew about Frank's wishes and the question of whether it was going to go to his next of kin or just be left there.) But that is not this case!

If we are wandering around after a zombie apocalypse, and you die, I am totally taking your fancy gun and all your bullets, because I am not stupid, and because having the extra equipment could make the difference between whether I or someone else lives or dies. No one can predict whether an extra +1 damage, or the ability to hit things that can only be hit by magical weapons or bypass DR-magic, or just having another good bow in case yours gets sundered, might not be the tiny difference between success or failure, or character survival or death, in an upcoming encounter. That is not trivial, that is likely to be very important to the people whose lives are at stake.

[Canarr]

+1 to Lonely Tylenol's point. Couldn't have said it better.

From everything I've read here from the GM and the paladin, it's not a matter of ingame-reasoning ("We might need this later!") - it's just a matter of (the other players) provoking the paladin. And that's simply not cool.

[Luckmann]

To the people who are saying that the Ranger doesn't need it. How does he know? He knows the armor is fancy, and the bow is probably magical. He doesn't know how much better the bow is than his current MW bow. He doesn't know that the MW armor isn't magical, unless he cast detect magic on it. Until someone casts Identify, he doesn't know that it isn't something he totally needs.

[...]This. Absolutely this.

Enhancement levels and named properties is an abstraction made necessary by the fact that we abide by a ruleset, at least to an extent. In-character, to the Ranger, all he knows is that it's a fancy bow that looks a hell of a lot better than his current bow. That's it.

It doesn't need to be made of crystal. It doesn't need to be shimmering with the divine force of a thousand gods from high above. It doesn't have to have "+1" or the words "Masterwork" printed across it's side.

He knows that it's a quality bow that looks nice and is better than his current bow. Of course he wants it and of course he'll fuzz about it when someone says no.

I think we've gotten a bit off track here; The question was whether or not it's an evil act to slap the ranger silly - which I still firmly believe it's not. But it doesn't mean that the ranger doesn't have a valid reasoning. They both may have.

[Lonely Tylenol]

But it doesn't mean that the ranger doesn't have a valid reasoning. They both may have.

It stopped being valid with his alleged intentions to kill the Paladin, who is probably a more valuable asset to the party than any bow the NPC was carrying when he happened to die in a level 2 environment.

Hence, Chaotic Stupid.

[Gnaeus]

It stopped being valid with his alleged intentions to kill the Paladin, who is probably a more valuable asset to the party than any bow the NPC was carrying when he happened to die in a level 2 environment.

Hence, Chaotic Stupid.

True enough. That is a separate issue.

Although returning to the analogy, if the guy I was traveling with punched me in the head because I was picking up my dead friend's gun to use in future life-or-death situations, I would probably very quickly come to the conclusion that he was more of a liability than an asset to my long-term survival.

[Quelstaman]

If we are wandering around after a zombie apocalypse, and you die, I am totally taking your fancy gun and all your bullets, because I am not stupid, and because having the extra equipment could make the difference between whether I or someone else lives or dies. No one can predict whether an extra +1 damage, or the ability to hit things that can only be hit by magical weapons or bypass DR-magic, or just having another good bow in case yours gets sundered, might not be the tiny difference between success or failure, or character survival or death, in an upcoming encounter. That is not trivial, that is likely to be very important to the people whose lives are at stake.

The analogy to a zombie apocolypse really doesnt fit the current situation

A) guns and ammo are scarce, where really, a good bow isnt all that scarce in a fantasy setting.
B) In a zomby apocolypse it is you vs the hordes and hordes of zombies, in a fantasy setting, (generally) things are more balanced, and you can actually have a normal life as a normal civillian.
C) Morals and codes of honner arent applied in the modern society as much or at all as they are in fantasy. (This goes for both your, and my scenario).


This. Absolutely this.

Enhancement levels and named properties is an abstraction made necessary by the fact that we abide by a ruleset, at least to an extent. In-character, to the Ranger, all he knows is that it's a fancy bow that looks a hell of a lot better than his current bow. That's it.


This is true, and shure i can be reasond with. If the ranger brings on a strong argument why we should keep the bow, then yes, i will avoid party conflict. But at this moment, i think the ranger is not planning to talk with me. Since the ex-dm is probably talking him into punching me back/punching me first.


True enough. That is a separate issue.
Although returning to the analogy, if the guy I was traveling with punched me in the head because I was picking up my dead friend's gun to use in future life-or-death situations, I would probably very quickly come to the conclusion that he was more of a liability than an asset to my long-term survival.

I wont simply punch him in his face, i will reason, talk and request the bow and armor to be left at his grave. So that the NPC can have a warriors grave he deservers.

[Friv]

Sure it's a bit of a jerk move, but so is designing the party around trolling one player.

After all this has happened, whichever way it goes, retire the paladin and bring up why all this happened.

No, God no, never this. Deliberately destroying a game can not, in any way, end well. It doesn't matter whether you are the injured party. Just, seriously, do not do this.

You need to do one of two things:

1) Show up to the session and say, "Guys, I really feel like you have designed your characters specifically to make mine unplayable. Why have you done this?" and have a conversation about it.

2) Have your paladin leave the party over this incident, and introduce a new character who fits everyone else's alignment. And then probably still have the above conversation.

[Gnaeus]

The analogy to a zombie apocolypse really doesnt fit the current situation

Its a lot closer than the analogy about the friend getting hit by the truck, and you didn't have a problem with that one.


A) guns and ammo are scarce, where really, a good bow isnt all that scarce in a fantasy setting.

Magical weapons in a fantasy setting are roughly as rare as guns and ammo in an apocalypse setting. You can find one if you are lucky, but they are highly valuable (like, worth more than the entire value of a typical small village). It certainly isn't something that he could just get with the resources at his disposal, or else he would already have one. If he does eventually get a better one, he could trade it for something else that could save his life.


B) In a zomby apocolypse it is you vs the hordes and hordes of zombies, in a fantasy setting, (generally) things are more balanced, and you can actually have a normal life as a normal civillian.

But this isn't a normal civilian. This is a person going into danger whose life, and whose friends lives, could depend upon him having an edge in combat.


C) Morals and codes of honner arent applied in the modern society as much or at all as they are in fantasy. (This goes for both your, and my scenario).

There is no such thing as a code of honner. I have never read about any knight having honner in any book, ever.

Morals are very common in modern society. If they weren't, the truck analogy would be meaningless because we would all answer "Of course I would take the wallet!"

But taking a weapon from a fallen comrade that you might use to save your live and the lives of your friends is not immoral.

For that matter, taking stuff from the honored dead is pretty darn common in fantasy too. If Conan (movie version) had not taken dead king's sword, he would have been either eaten by wolves or starved to death in a rock. If Aragorn/Elrond had decided that Narsil should have stayed in a crypt or museum to honor the valiant acts of his ancestor Elendil, all of Middle Earth would have fallen to darkness. Did Aragorn or Elrond know that they needed Anduril to rouse the army of the dead>save Minas Tirith>save middle earth? No, but they thought having heroic dead guy's magic sword was a good idea anyway.

[AFS]

I think a group split is what is bound to happen.

You can't expect the paladin's player to create a new character because the paladin doesn't fit in with the group. You also can't expect the others to play something else to fit in with the paladin.

There are really two choices.

Coexist - I don't see this happening.
or
Split

There doesn't seem to be a level of maturity that would allow these characters to coexist. Both players are playing their characters how they see fit but they don't fit together. I do feel that the others are trying to get the paladin's goat. Try to sit everyone down and work it out. Good luck!

[Traab]

Cant read through 5 pages of it, so dont know if this has been said already, but to compromise. Let the ranger loot the corpse of any upgrades they may have, then replace it with his old gear. The body gets buried with its "dignity" intact, and the pc gets his gear.

[Marnath]

I think a group split is what is bound to happen.

You can't expect the paladin to create a new player because he doesn't fit in with the group. You also can't expect the others to play something else to fit in with the paladin.

There are really two choices.

Coexist - I don't see this happening.
or
Split

There doesn't seem to be a level of maturity that would allow these characters to coexist. Both players are playing their characters how they see fit but they don't fit together. I do feel that the others are trying to get the paladin's goat. Try to sit everyone down and work it out. Good luck!

I should think not!:smalleek:
The player making a new character, maybe...:smallbiggrin:

[BluesEclipse]

My thoughts:

1.) With all the information we've been given, I can't possibly see this as an in-game conflict. At least one other player created a character with a specific dislike for everything about the Paladin. Both the Paladin's player and the DM have stated that the other players are specifically conspiring, out-of-game, to kill the Paladin. I think the DM needs to step up, sit the group down, and ask them what the issue is, and why the other players feel the need to force this kind of inter-party conflict.

2.) In-character, the Paladin wouldn't fall for attacking them if he attempts to defuse the situation first, and if the Ranger doesn't give any reasonable justification for taking the dead NPC's loot other than "Ooh, shiny!". I wouldn't necessarily agree with the action, but would treat it as the Paladin questioning the Ranger's own honor. The Ranger's response, at that point, is up to him, as is the rest of the party. If the Paladin dies because of it... well, let's just say that were I DM, and this happened, it wouldn't be the last the party saw of that Paladin. After all, "The honor of a paladin is unbreakable... even by death itself."

3.) Quelstaman, I'd find out exactly what's going on with this situation, out-of-game. If it's the Ex-DM having control issues, or trying to get back at you for questioning him when he was DMing... if the DM can't handle being questioned, and tries to take that out on you even when he's no longer DM, he has no business playing the game at all, if you ask me. If it's something else... find out, and try to resolve it. As much as I doubt it, maybe there's some legitimate reason the other players seem to be against you - maybe they have a deep-seated fear of Paladins, or something. But regardless, just find out what's going on, and decide from there - if the problem lies with the Ex-DM, then talk to your DM, and the other players, about it. If he's got such control issues that he can't work in a player role and will disrupt another DM's game over criticism he recieved as a DM in a different game, he should be asked to leave. I'd say that you should consider leaving only as a last resort... it's not fair to you to have to leave a game and abandon your character because another player is being an *****.

Again, that's just my 2cp.

[AFS]

@Marnath

I didn't even realize my error. Good laugh actually.
:smallbiggrin:

[Quelstaman]

Its a lot closer than the analogy about the friend getting hit by the truck, and you didn't have a problem with that one.


over exagurating a situation always makes it easier to make a point. Fact is in a zombie apocolypse its really u vs everyone. Not that much in fantasy.



But this isn't a normal civilian. This is a person going into danger whose life, and whose friends lives, could depend upon him having an edge in combat.


I never claimed that he is a civilian.



There is no such thing as a code of honner. I have never read about any knight having honner in any book, ever.


Knights functioned as the secular arm of the Church during the Crusades, and as such they were bound by the code of honor given to the crusaders by Pope Urban II in 1095. This gave rise to the idea of the "Code of Chivalry." Every crusader had to "swear to defend to his uttermost the weak, the orphan, the widow and the oppressed; he should be courteous, and women should receive his especial care. Thus to his bravery and love of adventure, the knight was enjoined to add gentler qualities" (Swettenham, 26). Source: http://www.umich.edu/~marcons/Crusades/topics/chivalry/chivalry-article.html



Morals are very common in modern society. If they weren't, the truck analogy would be meaningless because we would all answer "Of course I would take the wallet!"

Maybe i should rephrase that, Morals are different in fantasy then they are in modern times.



But taking a weapon from a fallen comrade that you might use to save your live and the lives of your friends is not immoral.

For that matter, taking stuff from the honored dead is pretty darn common in fantasy too. If Conan (movie version) had not taken dead king's sword, he would have been either eaten by wolves or starved to death in a rock. If Aragorn/Elrond had decided that Narsil should have stayed in a crypt or museum to honor the valiant acts of his ancestor Elendil, all of Middle Earth would have fallen to darkness. Did Aragorn or Elrond know that they needed Anduril to rouse the army of the dead>save Minas Tirith>save middle earth? No, but they thought having heroic dead guy's magic sword was a good idea anyway.

Aragorn whas given the sword, i never saw conan so i cant say anything about that. fact is, i am pretty shure all those examples where not simple looting. (Plus conan is a barbarian (I think), not a shining beacon of civilazation like a paladin is).

In my paladins eyes, Denying a warrior a warriors grave is disrespectfull to the dead, and therefor imoral.


I think a group split is what is bound to happen.

You can't expect the paladin to create a new player because he doesn't fit in with the group.


I certainly wont have a baby any time soon no

its me vs the rest really, i will have to create a new character or not play at all im afraid.


My thoughts:

1.) With all the information we've been given, I can't possibly see this as an in-game conflict.

2.) In-character, the Paladin wouldn't fall for attacking them if he attempts to defuse the situation first, and if the Ranger doesn't give any reasonable justification for taking the dead NPC's loot other than "Ooh, shiny!".

3.) Quelstaman, I'd find out exactly what's going on with this situation, out-of-game. If it's the Ex-DM having control issues, or trying to get back at you for questioning him when he was DMing... if the DM can't handle being questioned, and tries to take that out on you even when he's no longer DM, he has no business playing the game at all, if you ask me.

Again, that's just my 2cp.

1) i Agree.

2) I wouldnt attack him at all if he gave me a good justification why he needs the weapons. Altough im pretty shure it will be an ooh, shiny moment. partly because the ranger is not the best RP-er (with all due respect to him) and partly because the ex-DM is probably pushing towards conflict.

3) If i would take any action against the old DM, i would probably destroy the group. And they might seem like a group of trolling jerks. But they arent all that bad really. Its likely i would just back down my character or let them kill him. And then reroll a CN character and play along.

[Gnaeus]

over exagurating a situation always makes it easier to make a point. Fact is in a zombie apocolypse its really u vs everyone. Not that much in fantasy.

No. In a zombie apocalypse, it is you, and the people you are traveling with, vs. a never ending tide of evil monsters trying to kill you. That is pretty much exactly the circumstances of the typical adventuring party. Whether or not there might be a safe place somewhere else is kind of irrelevant. And again, it is a lot more relevant than stealing your friend's wallet when he was hit by a truck.


Knights functioned as the secular arm of the Church during the Crusades, and as such they were bound by the code of honor given to the crusaders by Pope Urban II in 1095.

Oh, you mean honor!

For the record, the Crusaders were entirely willing to loot items from fallen, or even still living allies. Witness the sacking of Constantinople.

They were also entirely willing to carry relics (otherwise known as body parts of dead holy men) into battle with them, and if you are willing to carry a dead saint's head into battle with you, picking up a fallen brother's sword (or in this case, bow) and using it to carry on the fight really does not seem out of line.


Aragorn whas given the sword, i never saw conan so i cant say anything about that. fact is, i am pretty shure all those examples where not simple looting.

Aragorn was given the sword by Elrond, not by his dead ancestor. If THAT justification works, Ranger could just have his sister or one of the other party members pick up and "give" him the sword.

[Quelstaman]

No. In a zombie apocalypse, it is you, and the people you are traveling with, vs. a never ending tide of evil monsters trying to kill you. That is pretty much exactly the circumstances of the typical adventuring party. Whether or not there might be a safe place somewhere else is kind of irrelevant. And again, it is a lot more relevant than stealing your friend's wallet when he was hit by a truck.

A valid point, altough i dont totally agree with it. I would still refer to the difference of moral and honor now and then tough. And fully stand by my decision.




Oh, you mean honor!



Hello everyone,

I am the paladin in question here. If you can present a good argument, i am willing to discuss it.


While proper grammar usage is all well and good, a Grammar Nazi cavils even insignificant errors in English to somehow win an argument. Of course, rather than being genuinely persuasive in an argument, pointing out English errors is a weak attack only on the typist's credibility and never has any bearing on the underlying premises and assertions therein.

Source: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Grammar%20Nazi

Dyslexia is a broad term defining a learning disability that impairs a person's fluency or comprehension accuracy in being able to read, and spell

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyslexia



Aragorn was given the sword by Elrond, not by his dead ancestor. If THAT justification works, Ranger could just have his sister or one of the other party members pick up and "give" him the sword.

A) in that case it wouldnt be simple looting like it is right now.
B) You obviously understand that an other party member picking it up and giving it to him is ridiculous and a total invalid argument

[Silfir]

Elrond was the safekeeper of that sword. It even was legally Aragorn's, if I'm not mistaken. To have that fit anywhere close to this situation, the ranger would have to somehow prove that the guy that died was actually his distant ancestor and he is his rightful heir. Which is ludicrous to the max.

[ffone]

1. Its not magic, nor metal.
2. the party is in the middle of nowhere right now.

It may be unfair to call it ridiculous because you didnt understand the situation. But i hardly believe that metal dedector mages run around the middle of nowhere. (the idea just makes me laugh im sorry)

In your situation, it very well may be, likely as not as you have custom homebrew world where it's absurb by definition. In general though consider:

1. Once you buy someone somewhere, it's no longer a totally random spot: there's usually freshly dug earth, tracks leading there and away (dead NPC's, and PC's, unless they are flying or using pass without trace etc.), maybe gore from the nearby monster battle - wild animals can smell blood from long distances, and some intelligent monsters may exhibit this behavior *and* collect treasure (as many monsters do, hence their having treasure) and thus poke in those fresh graves after eating the unburied monster corpses, etc.

2. Even masterwork full plate is worth years of a commoner's wages, and some people may do this sort of thing even if they rarely find something. IN Rl we have those old guys who scan beaches with metal detectors, even though they clearly have no hope of finding pirate treasure. Granted, characters with the Track feat, Detect Magic, etc. are higher power and could make a lot more per day than commoners, but the upside doesn't end at masterwork full plate.

3. Someone doesn't have to actively go gravehunting; they could come along the graves incidentally. How likely this is depends on the local area - if you're the DM you basically dictate this probability implicitly or explicitly - but there's a chance. Vs zero practical upside of burying the dead with their valuable gear, only some conception of honor. In other words it's perfectly plausible for a Good character to 'loot their friends'. (Consider all the things people worry about in RL with tiny chances of occurring, like dying on a plane.) Plus there's the definite upside of putting the loot towards good use on your quest (possibly after selling and buying/upgrading something more useful).

4. In many cases (it depends on the campaign and how deeply the plot is developed) battles aren't found on totally 'middle of nowhere' random spots; there's some reason the PCs and monsters crossed paths there - like it's along a road between two populous cities that the PCs are traveling , or it's the site of some Plot Dungeon where future adventurers may go spelunking. If one set of 'random' monsters appeared in spot X, it might tend to be a spot where monsters pass by or frequent in general (like a watering hole or migration path) and the future monsters may have the ability and inclination to poke around in graves.

(In other words, your paladin might want to throughly disguise the graves, and go far aside if they're on a beaten path.)

[Gnaeus]

Elrond was the safekeeper of that sword. It even was legally Aragorn's, if I'm not mistaken. To have that fit anywhere close to this situation, the ranger would have to somehow prove that the guy that died was actually his distant ancestor and he is his rightful heir. Which is ludicrous to the max.

Elendil was Aragorn's ancestor, certainly. But the question isn't who the rightful heir is, it is whether or not it is ok to take the weapons of a fallen, honorable comrade, or whether they should be buried with the person, throughout fantasy. By Quelstaman's argument, Narsil should be in a memorial somewhere, not being salvaged for scrap metal by a deranged elven artificer to get enough xp to make a new sword.

Once you have established that it is OK to use the weapons of a fallen ally without dishonoring them, the NEXT question would be "Does dead ranger have any heirs?" followed quickly by "Are we in any position to find them or return items to them"?

If Q1 = no, Ranger has a good argument that he should take the bow.

If Q1 = yes, and Q2 = no, Ranger should take the bow, and use it until it becomes plausible to return the bow.

If Q1 = yes, and Q2 = yes, he isn't stealing from the dead ranger, he is stealing from the dead ranger's living family. This (stealing from the innocent children of an ally) is clearly both a chaotic and an evil act, justifying paladin action.

[Taelas]

There is nothing inherently wrong in taking the arms of a fallen ally to use them in battle.

There is also nothing inherently wrong in not wanting to do that (even if the reason is that they think taking them is wrong).

[technoextreme]

I vehemently disagree; it's not like grave robbing is historically uncommon.

Grave robbing from a moral standpoing and historical is considered to be on the same level of evil as necromancers.

[Rejakor]

{Scrubbed}


For the record, the Crusaders were entirely willing to loot items from fallen, or even still living allies. Witness the sacking of Constantinople.

The actions of the Crusades should not be considered the last word on honour, morals, or Good. For really, really obvious reasons. (all the murder and rape, for a start)

The existence of moral codes, honour, chivalry, and codes of honour is not and was not created and defined by the actions of the Crusades, and trying to say so is eminently dishonest.

Furthermore, not everyone who claims to be honourable or Good actually is. If you don't know that, then, well, i've got some nigerian royalty who would like to have a chat with you.


They were also entirely willing to carry relics (otherwise known as body parts of dead holy men) into battle with them, and if you are willing to carry a dead saint's head into battle with you, picking up a fallen brother's sword (or in this case, bow) and using it to carry on the fight really does not seem out of line.

Here is the only actual point you have. And I respond to it with you're still wrong. The player of the paladin is not saying that taking weapons to fight evil if necessary is a bad or evil thing. Or to survive. He's saying that HIS CHARACTER has a PERSONAL PROBLEM with LOOTING THE DEAD IN A UNRESPECTFUL MANNER. If the ranger actually MADE A CASE for taking the gear, or at least the useful gear that he doesn't already have multiples of, that wasn't OOH SHINY LOL MINE, then there's a good chance the paladin wouldn't have a problem with it, or at worst allow it grudgingly and force/try to force the ranger to send some money to the NPC ranger's family later.

What this guy is saying is that the ranger didn't do that, and hasn't done that, and is going 'lol' *strips body down to underwear*. And so, his character is going to go 'hey, don't do that, that's disrespectful and dishonours the dead'. And then the ranger is going to go 'lol paladins fssshhh go trip over a log and fall, metal pants', and then the paladin is going to go *punch* 'I said STOP THAT. Dishonouring the dead is bad!' And then the ranger is going to pull a sword and try to gut the paladin.

Stopping people looting corpses of allies is a Lawful act(it belongs in a goddamn museum), and if not Good, it's at least Neutral. Performing a neutral act does not cause a paladin to instantly become True Neutral, Fall, lose his paladin levels, and become a Druid. That's absolutely retarded. It takes a lot of selfish acts, abstaining from helping others if it would cost him something, and generally not succouring the innocent etc to actually effect an alignment change, and thus a loss of paladin powers. To be honest, it doesn't even fall him.. if his alignment goes back to LG, he gets them back even without a Atonement spell, and an Atonement can reset his alignment even if he can't get it back on his own.

You seem to be thinking under the 'Lawful Stupid' ruling of Lawful Good, where every act must epitomize both Law and Good and also the law of the land and also the law of whichever god and also must smell like mint and tulips and delicious forest fragrances. Or you instantly Fall. Which is stupid, and not how alignment works at all, whatsoever. Hell, even Exalted Good characters get to punch a friend to get him to see sense and that what he's doing is wrong. It's seriously this reading of the paladin code, and of alignments, which is actually wrong, definitively, provably wrong, the text of both those entries doesn't say ANYTHING like what you are assuming it does, is why paladins are basically unplayable in so many games due to players or DM going 'nuh uh, you're good, you have to be a robot who only performs goodlaw actions or INSTAFALL LOL'.

{Scrubbed}



Aragorn was given the sword by Elrond, not by his dead ancestor. If THAT justification works, Ranger could just have his sister or one of the other party members pick up and "give" him the sword.

I don't even have words for this.

[druid91]

Elendil was Aragorn's ancestor, certainly. But the question isn't who the rightful heir is, it is whether or not it is ok to take the weapons of a fallen, honorable comrade, or whether they should be buried with the person, throughout fantasy. By Quelstaman's argument, Narsil should be in a memorial somewhere, not being salvaged for scrap metal by a deranged elven artificer to get enough xp to make a new sword.

Once you have established that it is OK to use the weapons of a fallen ally without dishonoring them, the NEXT question would be "Does dead ranger have any heirs?" followed quickly by "Are we in any position to find them or return items to them"?

If Q1 = no, Ranger has a good argument that he should take the bow.

If Q1 = yes, and Q2 = no, Ranger should take the bow, and use it until it becomes plausible to return the bow.

If Q1 = yes, and Q2 = yes, he isn't stealing from the dead ranger, he is stealing from the dead ranger's living family. This (stealing from the innocent children of an ally) is clearly both a chaotic and an evil act, justifying paladin action.

Actually sorry, but the question of who the heir is extremely relevant.

It's one thing to charge into battle alongside your friend and watch him get an arrow through the neck, break your sword, pick up his fight your way out and when you get home give the sword to his son.

And quite another to simply pick your buddies sword up after the fight is over simply because it's nicer. No matter that it was a family hierloom handed down for the last century.

Really unless he does have an heir apparent, the most honorable option is to bury him with the gear.

As for Narsil... it was trash. It was a broken sword that was kept by Elrond in a shrine for historical value.

[Lonely Tylenol]

True enough. That is a separate issue.

Although returning to the analogy, if the guy I was traveling with punched me in the head because I was picking up my dead friend's gun to use in future life-or-death situations, I would probably very quickly come to the conclusion that he was more of a liability than an asset to my long-term survival.

So the logical conclusion is to kill him, thus creating less of you and more of them?

Pragmatic.

Save the contrived "zombie apocalypse" metaphors. I have nothing to do with them and they don't address me, so don't pretend that they do.

Also: considering that no "life-or-death" justification was ever given, nor are they actually in a "life-or-death" situation, so this situation is, at best, trading your perfectly functional Glock for your dead friend's .44 Magnum "because you want to feel like Dirty Harry", (to use your own zombie apocalypse scenario, since you have so imposed it on me) and at worst looting an innocent just to goad the Paladin so they can play Closet Antagonist, which is far more likely the case.

[Worira]

Yeah, I don't think it's OK to punch people for not doing what you want them to, especially if you're a paladin.

And if you disagree with that, then I'll punch you.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Yeah, I don't think it's OK to punch people for not doing what you want them to, especially if you're a paladin.

And if you disagree with that, then I'll punch you.

Not if I punch you first! :smallfurious:

[druid91]

Yeah, I don't think it's OK to punch people for not doing what you want them to, especially if you're a paladin.

And if you disagree with that, then I'll punch you.


Not if I punch you first! :smallfurious:

Ok this made me laugh.