Morality, Paladin in the Party, help.

[O.L.Scudmungus]

Hello, I'm looking for some other perspectives on a morality matter in a miserable attempt to offset my personal biases.

Campaign flavour:

- I am not the DM. The DM is new to DM'ing and wants to ensure all have a good time while maintaining role-playing-quality along with character and campaign consistency.

- The DM is running a campaign where alignments can and do change and there are absolute forces of Good and Evil (capital G and E).

- Monsters with half a brain often have character levels.

Long story relatively short:

The party previously encountered a goblin camp and the players from a more traditional D&D setting instantly kick off, killing the naughty evil. There's some confusion over who exactly started what and how (They were waiting for us!) and some of the goblins escaped.

While returning from an epic mission of bat feces collection, the party encountered a lone Goblin. The CG Crusader gave the little critter a no-nonsense stare and intimidated some sense into said goblin.

An hour or so later, on their way back to a suspected wizard and a fallen comrade, the party are stopped by a well equipped goblin and his well equipped goblin friends/cousins/misc.

Well equipped goblin claimed the party had murdered his brother. CG Crusader tried to negotiate. Paladin walks over to well equipped goblin in an attempt to punch him - it should be noted that said Paladin has Monk levels and fights unarmed.

A fight kicks off. The party are the clear victors with the primary well equipped goblin being slowly grapple-chocked to death by the Paladin.

After 2 rounds of minimal damage, the CG Crusader suggests that, as the party have obviously bested the little chap and his pals, they could take him captive and find out where/if there are other goblin camps in the area and what they're up to.

Paladin continues to slowly strange well equipped goblin.

CG Crusader continues to press the issue, mentioning that the party have clearly won. Paladin says something along the lines of 'They started it.' and 'What do you suggest, we take it with us? That's crazy talk.'

Paladin continues to slowly strange well equipped goblin.

Goblin is taking ages to die.

Paladin finally strangles well equipped goblin into unconsciousness.

Then, Paladin snaps its neck.

CG Crusader claims the Paladin wasn't being very.. nice.

Paladin points out that he'd challenged well equipped goblin to single combat (while striking him). In essence, the Paladin claimed that it was a Lawful contract so killing the goblin was a lawful action and, essentially, ''They started it - I ended it.''

Other party members now chime in with '...but you're also.. good, right?'

Paladin suggests that any other course of action would have been 'stupid'.

Barbarian agrees.

::

So, a classic morality mess. Is the Paladin being.. a Paladin?

To my mind, he's.. simply put.. not being very 'good'. I have no problem with the fight kick off and the bodies hitting the floor. However, after we've clearly one and the enemy is at our mercy, a slow death by strangulation followed by a summary neck snap seems kinda harsh.

..but hey, perhaps he's an avenging bad ass holy type.

..but would a zealot, killing all, even those at their mercy, be good?

Effective, yes...

I guess you don't have to be nice to be good.

o_o

[mcv]

Depends on how absolute morality is in the setting. You say that Good and Evil are very real forces. Are goblins irredeemably evil?

Though by inflicting unnecessary pain on a helpless creature, the paladin is definitely not being Good here. Without absolute morality, it could easily be considered evil. And whether it's lawful I have absolutely no idea.

So here you've got a creepy paladin who gladly inflicts pain on helpless creatures. You could simply say he's a fallen paladin now, but you could also use this as a great source of roleplaying and character growth.

[bluthunda]

thats a conundrum right there as Killing evil things not really evil in dnd but killing helpless evil things really should be questioned if i were that paladins god i would be questioning his favor. which god does he worship depending on the gods dogma it may change what he should have done as Kord the god of strength which is CG maybe believe the "lawful" slaughter of the little helpless goblin was contractual through competition of strength but a god of peace or something else may not approve.

[O.L.Scudmungus]

Depends on how absolute morality is in the setting. You say that Good and Evil are very real forces. Are goblins irredeemably evil?

Though by inflicting unnecessary pain on a helpless creature, the paladin is definitely not being Good here. Without absolute morality, it could easily be considered evil. And whether it's lawful I have absolutely no idea.

So here you've got a creepy paladin who gladly inflicts pain on helpless creatures. You could simply say he's a fallen paladin now, but you could also use this as a great source of roleplaying and character growth.

There are actual clearly defined forces of GOOD and EVIL.

However, alignments are not set in stone. Good can fall, evil can turn to good.

The entire world is a morality war. Most monsters are with EVIL because, EVIL works for them in the savage wilderness - tooth and claw, kill No.2 so No.1 can survive etc.

Good is harder, takes more effort and sacrifice.

At least, that's what I as a player am getting so far from how things have been going. Granted, it's an early campaign.

The DM does like to make us think. Or at least, encourage thinking, which is kinda cool.


thats a conundrum right there as Killing evil things not really evil in dnd but killing helpless evil things really should be questioned if i were that paladins god i would be questioning his favor. which god does he worship depending on the gods dogma it may change what he should have done as Kord the god of strength which is CG maybe believe the "lawful" slaughter of the little helpless goblin was contractual through competition of strength but a god of peace or something else may not approve.

This is part of the problem. We've asked the player to define the fluff of 'What makes you a Paladin, as opposed to a LG Fighter?' and so far we haven't recieved anything. He worships a god from some 3.5 campaign setting book, I forget the name, essentially the god of.. Lawful Goodness - worshiped by Good folks, Paladins and so on.

Personally I get that the fight kicked off - no problems there. If Goblins die in the fight, fine, it's a fight. I agree with you that the killing of a helpless creature when there's no real time or other external constraints seems kinda.. well, 'not nice'.

I believe the Paladin was suggesting that it'd be far too much time and effort to take the goblin back and interrogate him. Also, it'd be dangerous.

I can see the sense of the mentality but wonder if GOOD would simply nod and go, 'Yeah, ya see, that's the rub. Good requires effort, sacrifice and hard work. You want easy and effective? Try EVIL.'

[mcv]

The DM does like to make us think. Or at least, encourage thinking, which is kinda cool.
Excellent. So use this to make people think. It's definitely worth discussion in-character. What do the other characters think about a group member (a zealot, even) preferring to slowly strangle helpless creatures to death, rather than interrogate him?

And with Good and Evil being real forces, what to they think of this? If he does this more often, Evil may start considering him an ally and Good not so much.


This is part of the problem. We've asked the player to define the fluff of 'What makes you a Paladin, as opposed to a LG Fighter?' and so far we haven't recieved anything. He worships a god from some 3.5 campaign setting book, I forget the name, essentially the god of.. Lawful Goodness - worshiped by Good folks, Paladins and so on.
Don't make him define what makes him a Paladin upfront, make him define it through play. Is slowly strangling helpless creatures really Paladin-like? Or will it creep out the good folks that worship the same god? Does he actually believe in the tenets of his god, or did he merely grow up in them but really he prefers to follow his own way?

Plenty of interesting stuff to explore there, if you want to take that route.


I believe the Paladin was suggesting that it'd be far too much time and effort to take the goblin back and interrogate him. Also, it'd be dangerous.

I can see the sense of the mentality but wonder if GOOD would simply nod and go, 'Yeah, ya see, that's the rub. Good requires effort, sacrifice and hard work. You want easy and effective? Try EVIL.'
Work that angle. He sounds closer to Chaotic Neutral.

But this is only one event. Every Paladin slips every once in a while. Let's see how far he slides before he falls.

[O.L.Scudmungus]

Cheers mon, appreciated.

I didn't think of simply letting events form the character - was too ready to try and encourage a 'fix' by suggesting the character was more strongly defined.

We shall see what happens...

I was reminder of two other earlier moments of character-definition:

- The Paladin deciding to try and punish a criminal using the local/outlawed-by-the-dominant-political-power laws, which, as it turned out, was basically 'We know you're guilty, now we're going to burn you alive.'

The Paladin added oil to the criminal so as to speed up the burning process, which was to his mind, being merciful.

- The Paladin 'caught' the halfling thief character, determined they were responsible for stealing from a tavern keeper that the party had previously met. The paladin then insisted in trying to return the halfling to the tavern keeper so as to take responsibility for their crime.

So, there's certainly some kinda Lawfulness.. going on there.

Somewhere..

[mcv]

The creepy anti-social paladin. Why not? How would the group react to such a paladin? How would the rest of the world? How would his god? The other gods?

But do keep talking about these questionable actions. Rigid morality isn't nearly as much fun as exploring the shades of grey. And if it gets discussed, then the player also has to be aware of what he's doing, and that his actions are not exactly considered the pinnacle of Lawful Good by those around him. Maybe mention Mika from OOTS. The GM might drop some hints that his god doesn't approve either.

But allow him to be the creepy horrible paladin. But try to get the player in on it.

[qwertyu63]

It takes a lot to get me to say this, but that Paladin should have fallen so hard it left marks on the floor. Knocking them out, fine. But killing a defenseless sentient, that nets you one fallen Paladin. One of the few things that will with me actually. They could redeem after that, but do it more and there is an alignment shift to TN, then CE, in your future.

[visigani]

It takes a lot to get me to say this, but that Paladin should have fallen so hard it left marks on the floor. Knocking them out, fine. But killing a defenseless sentient, that nets you one fallen Paladin. One of the few things that will with me actually. They could redeem after that, but do it more and there is an alignment shift to TN, then CE, in your future.



I agree. The Paladin was in no danger. He didn't just kill a foe. He murdered him. he caused undue and unnecessary pain and suffering. Killing the last guy in a fight is one thing, strangling the life out of him with your bare hands while he's helpless is quite another.

That Paladin went over to the dark side in a hard way. He had a perfect opportunity to show mercy, and instead he murdered a helpless victim.

[Amphetryon]

While this is not implied anywhere in the scenario directly, it may be worth asking: did the Paladin believe that grappling the Goblin to death was the best way to keep everyone else from harm's way, given the DM's stated tendency to add class levels to sentient beings and the "well-equipped" status of the Goblin?

Such belief wouldn't necessarily make the action the Paladin took "Good," but may be a mitigating circumstance in the nature of the consequences to that action.

[Winter_Wolf]

Kill the paladin. Well, ex-paladin. It's that kind of self righteous "I know best because I'm a paladain" mentality that makes people hate paladins.

But seriously, kill the (ex) paladin. He's clearly a liability to your team, and is probably going to get your party TPKed over something stupid and completely avoidable in the future.

[Ceaon]

Kill the paladin. Well, ex-paladin. It's that kind of self righteous "I know best because I'm a paladain" mentality that makes people hate paladins.

But seriously, kill the (ex) paladin. He's clearly a liability to your team, and is probably going to get your party TPKed over something stupid and completely avoidable in the future.

Yes. When you disagree with other about the true meaning of what it means to be good, kill them. Heck, I'd kill the player as well, since he's playing a character you don't like. And kill the DM for allowing such a character in your game.

[Yora]

They had defeated some enemies and the paladin was of the oppinion that taking prisoners was not an option and letting the goblin leave would be too dangerous.

Other PCs might disagree, but it's a valid point.

I don't see it as any different than shoting arrows at a scout that is running back to the main army.

[Starbuck_II]

Killing the last guy in a fight is one thing, strangling the life out of him with your bare hands while he's helpless is quite another.


No, the Paladin was still in combat.

After he finally knocked the goblin to unconsciousness then the battle was over.
He never strangled anyone to death.
Death came after he strangled the goblin to unconsciousness. Then he decided that they (the enemy) might recover/reawaken the goblin so he killed it (coup de grace).
And the defintiion of de grace is mercy killing so he was being merciful.

I do have to ask why he used nonlethal in combat in the first place...

Hey OP can you ask the Pally why he even used nonlethal. AS a Monk, he can deal lethal when he grapples. What point did he have to use nonlethal?


I have to echo these sentiments. I had a very interesting conversation with my DM friend along these lines.
I do, however, have to echo the sentiment that this paladin has majorly breached his code of conduct. Killing the goblin outright would be in the grey zone but when you kill anything, be it a goblin or an evil necromancer or a cute little orphan when they are defenceless, it is an evil act. I would personally suggest the revocation of his Paladin-y powers and a quest be established involving the Goblin in question to atone for his sins.
Why? I really have to know, why do you define defenseless as absolving of guilt?

Even if it will save the world, you can't kill a defenseless avatar of evil?! You can to wait till it ascends to full power and destroys the world?

At what point does a evil creature become immune to being killed without it being an evil act?
Plus, not everything is good or evil, they are neutral acts: otherwise neutral alignment wouldn't exist.

[Khaelic]

Rigid morality isn't nearly as much fun as exploring the shades of grey. And if it gets discussed, then the player also has to be aware of what he's doing, and that his actions are not exactly considered the pinnacle of Lawful Good by those around him.

I have to echo these sentiments. I had a very interesting conversation with my DM friend along these lines.
I do, however, have to echo the sentiment that this paladin has majorly breached his code of conduct. Killing the goblin outright would be in the grey zone but when you kill anything, be it a goblin or an evil necromancer or a cute little orphan when they are defenceless, it is an evil act. I would personally suggest the revocation of his Paladin-y powers and a quest be established involving the Goblin in question to atone for his sins.

[Laserlight]

Then he decided that they (the enemy) might recover/reawaken the goblin so he killed it (coup de grace). And the definition of de grace is mercy killing so he was being merciful.

Reading that made my head hurt.

A coup de grace, as the term is normally understood, is intended to finish the mortally wounded so they don't suffer. It is not "I choked a guy unconscious and then cut his throat to be nice about it."

[O.L.Scudmungus]

I do have to ask why he used nonlethal in combat in the first place...

Hey OP can you ask the Pally why he even used nonlethal. AS a Monk, he can deal lethal when he grapples. What point did he have to use nonlethal?


Why? I really have to know, why do you define defenseless as absolving of guilt?

The Paladin has levels in Monk and was doing lethal damage...

..he rolled minimum damage each round and the goblin had 2 character levels.

So aye, he was *trying* to kill it - he'd been flurrying and missing for a few rounds before.


Reading that made my head hurt.

A coup de grace, as the term is normally understood, is intended to finish the mortally wounded so they don't suffer. It is not "I choked a guy unconscious and then cut his throat to be nice about it."


Technically he snapped his neck! :smallsmile:

[Blackhawk748]

Personally, this paladin is a bit harsh, but that may be intentional. Now as for killing the "defenseless" goblin, good job! if you guys had carried it off as a prisoner he could have escaped and brought back more goblins or murdered some truly helpless villagers. Honestly tho that goblin wasn't helpless it knew full well it could have died in that combat and it did, the pally knocked him unconscious then finished him off to protect others. im not seeing a problem

[Psyren]

It's time to play everyone's favorite game - "Morally justified!"


It takes a lot to get me to say this, but that Paladin should have fallen so hard it left marks on the floor. Knocking them out, fine. But killing a defenseless sentient, that nets you one fallen Paladin. One of the few things that will with me actually. They could redeem after that, but do it more and there is an alignment shift to TN, then CE, in your future.

"Marks on the floor?" He should have left a crater. :smalleek:

[beforemath]

So he killed the goblin. That's no more evil than killing your opponents under the effect of sleep or color spray. It's no worse than finishing off the group of opponents that you've fought and beat into negative hitpoints instead of leaving them to the elements.


So what *should* he do?

Should he wake up his opponents one-by-one so that they can fight fairly?

Should he tie them up and take them back to a church-sponsored goblin prison camp so that they can be re-educated (since leaving someone tied up and helpless in the wilderness is certainly evil)?

Should he hunt down the goblins' children and liberate them from their families so that they aren't raised evil? Should he try to integrate them into a society that hates them?

Should he only use non-lethal damage on sentient creatures so that he can capture and re-educate them?

Should the presence of paladins imply a bloated prison system filled with demihumans?


If he's going to commit to these ideals, surely he's going to make his party commit to them, too. Is that *really* the direction you want the game to go in? Regardless, if his character is going to be taken away from him over an argument of ethics, it's probably a good idea to have a set of rules on what constitutes "evil" and what isn't.

[Gnaeus]

I agree with beforemath. Unless you want to spend a lot of time arguing about the nature of goodness, I would probably recognize that D&D is a game where the good guys murder the bad guys on a regular basis. I certainly would not make him fall without giving him a warning beforehand.

This is actually why I do not allow paladins without deities and tie their powers more closely to their deity. I find "What would Helm do" or "Would Sune get angry at this" to be much easier questions than "Is X action evil/chaotic/neutral and by how much".

[Asheram]

This is actually why I do not allow paladins without deities and tie their powers more closely to their deity. I find "What would Helm do" or "Would Sune get angry at this" to be much easier questions than "Is X action evil/chaotic/neutral and by how much".

One DM I played with actually added a "Phylactery of Faithfulness" ability to every paladin who ever set foot in one of his campaigns.

It might sound harsh, but for any paladin concerned with morality and falling it's a great help if the DM once in a while could lean over the screen and just say "Ya know, your God might not be quiiite happy with that choice of action"

[Gnaeus]

Yeah, worst case, I would give them a know:religion check with a low DC to remember how some hero of the faith acted in a similar situation.

[Augmental]

Killing a defenseless enemy to keep it from causing bigger problems down the road? That's fine.

Slowly strangling a defenseless enemy to death when he could have just let another party member mill it a lot quicker? Not cool.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I don't see a problem with the paladin's action. I say this with one caveat, however; was this "well armed" goblin the only one left? If he had an ally around to beg for quarter, then the whole situation changes. If not, then it was a conclusion to a combat. Good marks mercy, but evil doesn't mark its absence. Evil marks intentional cruelty.

The paladin killed an evil creature to prevent it from comitting further acts of evil (presumably, he did detect evil, right?).

You can do a paladin that's more lawful than good, but he'll be walking a fine line.

Bottom lines: the paladin didn't grossly violate the CoC, and he didn't commit an unquestionably evil act, though it certainly wasn't an act of good. Far more importantly, the DM didn't have a problem with it, so neither should you. Your character can think as good or ill of the action as you choose, but whether the paladin should've fallen is none of his, or your, concern.

[Asheram]

I don't see a problem with the paladin's action. I say this with one caveat, however; was this "well armed" goblin the only one left? If he had an ally around to beg for quarter, then the whole situation changes. If not, then it was a conclusion to a combat. Good marks mercy, but evil doesn't mark its absence. Evil marks intentional cruelty.

The thing is also that he was choking the goblin, he wasn't merely slowly killing it, he was prohibiting the creature from begging for mercy or any attempt of communication.

It's a bit sad, D&D has very odd rules for suffocation and that is partly to blame, but making a outdrawn death like that just can't be considered "Good"

[Gnaeus]

The thing is also that he was choking the goblin, he wasn't merely slowly killing it, he was prohibiting the creature from begging for mercy or any attempt of communication.

It's a bit sad, D&D has very odd rules for suffocation and that is partly to blame, but making a outdrawn death like that just can't be considered "Good"


The Paladin has levels in Monk and was doing lethal damage...

..he rolled minimum damage each round and the goblin had 2 character levels.

So aye, he was *trying* to kill it - he'd been flurrying and missing for a few rounds before.
:

He wasn't tormenting it. He was just being the most effective paladin/monk he could be, which involves grappling a goblin to death over several rounds. "Choking it" sounds like the flavor text for a grapple or pin. Give the guy a break, he is already about the least effective PC he can make without dipping NPC classes.

[Coidzor]

Well, regardless, I'd advise the Monkadin's player to choose a more effective form of murdering in the future just for the sake of gameplay. The game getting bogged down because of endless grapple rounds is just not fun and eats up even more time than it otherwise would.


He wasn't tormenting it. He was just being the most effective paladin/monk he could be, which involves grappling a goblin to death over several rounds. "Choking it" sounds like the flavor text for a grapple or pin. Give the guy a break, he is already about the least effective PC he can make without dipping NPC classes.

A break? More like, useful advice for how to have an effective enough character that he doesn't bog down the game session! :smalltongue:

[Mando Knight]

So aye, he was *trying* to kill it - he'd been flurrying and missing for a few rounds before.

There's a reason it's called "flurry of misses" at times...

[Kelb_Panthera]

Well, regardless, I'd advise the Monkadin's player to choose a more effective form of murdering in the future just for the sake of gameplay. The game getting bogged down because of endless grapple rounds is just not fun and eats up even more time than it otherwise would.



A break? More like, useful advice for how to have an effective enough character that he doesn't bog down the game session! :smalltongue:

Maybe he's shooting for sacred fist. Cleric would be better than paladin mechanically, sure, but mechanics aren't everything.

Incidentally, I too got the impression that he was "choking" the goblin as a matter of poor rolls on the grapple. Actually choking out an opponent takes a feat (choke hold; OA) or PrC (reaping mauler; CW) and a single full round of keeping the enemy pinned. Same thing goes for RL, a choke-hold executed by an expert grappler will have you unconcious in a matter of seconds.

[Coidzor]

Maybe he's shooting for sacred fist. Cleric would be better than paladin mechanically, sure, but mechanics aren't everything.

They are if they're the source of the problem and I believe that to be the case here. If he'd just cut the goblin down in a reasonable amount of time we wouldn't be here.


Incidentally, I too got the impression that he was "choking" the goblin as a matter of poor rolls on the grapple. Actually choking out an opponent takes a feat (choke hold; OA) or PrC (reaping mauler; CW) and a single full round of keeping the enemy pinned. Same thing goes for RL, a choke-hold executed by an expert grappler will have you unconcious in a matter of seconds.

If your poor rolls are consistent enough and bad enough then you shouldn't be playing a class or build that depends upon rolling and should instead be the one forcing others to roll.

That and if he's not good enough at grappling to kill something he's got outclassed in a grapple in a timely manner, it should really make him rethink his build because he's not going to always outclass his opponents like that.

[Da'Shain]

I don't see a problem with the paladin's action. I say this with one caveat, however; was this "well armed" goblin the only one left? If he had an ally around to beg for quarter, then the whole situation changes. If not, then it was a conclusion to a combat. Good marks mercy, but evil doesn't mark its absence. Evil marks intentional cruelty.

The paladin killed an evil creature to prevent it from comitting further acts of evil (presumably, he did detect evil, right?).

You can do a paladin that's more lawful than good, but he'll be walking a fine line.

Bottom lines: the paladin didn't grossly violate the CoC, and he didn't commit an unquestionably evil act, though it certainly wasn't an act of good. Far more importantly, the DM didn't have a problem with it, so neither should you. Your character can think as good or ill of the action as you choose, but whether the paladin should've fallen is none of his, or your, concern.From what I see of the situation, the paladin did nothing but walk over and start a fight without warning, while his teammate was attempting to negotiate.

Furthermore, not only did he start a fight, but he started a fight with a group that seems to have had a legitimate grievance, not one who's trying to waylay the party for any nefarious means. There's no indication that that goblin party was evil, especially in a world that is described as "Having concrete Good and Evil, but by and large the species aligned with Evil are only doing so because it's how they were raised and can be redeemed".

Furthermore, the idea that "killing Evil people is not an evil act" is simplistic in the extreme. It's basically saying that people who detect as Evil do not have the right to live. Which, in a D&D cosmology that is pretty much predicated on the existence of both good and evil, is pretty definitively not true.

Personally, in my game the Paladin likely wouldn't have fallen immediately, but he'd know that this is not acceptable behavior for a Paladin, and might be hit with some penalty the next time he attempted to use one of his class features. I don't like doing immediate falls unless it's a grossly evil act, and while I think this particular one was fairly repugnant, it was a situation in which combat was very likely, and it was a situation in which his opponent likely would have tried to kill him or his friends in the future. But Paladins are not about taking the easy way out, in my mind, at least.

[mcv]

I think the discussion here on whether what he did was evil or necessary proves that you shouldn't simply impose an external morality, because some players are bound to disagree. But you should discuss the morality in the group, and make sure the Paladin engages with that issue. No matter how you turn it, a Paladin has to engage the issue of morality. You can't simply be completely amoral (which is probably the default behaviour of adventurers). And saying it's necessary in order to meet your strategic goals is amoral.

[Kelb_Panthera]

They are if they're the source of the problem and I believe that to be the case here. If he'd just cut the goblin down in a reasonable amount of time we wouldn't be here.



If your poor rolls are consistent enough and bad enough then you shouldn't be playing a class or build that depends upon rolling and should instead be the one forcing others to roll.

That and if he's not good enough at grappling to kill something he's got outclassed in a grapple in a timely manner, it should really make him rethink his build because he's not going to always outclass his opponents like that.
We not only don't, but can't know if the goblin's lingering death was because of average-ish rolls not being good enough, or if it was simply an anomolous string of low rolls. Monk and paladin both get a bum rap around this forum, not because they're completely incapable, but because, barring serious optimization, many other classes outperform them in their typical roles. I also think the fact he chose to fluff his grapple checks to do damage as a choke-hold may have a bit to do with why this thread was started.

From what I see of the situation, the paladin did nothing but walk over and start a fight without warning, while his teammate was attempting to negotiate.

Furthermore, not only did he start a fight, but he started a fight with a group that seems to have had a legitimate grievance, not one who's trying to waylay the party for any nefarious means. There's no indication that that goblin party was evil, especially in a world that is described as "Having concrete Good and Evil, but by and large the species aligned with Evil are only doing so because it's how they were raised and can be redeemed".

Furthermore, the idea that "killing Evil people is not an evil act" is simplistic in the extreme. It's basically saying that people who detect as Evil do not have the right to live. Which, in a D&D cosmology that is pretty much predicated on the existence of both good and evil, is pretty definitively not true.

Personally, in my game the Paladin likely wouldn't have fallen immediately, but he'd know that this is not acceptable behavior for a Paladin, and might be hit with some penalty the next time he attempted to use one of his class features. I don't like doing immediate falls unless it's a grossly evil act, and while I think this particular one was fairly repugnant, it was a situation in which combat was very likely, and it was a situation in which his opponent likely would have tried to kill him or his friends in the future. But Paladins are not about taking the easy way out, in my mind, at least.

I never said killing evil creatures was never evil. I will however, repeat the actual alignment system rule; killing an evil creature to prevent further acts of evil is not an inherently evil act, it's morally neutral at best.

There's a huge difference between an act approved by good and an act that's simply accepted by good. The former would be called a good act and the latter a neutral act.

The goblin's death was acceptable, though not laudable, because the paladin acted in self-defense. Evil or not, that goblin was almost certainly there for blood, unless the OP's DM has written an entirely different culture around the goblinoid races. He could've spared the creature, sure. It might even have been a good act if he had, but it also likely would've opened him and the rest of the party up to later attempts at repraisal. Even if the goblin wasn't evil, this is true.

Like I said before, it's not fall worthy, IMO, because though it certainly wasn't a good act, it almost certainly wasn't an evil act either. The paladin's code requires that he never do evil, not that he must only do good.


One of the biggest hurdles the alignment system runs into, IME, is that people get into a binary mindset; either an act is good or its evil. The alignment system has three bands on that scale though, not two. Not only can an act can be neither good nor evil, most acts don't inherently fall into either category. You combine this with people making rulings based on actual morality rather than the game's morality rules and you get into all kinds of unpleasant discussions. The fact that morality is such an emotionally charged subject doesn't help matters either.

[Vaern]

"I choked a guy unconscious and then cut his throat to be nice about it."
I believe I've found a new signature quote...

[qwertyu63]

I never said killing evil creatures was never evil. I will however, repeat the actual alignment system rule; killing an evil creature to prevent further acts of evil is not an inherently evil act, it's morally neutral at best.

You want to talk about the system, alright. Let me go grab the book (of Exalted Deeds)... One of the traits outright stated as a marker of good is mercy.


There's a huge difference between an act approved by good and an act that's simply accepted by good. The former would be called a good act and the latter a neutral act.

No contest here, acts can fit any of the 9 slots or anywhere in between.


The goblin's death was acceptable, though not laudable, because the paladin acted in self-defense. Evil or not, that goblin was almost certainly there for blood, unless the OP's DM has written an entirely different culture around the goblinoid races. He could've spared the creature, sure. It might even have been a good act if he had, but it also likely would've opened him and the rest of the party up to later attempts at repraisal. Even if the goblin wasn't evil, this is true.

Wrong! It was self-defence right up until the moment the goblin hit 0 hit points. Now then, I know death happens, and I'm not saying that killing your foe in battle is an evil act in and of itself. But, I am saying killing someone after you have knocked them out (i.e. removed them from the battle), that is CE.


Like I said before, it's not fall worthy, IMO, because though it certainly wasn't a good act, it almost certainly wasn't an evil act either. The paladin's code requires that he never do evil, not that he must only do good.

In conclusion, that Paladin should have a fall on the way, or a warning from their god at the least.


One of the biggest hurdles the alignment system runs into, IME, is that people get into a binary mindset; either an act is good or its evil. The alignment system has three bands on that scale though, not two. Not only can an act can be neither good nor evil, most acts don't inherently fall into either category. You combine this with people making rulings based on actual morality rather than the game's morality rules and you get into all kinds of unpleasant discussions. The fact that morality is such an emotionally charged subject doesn't help matters either.

No contest here, as before. I just say the act in question falls into evil.

[Amphetryon]

You want to talk about the system, alright. Let me go grab the book (of Exalted Deeds)... One of the traits outright stated as a marker of good is mercy.
Book of Exalted Deeds is not in play at all tables, and presents several concepts of morality that don't fit into the paradigm of general D&D Alignment. Remember, the behavior described in BoED - assuming you subscribe to its tenets - is not just Good, but "Exalted." Characters adhering to those morals are transcending the morality of the majority by design.

[qwertyu63]

Book of Exalted Deeds is not in play at all tables, and presents several concepts of morality that don't fit into the paradigm of general D&D Alignment. Remember, the behavior described in BoED - assuming you subscribe to its tenets - is not just Good, but "Exalted." Characters adhering to those morals are transcending the morality of the majority by design.

True, but Paladins are supposed to be morally above others anyway, so I thought it fit. I know not everyone uses the book, but it's what I had to read from, c'est la vie.

Really, the act a normal player would ever do that I consider evil enough to ping on the evil-o-meter is "Killing a defenseless sentient", and the Paladin in question is guilty as charged. (Please note, I do have other acts that ping, but most players don't go near them, as they are even more clearly evil and can't really be discussed here.)

[Water_Bear]

Book of Exalted Deeds is not in play at all tables, and presents several concepts of morality that don't fit into the paradigm of general D&D Alignment. Remember, the behavior described in BoED - assuming you subscribe to its tenets - is not just Good, but "Exalted." Characters adhering to those morals are transcending the morality of the majority by design.

The BoED isn't that great, but it gets a lot more hate than it really deserves. There really isn't anything new about the idea that Good characters are expected to show a reasonable amount of mercy to their enemies, and that section (like most of the BoED) is not specifically for Exalted characters but describes Good in general.

Now does that mean your CG Ranger with Favored Enemy Goblinoid is going to get kicked down to Neutral for killing a few surrendering Gobos? No, of course not; Good characters can commit occasional Evil acts without an alignment check, as long as their overall behavior is consistent with the ideals of Good. The Paladin, on the other hand, is held to a higher standard as a living ideal of Lawful Good behavior and would likely fall for the same behavior.

[Deophaun]

It all comes down to the nature of goblins really. If goblins are irredeemably evil, then you are basically dealing with something on the level of a talking animal. Yes, they can use tools and hold a conversation, but attempts at punishment or imposing justice are as futile on them as they are on a pack of wolves or tigers or rabbits.

The morality of killing it in this scenario registers on the same level as killing a helpless animal, which means you measure it by the effect it has on the person committing/witnessing the act, rather than the effect it has on the goblin itself. This was a clean kill, no undue suffering on the part of the goblin that might disturb other party members or inure the paladin to the suffering he causes, so a neutral act.

If, as you stated before, there is nothing that is irredeemably evil in this campaign, and evil is instead a choice, then justice could be imposed on the goblin. As the goblin was helpless, he was not an imminent threat to the party and was at the paladin's mercy. The moral nature of the goblin and the circumstances of its death makes this murder. Paladin falls.

[beforemath]

Wrong! It was self-defence right up until the moment the goblin hit 0 hit points. Now then, I know death happens, and I'm not saying that killing your foe in battle is an evil act in and of itself. But, I am saying killing someone after you have knocked them out (i.e. removed them from the battle), that is CE.




The question is still, "What should he have done in this situation, then, to not be evil?" Is breaking the goblin's neck really any worse than leaving him out in the sun to slowly die (assuming the coyotes don't get him first)?

[Water_Bear]

It all comes down to the nature of goblins really. If goblins are irredeemably evil, then you are basically dealing with something on the level of a talking animal. Yes, they can use tools and hold a conversation, but attempts at punishment or imposing justice are as futile on them as they are on a pack of wolves or tigers or rabbits.

The morality of killing it in this scenario registers on the same level as killing a helpless animal, which means you measure it by the effect it has on the person committing/witnessing the act, rather than the effect it has on the goblin itself. This was a clean kill, no undue suffering on the part of the goblin that might disturb other party members or inure the paladin to the suffering he causes, so a neutral act.

If, as you stated before, there is nothing that is irredeemably evil in this campaign, and evil is instead a choice, then justice could be imposed on the goblin. As the goblin was helpless, he was not an imminent threat to the party and was at the paladin's mercy. The moral nature of the goblin and the circumstances of its death makes this murder. Paladin falls.

Goblins (and other Goblinoids, and Orcs, and Kobolds, and...) are Often Evil; in the terminology of D&D 3.5 that means that ~45% of their population is Evil, and it outright states that culture and religion are the key factors in that. DMs are free to change that, like any other rule, but it should be clearly indicated and Players are to assume RAW (within sensible limits).

Surrendering Goblins are, by RAW, entitled to the same degree of mercy you'd show anyone else. Killing them is an Evil act, and thus if a Paladin kills them they're looking at a potential fall. Anyone else, I'd say cut them a break, but Pallies are supposed to be above that.

[Deophaun]

Goblins (and other Goblinoids, and Orcs, and Kobolds, and...) are Often Evil; in the terminology of D&D 3.5 that means that ~45% of their population is Evil, and it outright states that culture and religion are the key factors in that. DMs are free to change that, like any other rule, but it should be clearly indicated and Players are to assume RAW (within sensible limits).
And, in the context of this thread, the DM has made a ruling that was clearly indicated to the Players, so RAW doesn't enter in to the discussion.

[O.L.Scudmungus]

We not only don't, but can't know if the goblin's lingering death was because of average-ish rolls not being good enough, or if it was simply an anomolous string of low rolls.

We can and shall know! :smallsmile:

The lingering death was due to minimum damage being rolled over 3-4 rounds*.

We use hit locations for narrative fluff, and he originally rolled a head. I believe, according to the Paladin's player's description, he was attempting a head lock/death by noogie - basically, grappling and doing damage to the head/head area.

It should probably be noted that the well quipped Goblin had 2 character levels*



Goblins (and other Goblinoids, and Orcs, and Kobolds, and...) are Often Evil; in the terminology of D&D 3.5 that means that ~45% of their population is Evil, and it outright states that culture and religion are the key factors in that.

You know, that's kinda.. horrible.. in its own right. Even assuming all characters are equally exposed to the same varieties of Goblin life experience, less than half of the Goblin population is 'Evil' and even then, if what you state is accurate, they're essentially conditioned by their religions and social systems.

To my mind, that would make the 'Good' character who slays all Goblins because they're 'Evil' the exception, one working on a gross assumption.

However, we could argue that all the non-Evil goblins aren't likely to be the one's out mugging adventures.

Kinda like humans I guess..

Still again, context trumps all.



Thanks all for the input - lots to think about. Personally I agree with the sentiment that, once the Goblin had been rendered unconscious, snapping its neck, in the face of appeals from other party members, was not GOOD, but not likely to cause an instant fall.

Instead, a possible continuation of a slow and slippery fall into EVIL.

Caps GOOD and EVIL represent ideals, personified and presented within the campaign. Personal alignment can be rationalised endlessly - it's all about who/what's attention you're attracting and the consequences of such attention.

Characters can seemingly argue what constitutes 'Good' to GOOD at their leisure. Characters arguing what constitutes 'Evil' to EVIL are likely to end horribly horribly.. ..dead'ed.

:smallsmile:

[hamishspence]

Orcs are Often Chaotic Evil- which means less than 50% are Chaotic Evil. However, an unknown proportion of the remainder will be Neutral Evil or Lawful Evil, and we cannot know for sure how many are Not Evil. One of the later MMs- I think MMIV- does say that the most common alignment after CE is CN- so the proportion that are Not Evil may actually be quite high.

Goblins, by contrast, are Usually Neutral Evil- which means that more than 50% will be Neutral Evil, and an unknown amount will be the other alignments.

In both of these cases, "culture" may play as much, or more, a part, than "inborn tendencies".

BoED does suggest that killing prisoners is inappropriate for Good characters- but it also states that Execution does not qualify as evil- so a case can be made that if the character has "the power to condemn"- then they may judge the victim, impose a death penalty if appropriate, and carry it out, without violating the normal principle of Not Killing Prisoners.

[Laserlight]

"I choked a guy unconscious and then cut his throat to be nice about it."I believe I've found a new signature quote...

I think this is one of those cases where I'd rather not have attribution, please.

[Starbuck_II]

We can and shall know! :smallsmile:

The lingering death was due to minimum damage being rolled over 3-4 rounds*.

We use hit locations for narrative fluff, and he originally rolled a head. I believe, according to the Paladin's player's description, he was attempting a head lock/death by noogie - basically, grappling and doing damage to the head/head area.

Death by noogie? That is awesome.

[EtherianBlade]

I agree. The Paladin was in no danger. He didn't just kill a foe. He murdered him. he caused undue and unnecessary pain and suffering. Killing the last guy in a fight is one thing, strangling the life out of him with your bare hands while he's helpless is quite another.

That Paladin went over to the dark side in a hard way. He had a perfect opportunity to show mercy, and instead he murdered a helpless victim.

I third this. Everything the Paladin did was all well and good until the strangulation part. At that point, he slipped to the dark side. If I were DM, I would probably have penalized the paladin with an XP loss and suggested atonement.

[O.L.Scudmungus]

BoED does suggest that killing prisoners is inappropriate for Good characters- but it also states that Execution does not qualify as evil- so a case can be made that if the character has "the power to condemn"- then they may judge the victim, impose a death penalty if appropriate, and carry it out, without violating the normal principle of Not Killing Prisoners.

Not having the book, does it suggest that Execution, capital E, is a formal process?

I can see a good case being made for Execution, as punishment metered out by a ruling body, to be 'not EVIL' - possibly not GOOD, but still, far more tolerable* than a simply 'killing', at least to a society so 'civilised' by said ruling body.

Granted, it would also reveal insight into the writers influences.

*for a given value of 'tolerable'.

[Coidzor]

We not only don't, but can't know if the goblin's lingering death was because of average-ish rolls not being good enough, or if it was simply an anomolous string of low rolls.

If it's a string of low damage rolls it should give the man pause to consider how he'd have still managed to kill it more quickly if he'd been using a suitable weapon and been rolling low on damage with it.

If it were a case of average rolls not being good enough, then that's a teachable moment for him to learn how to build a character that's not rubbish at its job. Because, seriously, if you're doing about what you should and you're not performing at a certain baseline level of competence, that's not fun unless one is out to play an incompetent character, which is a bit rude to do without consulting with one's fellows.

[Kelb_Panthera]

If it's a string of low damage rolls it should give the man pause to consider how he'd have still managed to kill it more quickly if he'd been using a suitable weapon and been rolling low on damage with it.

If it were a case of average rolls not being good enough, then that's a teachable moment for him to learn how to build a character that's not rubbish at its job. Because, seriously, if you're doing about what you should and you're not performing at a certain baseline level of competence, that's not fun unless one is out to play an incompetent character, which is a bit rude to do without consulting with one's fellows.

OP clarified that it was in fact an anomolous string of "minimum" rolls. This goblin's lingering death was just bad luck.

As for the whole, "once he was unconcious he was a prisoner" nonsense, the goblin was at negative hit-points and dying since the monk had been making grapple checks for lethal damage. Snapping his neck prevented him from spending up to a minute bleeding internally before dying at best, or possibly days of exposure to the elements and predators if he'd had the misfortune to make a stabalization roll. The coup de grace was a mercy, if anything, not an execution of a helpless prisoner.

The player's (or perhaps even the OP's) choice to describe it as choking the goblin is causing some confusion here.

[Coidzor]

OP clarified that it was in fact an anomolous string of "minimum" rolls. This goblin's lingering death was just bad luck.

Bad luck, maybe. Or possibly good luck to get him to explore and consider other options than choking a *****, which I've only ever seen to be a bit of a poor technique with very little return on time and sweat invested in getting it up to snuff.

[Hyde]

IHS "Paladin CoC". problem solved.

(sorry, I just discovered Iron Heart Surge last night I it's my favorite poorly worded thing ever :)

[Kelb_Panthera]

Bad luck, maybe. Or possibly good luck to get him to explore and consider other options than choking a *****, which I've only ever seen to be a bit of a poor technique with very little return on time and sweat invested in getting it up to snuff.

Grappling can run into problems if the DM likes to use as much of the massive variety of opponents that are availabe as he can reasonably explain, but in a campaign with an emphasis on interactions between humanoids, something an emphasis on morality certainly suggests IMO, it can be quite a powerful option.

Again, we have too little to go on to make heads or tails of whether this is, or is not, a poor choice.

As for the "choking" thing; this whole thread probably would've been much clearer (if it came up at all) had the player or OP fluffed the attack as cranking the neck until it snapped instead, or if the player hadn't been pidgeonholed, by an unnecessary roll of the dice, into fluffing the grapple checks for damage as an attack on the creature's head.

The goblin could've been making quite a fuss (making the unfortunate discussion with the crusader difficult or impossible, since the monk could've claimed "I couldn't hear you over his goblinoid curses in my ears") or even offered a surrender instead of just gagging until it went limp.

[Starbuck_II]

I third this. Everything the Paladin did was all well and good until the strangulation part. At that point, he slipped to the dark side. If I were DM, I would probably have penalized the paladin with an XP loss and suggested atonement.

Wait, grappled made him fall or coup de gracing after guy was dying?

[Threadnaught]

I don't see a problem with the paladin's action. I say this with one caveat, however; was this "well armed" goblin the only one left? If he had an ally around to beg for quarter, then the whole situation changes. If not, then it was a conclusion to a combat. Good marks mercy, but evil doesn't mark its absence. Evil marks intentional cruelty.

The paladin killed an evil creature to prevent it from comitting further acts of evil (presumably, he did detect evil, right?).

You can do a paladin that's more lawful than good, but he'll be walking a fine line.

Bottom lines: the paladin didn't grossly violate the CoC, and he didn't commit an unquestionably evil act, though it certainly wasn't an act of good. Far more importantly, the DM didn't have a problem with it, so neither should you. Your character can think as good or ill of the action as you choose, but whether the paladin should've fallen is none of his, or your, concern.

The Paladin initiated combat with a group of people who were negotiating with the Crusader. He "challenged" the goblin to single combat by grabbing it in the middle of a conversation, choked it unconscious and snapped it's neck. All because the goblin had accused the party of murder and may have sought it's own brand of "justice" if the Crusader failed negotiations.

We don't have any information about how any negotiations that were dealt with, were going. The Paladin attacked during parley a Chaotic act and killed his "opponent" who so far hasn't been revealed as attacking. It was self defence up until the point where the Paladin decided he'd rather people fight and die, than talk.


I never said killing evil creatures was never evil. I will however, repeat the actual alignment system rule; killing an evil creature to prevent further acts of evil is not an inherently evil act, it's morally neutral at best.

Party walks into a city and find a group of goblins sleeping nearby, said goblins have set themselves up as traders, are armed and there are children there. Pally kills them all because, well, they're goblins and we know goblins are evil, right? Young uns would only grow up and be evil goblins, so best prevent them from ever doing more evil than they may have already.
No problem here. :smallconfused:

Nothing was mentioned about whether the group of goblins the party encountered were actually evil. Killing a group of people because they may be evil and may commit evil acts, is at worst, Neutral?

[Kelb_Panthera]

The Paladin initiated combat with a group of people who were negotiating with the Crusader. He "challenged" the goblin to single combat by grabbing it in the middle of a conversation, choked it unconscious and snapped it's neck. All because the goblin had accused the party of murder and may have sought it's own brand of "justice" if the Crusader failed negotiations. Show me where the op said this, exactly.

All I remember reading is that the goblin said he was there because someone in the party killed his brother. I don't remember the crusader saying a thing until after combat was already begun. I do remember the OP saying that the paladin issued his challenge as he was taking his first shot, but for all we know he took that first shot because the DM called for innitiative and he won. Short of the OP giving us a much more explicit description of events, we don't know how exactly it went down.


We don't have any information about how any negotiations that were dealt with, were going. The Paladin attacked during parley a Chaotic act and killed his "opponent" who so far hasn't been revealed as attacking. It was self defence up until the point where the Paladin decided he'd rather people fight and die, than talk. We don't know that there were negotiations to break down. You're making an assumption here. Paladins can take chaotic actions with no penalty, until they've taken enough of them that the DM says his alignment changes.




Party walks into a city and find a group of goblins sleeping nearby, said goblins have set themselves up as traders, are armed and there are children there. Pally kills them all because, well, they're goblins and we know goblins are evil, right? Young uns would only grow up and be evil goblins, so best prevent them from ever doing more evil than they may have already.
No problem here. :smallconfused: That's a completely different (nevermind irrelevant) situation that has nothing to do with what actually happened. That would, of course, be an evil act based on racism. A paladin definitely should fall harder than a comet in that situation. However, by the morality of D&D killing isn't an evil act in and of itself. Whether a kill is good, evil, or neither is dependent on its circumstances and motivation. Killing someone so they won't kill you in a fair combat is neutral. Unless the OP actually says the goblin tried to parley first, there's no reason to assume he did. For all we know the goblin pulled an Inigo Montoya; "You killed my brother, prepare to die."


Nothing was mentioned about whether the group of goblins the party encountered were actually evil. Killing a group of people because they may be evil and may commit evil acts, is at worst, Neutral?

Not what I said at all. Killing someone who was there to kill you is neutral. His alignment and motivations for that desire are irrelevant.

We're both making assumptions here. If there was an actual parley, then I'll happily concede that you're right. If there wasn't then what I've said holds. Until the OP gives us a clearer picture, we're a couple of schroedinger's cats.

[O.L.Scudmungus]

Honestly, ya'll have provided more than enough feedback and have really helped produce some insight into the situation, so as far as I'm concerned, I'm done here.

For final clarification sake: Yes, the Paladin started the fight, in as much as he walked up to the leader of the Goblins and attempted to strike it.

Of course, having a pretty shocking BAB, the Paladin/Monk missed - which he then claimed later wasn't an aggressive act, because he would have appeared 'unarmed' and failed to connect with the strike.

SO YES....

thanks all.

[Threadnaught]

That's a completely different (nevermind irrelevant) situation that has nothing to do with what actually happened. That would, of course, be an evil act based on racism. A paladin definitely should fall harder than a comet in that situation.

It could be argued in that situation I created, however, that the goblins were preparing for some evil act and that it is better to kill the children while they're young, so they don't grow up to be evil, or plot some revenge for their evil kin.
Scorched earth is a very effective strategy for dealing with evil, when there's no life or even undead, can there really be any evil?


We're both making assumptions here. If there was an actual parley, then I'll happily concede that you're right. If there wasn't then what I've said holds. Until the OP gives us a clearer picture, we're a couple of schroedinger's cats.


For final clarification sake: Yes, the Paladin started the fight, in as much as he walked up to the leader of the Goblins and attempted to strike it.

So here we go, the thread isn't about a Paladin, it's about Miko Miyazaki as a player. Someone who appears to believe playing as a Paladin, makes everything they do, both Lawful and Good. As evidenced by this little gem.


Of course, having a pretty shocking BAB, the Paladin/Monk missed - which he then claimed later wasn't an aggressive act, because he would have appeared 'unarmed' and failed to connect with the strike.

So, the same city, with the same goblin traders and children. Pally walks in and starts making a lot of noise about how they're "evil goblins" and he's going to kill them all. Traders pick up their weapons to defend themselves and Pally kills them all saying it was self defence because they were armed.

Both situations are more similar than they appear. Both involve goblins who are usually Evil. In both cases the Paladin starts the fight, unprovoked. The Paladin kills a defenceless sentient in both scenarios. And the Paladin's justification is pathetic, marginally better than "it's Lawful and Good because I'm a Paladin, and Paladins are Lawful Good."


O.L.Scudmungus, I want to know this Paladin's future. His fall, the actions that lead to the fall and his eventual destruction. Could you please update me about any future adventures?

[O.L.Scudmungus]

O.L.Scudmungus, I want to know this Paladin's future. His fall, the actions that lead to the fall and his eventual destruction. Could you please update me about any future adventures?

Sure mon - as and when, you got it.

:smallsmile:

[Rejakor]

I'm going to chime in here, as someone who plays Paladins and who has, y'know, actually read the Alignment section in the PHB (surprising numbers of people get it wrong).


Good, Evil, and Neutral are very specifically defined in the PHB.

The paladin's action in interrupting a negotiation to avoid violence was either Evil or Neutral. If he was doing it to create bloodshed or out of a belief that 'all goblins should be dead', then that was Evil. If it was because he thought it was going nowhere, then that's Neutral, but is shading towards Evil. Ditto for if he was angry or impatient. It was also not Lawful, and could very easily be read as Chaotic, especially since he gave no warning whatsoever.

The paladin's action in killing the unconscious goblin could be read as Neutral, but was probably Evil, given that he had not attempted to find out why the goblin had confronted him, that a party member had asked him to stop, and that there was a good reason to take him prisoner (find out things about goblins in the area).

As for the 'challenge' thing - unless he has a specific code of honour that allows that, it's crap. Challenges need to be made BEFORE you fight someone under any western or eastern code of chivalry. Shouting out a challenge during the fight after a sneak attack is dishonourable under nearly every chivalric code ever created by humans. Challenges are also not necessarily to the death. That kind of 'must be to the death' thing is actually much much more up Hextor's alley (Lawful Evil god of battle, most common god of Blackguards and Paladins of Tyranny) than Heironyous' (LG Paladin God, probably the god you were referring to earlier).


Sounds like this guy is playing a psychotic murderer who thinks of himself as the good guy. Thinking of yourself as the good guy isn't actually enough to be Good. In fact, most Evil people think they are actually doing the right thing. At this point i'd be either talking to the player about it, or his paladin would fall fairly fast.

[Threadnaught]

I'm going to chime in here, as someone who plays Paladins and who has, y'know, actually read the Alignment section in the PHB (surprising numbers of people get it wrong).


Good, Evil, and Neutral are very specifically defined in the PHB.

The paladin's action in interrupting a negotiation to avoid violence was either Evil or Neutral. If he was doing it to create bloodshed or out of a belief that 'all goblins should be dead', then that was Evil. If it was because he thought it was going nowhere, then that's Neutral, but is shading towards Evil. Ditto for if he was angry or impatient. It was also not Lawful, and could very easily be read as Chaotic, especially since he gave no warning whatsoever.

The paladin's action in killing the unconscious goblin could be read as Neutral, but was probably Evil, given that he had not attempted to find out why the goblin had confronted him, that a party member had asked him to stop, and that there was a good reason to take him prisoner (find out things about goblins in the area).

As for the 'challenge' thing - unless he has a specific code of honour that allows that, it's crap. Challenges need to be made BEFORE you fight someone under any western or eastern code of chivalry. Shouting out a challenge during the fight after a sneak attack is dishonourable under nearly every chivalric code ever created by humans. Challenges are also not necessarily to the death. That kind of 'must be to the death' thing is actually much much more up Hextor's alley (Lawful Evil god of battle, most common god of Blackguards and Paladins of Tyranny) than Heironyous' (LG Paladin God, probably the god you were referring to earlier).


Sounds like this guy is playing a psychotic murderer who thinks of himself as the good guy. Thinking of yourself as the good guy isn't actually enough to be Good. In fact, most Evil people think they are actually doing the right thing. At this point i'd be either talking to the player about it, or his paladin would fall fairly fast.

I would sig this whole thing if I could. That's beautiful man, I think I have something in my eye.

That challenge appears to be the kind of thing Drow would do in most settings. They have the kind of culture where issuing a challenge to someone via a knife to the back, is acceptable under their code of honour.

What should we be calling Miko's character anyway?

[Coidzor]

That challenge appears to be the kind of thing Drow would do in most settings. They have the kind of culture where issuing a challenge to someone via a knife to the back, is acceptable under their code of honour.

And the drow are famous for their lack of honor and inability to have a society save for by the constant intervention of their deity and authorial fiat. Definitely not paladiny role models, haha.


What should we be calling Miko's character anyway?

A dead horse. :smalltongue:

[Rejakor]

Actually, Drow work mostly by enlightened self interest and lower classes that have that indefinable minion quality - following orders even when it seems like it will end badly for them (actually makes sense evolutionarily).

That enables them to have upper classes with a constant selection pressure due to backbiting and infighting, which ends up with a race that is simply alright at trade, agriculture, science and warfare, but immensely talented at intrigue, diplomacy, stealth work, deception, and being on a war-footing all the time forever.


This kind of society, of which there are many real-world examples, is actually really well suited for DnD. Not only would many Drow be quite individually powerful (not overly so, like elves, because too-powerful drow either ascend relatively quickly or get ganged up on - the ganging up either works, or it levels the drow so fast they go planar - none of this '5 or so archmages and everyone else is a ranger' crap the elves do), more importantly, their nobility would have a HUGE amount of institutional knowledge of techniques that work to defeat foes (usually other nobles, but quickly applicable to any outside threat) to an extent that non-infighting nations would not have - knowledge like that is an IMMENSE force multiplier.

[Twilightwyrm]

I was under the impression that Paladins were supposed to show mercy to their foes, especially if they are already unconscious. Even if the DM uses a system where Good and Evil are real forces, by the specifications of the alignment system itself, any creature that is not "Always X Alignment" is redeemable, and thus should be treated with a (reasonable) amount of mercy. So unless this guy was a noted Blackguard in his tribe, he qualifies.
As for the lawful justification, this gets heard a lot, and is mostly bull. A Paladin must maintain BOTH aspects of their alignment, because as soon as you start sacrificing one for the other, the other starts becoming neutral (and possible chaotic/evil) (and thus at the least should be seeking an atonement spell). Fine, maybe the goblin did not ask for mercy (he was being strangled, so he really couldn't, but whatever, we'll go with it), but at the point that he goes unconscious, he is a captive under your power, and you do not generally remorselessly execute captives if you are lawful good, and certainly not if you are a Paladin. Fine, he challenged him to solo combat. But we have two caveats: first, I'm guessing the goblin didn't accept, since you describe him challenging him the moment he hit him. Since he did not accept, there is no contract. So maybe he took an oath, but if the Paladin is that flippant with oaths, than that speaks more to a chaotic individual than a lawful one, since a lawful one would theoretically regard oaths as having more weight to them than "an excuse to kill captives". Let's say the goblin did accept however. Fine, he challenged him to solo combat. Unless, however, he challenged him to a fight to the death, the fact that he rendered him unconscious means he defeated him, rendering the oath/challenge completed, meaning he now has a captive that he can't kill "just because". One might argue that maybe it was a fight to the death, or the Paladin assumed that was implied or some such, but that wasn't the reason the Paladin gave. He just said that he was fulfilling the challenge, and to leave him alive would be "stupid", and this is the crux of the issue, which is a pragmatic consideration, not an ethical one. Being a Paladin, hell often being a monk, means that you are not taking an action simply because it is the pragmatic thing to do, else you are no different than any other sell sword. It is about weighing what is ethical at least on par, if not before, what is strictly pragmatic. And this is really the killer here, since it means that, whether the specific action could be debatably moral or not, the Paladin was doing it for reasons that are both unjust and amoral, the antithesis of what it means to be a Paladin.

Note: This is not to say that a Paladin cannot be fairly pragmatic, indeed it is imperative that they do so. But they need to weigh it with the moral and ethical implications of their actions. And it is clear that this one didn't.

[Kelb_Panthera]

In this particular circumstance, the moment the goblin goes unconcious, he's between -1 and -9 hit-points and dying. The paladin was making grapple checks for lethal damage. He or one of his allies would've had to take an action of some sort to -not- kill the goblin at that point.

If they had just walked away at that point the goblin would've had a very slim chance of surviving. More than likely though, it would've bled out in under a minute. Somewhat less likely, but still more likely than a full recovery, it would've lain there on the ground for a while after making a stabalization check, then been eaten by a random encounter. Less likely still, it would've laid there for days before a random encounter got him.

What you're saying amounts to "if a paladin drops a foe, but doesn't outright kill it, he must give it first aid and take it prisoner." This is completely unreasonable. Doing so in this case would've been a Good (note the capital G) thing to do, but choosing not to wasn't evil and the coup-de-grace could be construed as merciful.

After the OP's last response initiating the combat is looking more suspect, but the coup-de-grace at the end wasn't the problem here if there was one.

As for maintaining both aspects of his alignment, yes a paladin must remain both lawful and good, however he is not forbidden from committing chaotic acts. He has to watch himself to make sure he doesn't perform too many and slip into a NG alignment, but that's all. Evil acts are the only explicit auto-fall. The rest of the code is a bit more subjective, as what constitutes honorable behavior is dependent on the culture the paladin comes from and what constitutes legitimate authority is almost entirely a personal call for the paladin unless he belongs to an order that recognizes certain authorities.

@ the OP:

I'm no longer certain the paladin's actions were entirely kosher. When you say he instigated the fight, what exactly were the events leading up to it, if you don't mind my asking?

Clearly the goblin made his identity known, but did he say or do anything that could be construed as a threat? Did the paladin run his evil-dar over the goblins? (note that while pinging evil isn't enough by itself, combining an evil alignment with an opponent that's almost certainly there for vengeance is probably a pass.)

As has been noted previously, the paladin's motivation for his actions is important to determining the alignment of his actions.

[Yomega]

Even if it will save the world, you can't kill a defenseless avatar of evil?! You can to wait till it ascends to full power and destroys the world?

At what point does a evil creature become immune to being killed without it being an evil act?


This is my all time favorite part of morality, the point that it would not be evil is the point you are willing to sacrifice your own morality full knowing the consiquences that you cant bring yourself not to kill it.

If the avatar of evil is so vile that the world will be destroyed and no force could redeam it or seal it away or no posible solution and your standing there blade in hand, is your morality your power your honor, worth more than the world?

[Kelb_Panthera]

This is my all time favorite part of morality, the point that it would not be evil is the point you are willing to sacrifice your own morality full knowing the consiquences that you cant bring yourself not to kill it.

If the avatar of evil is so vile that the world will be destroyed and no force could redeam it or seal it away or no posible solution and your standing there blade in hand, is your morality your power your honor, worth more than the world?

Actually, the alignment system, as written, gives you a pass on that. Destroying evil to prevent evil isn't evil. In a case such as that, it'd almost certainly get you a reward, not a punishment.

There are very few absolute statements in BoED and BoVD. It's all guidlines that the authors (eroneously it seems) expected to be run through the filters of logic and reason.

People making statements like yours are usually blaming the system for their own presumptions, probably for the dissonance between their own sense of morality and what's in the books I suspect. That or, worse, just repeating what they've heard without actually reading the actual materials closely. (Not that I'm accusing you of these things. They just seem to be the most common hiccups in these discussions, IMO.)

As long as you just coup-de-grace the helpless "avatar of an evil elder god", instead of taking forever to beat it to death with a blunt stick you're golden.

[Yomega]

What if it had a speacial ability that the only way it could die was to be beaten to absolute death with a blunt stick?

Haha but I agree killing evil isnt evil but when wrestling with morality the fact they dont know the gods judgment has alot to do with where I draw the line if he was certian this was the best option and danm with the conciquences than thats where I would open the gate that whatever he did wouldnt offend his god

[Dairuga]

Despite this thread being three-pages long already, I am going to chip in my platinum pieces here.

The paladin, in essence, is supposed to be a Paragon of Virtue and Goodness. They are the single, main class with a Lawful Good restriction, and while it might be a bit of a strict adherence to the spirit of the character to claim that Paladins -should- therefor act as paragons of virtue and goodness, it is nevertheless a good way to define a paladin. Paladins are not supposed to be Fighters that get their CHA to all saves, and the ability to detect evil / Deal extra damage to evil. They are supposed to be those that upheld morals, honor, justice and righteousness. The restriction is there for a reason, even if everyone treats the rigidity of the restriction with some difference in malleability.

Long story short; The paladin, if you play them traditionally, are supposed to be as Virtuous, Understanding, Good and Merciful as they come. This, of course, can be contested with our favourite Paladin, Miko. She was virtuous, if not clinging to the rigid works of her own laws. She smote evil, she upheld justice, she killed evil, and she would no doubt murder this Goblin herself if she had the choice. There is a reason she ended up falling, after all.

However, your rules have -real- forces of Good and Evil, Capital G and E. This would serve to dampen some of the -needed- righteous behaviour, however. When you have beings of absolute good, Monsters of absolute Evil, then by proxy, killing Goblins would be considered a good act, wheras killing Good (Or secretly good) creatures or people, it would be considered an Evil act.

Thus, it leaves you at a moral standpoint, on what to do. It seems that while your Chaotic Good crusader has some very good moral and ethical standpoints on what is good or not, your Paladin is striving to merely be efficient. But, was he really being efficient, in correlation to how Morally better he could have acted in the situation? The Crusader already pointed out -far- better options that the Paladin could have done. He could have given it a -chance-. He could have let it go, talked to it, told it "If you attack us, or try to run, you will forfeit your life. We are giving you a chance; we suggest you take it", or something akin to that, and if the goblin, as well-armed as he was, had done anything to break his chance given, it would be on his hands.

As it stands now, I would say that your Paladin was doing something -horribly- wrong, his Required Conduct aside, merely speaking on a moral standpoint. If you -do- take the Required Code of Conduct into the equation, then the statement Required to "act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)", would very much show that this paladin was acting without honour at all.

If you smite evil, you aim to kill it as quickly as possible. You give them a stroke of mercy, a finishing blow. Or you try to end its misery, or what have you; whatever reason you are fighting for. Choking something to death, slowly, over several minutes even, is -not- merciful, nor is it honourable. He might be fighting as best as he can, with Monk and Paladin levels, but nowhere did it say he could not leave the Goblin, give it one round to defend itself, prove it had a smidgen of good in it (Or at least, a smidgen of neutrality, enough to grant it some pardon). He killed the creature much like an assassin would, bluntly put.

Now, just for humor's sake; let us crack open the Books of Exalted Deeds, and Books of Vile evil. Or for that matter, we might as well take a peak in the Fiendish Codex II. I know the prior two books gain a lot of bad reputation, and are not often used at tables, but for the sake of argument, let us keep an open mind to what they say. But for the sake of judging goodness, let us stick to the BoED for now. Yes, the BoED is teaching people on how to follow an "Exalted" path, which is far more virtuous and higher-restricted than normal Lawful good character, but it makes for a good example on how paragons of Morality and Justice should act, at least to some extent.

It is already made clear by Raw, that Poisons are, to some extent, an evil act. Not truly evil, seen from a non-exalted point of view, because it is merely a means to an end. But, seen from an exalted point of view, it causes unnecessary pain. Poisons slowly cripple and wear away enemies, and can be seen as some form for torture, if applied correctly. By the same hand, choking someone to death, slowly, with people watching them as their life ebs away, is hardly killing someone with the least amount of pain. A slightly more moral option would, for example, be the paladin telling the Crusader to finish the goblin off.

Now, for a little interesting tidbit. In the Fiendish codex II; It is listed a variety rule, called Corruption and Obeisance points. It is what devils deal with, to cause Lawful Good creatures to end up in one of the ventral planes upon death; Baator . The nine hells, more specifically, where the devils reside. If a lawful creature deals in corrupting acts, they end up in hell, no matter how law-abiding they are. Likewise, Evil characters whom fulfill the requirements of doing Obeisant acts, end up in Baator no matter how chaotic they might be, due to their lawful behavior.

The next step, would then be to see if the Paladin's act could fall under one of such "Corrupting" acts, as described in the book. Do keep in mind, these are not any rules that are always in effect, and does not need to be used. But, for what they are worth, they give some handy references for what is considered bad or good. One particular of these corrupt acts, is "Perverting Justice for Personal gain". One can argue that this paladin is indeed perverting Justice for Personal gain. He claimed a monster was Evil, (Which he might have had a reason for, given the Tangible force of Evil spawning monsters and such), and proceeded to murder it, without giving it a chance for self-defense or proving that it had some shred of good in it. It was clear they were overpowering the monster, it was clear the goblin was not going to survive. In essence, he had won, but this Paladin wanted the goblin -dead-, and claimed that it was a just act, to kill this goblin.

While it was, possibly, a lawful act to kill this goblin; if the goblin was in the Neutral territory as opposed to evil (Granted, unless he spent a round Detecting evil on it), then what he did was in no circumstance a "Good" act, and thus, it would warrant corruption points; thus pushing him towards Neutral territory as opposed to "Good". The issue about Hunters losing Neutrality for hunting down Neutral monsters is a valid counterargument to my statement; given that their lives -resolve- around hunting their chosen enemy, and that they should not be downright evil for killing what they have been trained to kill. But nevertheless, I do believe there to be a line between "Hunting quarry" and "murdering a sentient, thinking being whom was wanting revenge for his dead brother". Your alignment is determined by your actions, after all, not your class features.

Furthermore, the Paladin claimed "He had challenged the Goblin to a single combat", but had he really? Did he step forward, give the goblin time to ready himself, and had a fair fight with him, as "Challenging someone to a fight" includes? If one is to say one challenged someone to combat, you could have a look at the Knight's rules for fighting fair, which a Paladin should -somewhat- adhere to, if they claim to challenge someone, to appear fair.

The Paladin then goes on to say "Doing anything else would be stupid". Which is... a very un-paladin thing to say. Forces of good does sometime borderline Lawful-stupid, but being good does -not- equate being stupid, merely for giving the enemy a chance. Taking a strong enemy, beating them up, and then letting them go might be stupid. But there are a thousand of other ways that the encounter could have gone that would include neither killing, nor stupidity. To someone whom blatantly says "I do this my way, anything else is stupid", is clearly either not a team player, or merely a self-centered guy whom thinks they understand how the world works completely. Which, in hindsight, was what Miko was, to strike an example.

He might think that "any other course of action" would be stupid, and while they are valid to him, the rest of the world might not agree. And when the universe, and the rest of the world, does not agree with his decisions, then it is usually not the Paladin that ends up being right. In other words, if he keeps acting that way, he would be well on his way to falling.

The problem however, arises in the fact that the DM wants everyone to be happy, and ensure everyone has a good time. This is good, and making someone fall is as far from "having a good time" as one can have. Losing class features for acting in a way you think is cool is rather in bad taste. What he should do, however, is to have a talk with the Paladin, or impose a penalty of -some- sort for his acts. Perhaps have someone claim that he was... not very good. Have some people act repulsed by how he could behave in the way he did, or perhaps make the Goblin he killed carry some quasi-important role in the roleplay that required him to be alive, which is now too late, since the Paladin killed it.

To summarize; being "Nice" does not need to be an -intrinsic- part of being "Good", but do keep in mind, most Bad-ass avenging holy-types ends up either falling, or becoming something else entirely. What he did, was more of bullying, than avenging; given that there was not much to -avenge- in the first place. It was an overpowering group of people, gathered around one piddly creature, and declared that it needed to die, more so than someone that worked for a holy purpose. There's a reason why The Punisher is Chaotic Good / Chaotic neutral.

His actions, however, would possibly be more befitting of a Gray Guard, rather than a Paladin. The Gray Guard is a prestige class which progresses much the same as a Paladin does, with a bit more gritty and dark feel to it, and has some leniency in the code.

At least, that's my opnion on the matter.

---------------------

TL;DR - The paladin's actions were not entirely morally agreeable, and should perhaps warrant some sort of penalty in the form of roleplaying difficulties. A paladin that claims "Any method other than what I chose to do is stupid" is not a very good Paladin, and could be prone to earning the distrust of others. :miko:

[Mangles]

When it comes to paladins and their lawful good code, I often like to think to what the current military training is in regards to the Geneva and other conventions regarding combat. These of course don't exist in the D&D universe, but they do here and for nations that agree to hold by the convention there can be some bad situations that arise that often feel like a paladin situation.

For instance: The Australian army went on a peace keeping mission in East Timor a few years ago. East Timor was at the time a part of Indonesia, however they wanted independence. Being close to Australia, soldiers from our army were deployed there to rebuild infrastructure and keep the peace on the request of the fledgling nations leaders and with UN backing. During their deployment, guerrilla forces often attacked the Australians and East Timorese. One of the guerrillas tactics was to walk to a bunker with a grenade and throw it at the soldiers. They would then put their hands in the air and surrender.

Even before the bomb explodes, by the conventions that the Australians ratified, the soldiers cannot shoot at the person who may have just killed their comrades. By surrendering he becomes a POW, and because he no longer posses a threat to the soldiers, even though he may have killed some of them, they cannot return fire.

The Geneva convention, and the other less known ones, are the rules for engagement that provide the most humane solution to war. They may not always seem fair, but they are designed so that atrocities like the slow strangled death of a helpless goblin, don't happen. A Paladin should be merciful and honorable in combat. They should always create the most humane solution to war.

Your paladin didn't follow his code. He should fall.

[O.L.Scudmungus]

@ the OP:

I'm no longer certain the paladin's actions were entirely kosher. When you say he instigated the fight, what exactly were the events leading up to it, if you don't mind my asking?

Leading up to the fight:

The party were returning from collecting some essential.. guano.. when they were confronted by Well Equipped Goblins.

While the Leader Goblin accused the party of murdering his brother, his minion Goblins began to fan out, attempting to surround the party. The Paladin didn't have time to check them for evil. The Paladin did attempt to fight the Leader Goblin 1 on 1 but the Leader Goblin neither wanted to nor accepted a 1 on 1 fight.

Did the party kill the Goblin's brother? Probably. A few of the members decided to engage with some Goblins that were spotted a few days before, deciding to strike first and yes, assuming the Goblins were Evil.

The Crusader was attempting to avoid bloodshed, having recently joined the party and as such was not part of the original 'possible Goblin brother slaying'.

After re-reading what's been contributed so far, I can start to see a trend of the player justifying a somewhat brutal mindset by simply 'being a paladin'.

Good kills evil, lawful means contracts are all binding.

Please excuse me if the above is ..confuzzled. I'm very ill at the moment. :yuk:


The paladin, in essence, is supposed to be a Paragon of Virtue and Goodness. They are the single, main class with a Lawful Good restriction, and while it might be a bit of a strict adherence to the spirit of the character to claim that Paladins -should- therefor act as paragons of virtue and goodness, it is nevertheless a good way to define a paladin.

This was essentially my original sentiment. This thread was/is an attempt to find some other viewpoints. The player of the Paladin just wants to have fun, which is cool. Personally I'd like to find out what he feels the difference between a Lawful Good fighter/misc and a Paladin.

Personally, I'm all for rewarding good RP fluff with ..more fluff. To my mind, a Paladin is welcomed and loved because, as you say, they're paragons of virtue and goodness. Now, if a player can play them, then the world should reflect their noble efforts.


To summarize; being "Nice" does not need to be an -intrinsic- part of being "Good", but do keep in mind, most Bad-ass avenging holy-types ends up either falling, or becoming something else entirely.

I think this might be the root of the problem. Some folks just want to be The Bad Ass, forgetting that Bad Assery is a slow decline followed by a, hopeful, redemption. A journey that as you mention, involves folks falling and being fallen for the majority of the time.

Personally, I think that Bad Ass is tired cliche'.

Save the world - Good job!

Save the world nicely - Winner!

:smallsmile:

[Twilightwyrm]

In this particular circumstance, the moment the goblin goes unconcious, he's between -1 and -9 hit-points and dying. The paladin was making grapple checks for lethal damage. He or one of his allies would've had to take an action of some sort to -not- kill the goblin at that point.

If they had just walked away at that point the goblin would've had a very slim chance of surviving. More than likely though, it would've bled out in under a minute. Somewhat less likely, but still more likely than a full recovery, it would've lain there on the ground for a while after making a stabalization check, then been eaten by a random encounter. Less likely still, it would've laid there for days before a random encounter got him.

What you're saying amounts to "if a paladin drops a foe, but doesn't outright kill it, he must give it first aid and take it prisoner." This is completely unreasonable. Doing so in this case would've been a Good (note the capital G) thing to do, but choosing not to wasn't evil and the coup-de-grace could be construed as merciful.

After the OP's last response initiating the combat is looking more suspect, but the coup-de-grace at the end wasn't the problem here if there was one.

As for maintaining both aspects of his alignment, yes a paladin must remain both lawful and good, however he is not forbidden from committing chaotic acts. He has to watch himself to make sure he doesn't perform too many and slip into a NG alignment, but that's all. Evil acts are the only explicit auto-fall. The rest of the code is a bit more subjective, as what constitutes honorable behavior is dependent on the culture the paladin comes from and what constitutes legitimate authority is almost entirely a personal call for the paladin unless he belongs to an order that recognizes certain authorities.



The guy was unconscious and dying yes, that does not mean the Paladin has to let him die. Stabilization is as easy as a DC 15 Heal check, DC 13 if you are using the Heroes of Battle combat stabilization rules. After that, it is a simply matter of hiding him under fallen leaves to ward off predators and moving on. The only way the coup de grace is considered merciful then, is if they intend for him to die, and the choice is between bleeding out and dying instantly. Or you can keep him until he stabilizes, and use the opportunity to get information from him, and assess the risk he poses from there.

Yes, the paladin has more leniency on the chaos vs. law side of the spectrum, but committing a chaotic act (aiding the chaotic good rebel forces, for example), and exhibiting a chaotic tendency in behavior (flippantly swearing an oath of single combat for every enemy you fight) are entirely different things. Like you say, being good, evil, chaotic or lawful is a pattern of behavior, not a single act. A tendency towards flippantly swearing oaths is a chaotic one. It is possible for such a tendency to be reversed, but the DM would need to see such through consistent behavior to the contrary. Further, whether the Paladin answers to an order or not, there are still standards of law and good to be upheld. You can argue for cultural difference all you want, but the OP already established that alignment forces are a non-subjective force in the universe, meaning such cultural variance counts for squat. The Paladin answer to a higher authority, and if it is not the church, it is the "powers that be", or whatever cosmic forces define behavior.

[Starbuck_II]

The Geneva convention, and the other less known ones, are the rules for engagement that provide the most humane solution to war. They may not always seem fair, but they are designed so that atrocities like the slow strangled death of a helpless goblin, don't happen. A Paladin should be merciful and honorable in combat. They should always create the most humane solution to war.

Your paladin didn't follow his code. He should fall.

You story had nothing to do with the situiation, none of the goblins surrendered.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The guy was unconscious and dying yes, that does not mean the Paladin has to let him die. Stabilization is as easy as a DC 15 Heal check, DC 13 if you are using the Heroes of Battle combat stabilization rules. After that, it is a simply matter of hiding him under fallen leaves to ward off predators and moving on. The only way the coup de grace is considered merciful then, is if they intend for him to die, and the choice is between bleeding out and dying instantly. Or you can keep him until he stabilizes, and use the opportunity to get information from him, and assess the risk he poses from there.

Yes, the paladin has more leniency on the chaos vs. law side of the spectrum, but committing a chaotic act (aiding the chaotic good rebel forces, for example), and exhibiting a chaotic tendency in behavior (flippantly swearing an oath of single combat for every enemy you fight) are entirely different things. Like you say, being good, evil, chaotic or lawful is a pattern of behavior, not a single act. A tendency towards flippantly swearing oaths is a chaotic one. It is possible for such a tendency to be reversed, but the DM would need to see such through consistent behavior to the contrary. Further, whether the Paladin answers to an order or not, there are still standards of law and good to be upheld. You can argue for cultural difference all you want, but the OP already established that alignment forces are a non-subjective force in the universe, meaning such cultural variance counts for squat. The Paladin answer to a higher authority, and if it is not the church, it is the "powers that be", or whatever cosmic forces define behavior.

After reading the OP's most recent update (sorry about the bug, dude. Get better :smallsmile:) I'm back to being certain this was a self-defense situation.

The goblins arrived, anounced who they were and moved to surround. This is a clear indication of aggressive intent. They were there for blood, and that fight was coming no matter who fired the first shot. That alone gives the paladin an "all-clear" for use of lethal force.

Yes, if he or someone else in the party cared to do so, they could've made a heal check to stabalize the creature, but why would they? This goblin was a member of a party there to kill the PC's. If he's dead, he no longer poses a threat of any kind, barring minions to revive him, something I find more than a little unlikely.

The paladin missed an opportunity to show mercy, but that's all. If he's not a merciful character but upholds the other tenets of a good alignment, then that's all there is to it. No alignment is all-or-nothing.

You're still creating the implication that all creatures the party drops without killing have to be afforded immediate care and taken prisoner. Even a saint would be pressed to equal such an unreasonable standard. Btw, even if they stabalized him and left him concealed, there'd still be a fair chance of him being discovered and killed by a passing creature with the scent ability, nevermind being left exposed to the elements for days while he makes the excrutiatingly slow climb from negative hit-points back to functionality. Just stabalizing him and walking away is most likely condemning him to a slow, torturous death; hardly a good act.

The coup-de-grace was the only merciful option besides reviving him and taking him prisoner. It also had the benefit of being practical since, had this goblin miraculously survived, he could've come back stronger and even more hungry for revenge.

Mercy is a tenet of good, but its absence is not evil. Evil is being a deliberate, blood-thirsty destroyer of life. This paladin may or may not be on the path that leads to that end, but we don't have enough information about his overall behavioral pattern to make that call.

On the law-chaos side of things, flippantly making oaths isn't chaotic. Not unless you just as flippantly disregard them. If you uphold every flippant oath you make, you're showing very clearly lawful behavior, if not particularly good judgement.

Also note that, as I said before, honorable behavior is subjective. Culture is everything in deciding what is or is not honorable action. At the same time which, if any, dishonorable actions constitute a gross violation of an honor code are just as socially subjective. Calling the paladin in question out for dishonorable behavior is entirely baseless until you actually know what his honor code's dictates are. Assuming the chivalric code of european knights errant, or something similar, is just that; an assumption.

[beforemath]

It occurs to me how difficult it must be for a paladin to kill a troll, since setting a helpless sentient creature on fire is certainly an evil act. But then, he'd have to heal the troll up every time he beat him into the negatives, so it's probably a moot point.


But anyway, we're talking about goblins...

Goblins never have to die when fighting paladins, since they can just drop their weapons and say "I surrender" as a free action on the paladin's turn. They can then proceed to wander off and prepare another ambush.

Ambushes would be easy for a goblin to set up, since the paladin has to parley with the goblin and the goblin can decline any offer to duel. Meanwhile, his companions can get ready to throw javelins and surrender.

Goblin rogues can fake a deathblow so that they can get a free sneak attack when the paladin goes to bandage them.

A goblin could probably make some easy money from a paladin, too. All he has to do is demand reparations for his "relative" that the paladin killed. Any given paladin's certain to have killed some goblins. The payout could probably get the goblin some nice weapons with which to attack travelers.

[Water_Bear]

It occurs to me how difficult it must be for a paladin to kill a troll, since setting a helpless sentient creature on fire is certainly an evil act. But then, he'd have to heal the troll up every time he beat him into the negatives, so it's probably a moot point.

...

I don't want to sound like I don't get your sarcasm, because I do, but your statements don't follow from the fluff or rules of D&D 3.5, or from common sense.

Mercy does not mean weakness; BoED, and every other sourcebook I've ever seen which deals with alignment, takes pains to beat you about the head with that fact. A Paladin is not obligated to let their captives go unless they have shown a genuine desire and ability to reform, they are not obligated to give them any opportunity to escape even if the measures needed to contain them would otherwise qualify as torture, and they may kill said captive should their crimes warrant a just execution.

Good has limits. There are things a Good person can do, but chooses not to, and that makes some people think that they are weak. In reality it's exactly the opposite; Good is more powerful because it embraces altruism empathy and compassion, because while a villain only ever fights for themselves a hero fights for the good of everyone, and that gives them an incredible will no other alignment can match. Or at least that's how it works in D&D.

[beforemath]

I don't want to sound like I don't get your sarcasm, because I do, but your statements don't follow from the fluff or rules of D&D 3.5, or from common sense.

Mercy does not mean weakness; BoED, and every other sourcebook I've ever seen which deals with alignment, takes pains to beat you about the head with that fact. A Paladin is not obligated to let their captives go unless they have shown a genuine desire and ability to reform, they are not obligated to give them any opportunity to escape even if the measures needed to contain them would otherwise qualify as torture, and they may kill said captive should their crimes warrant a just execution.

Good has limits. There are things a Good person can do, but chooses not to, and that makes some people think that they are weak. In reality it's exactly the opposite; Good is more powerful because it embraces altruism empathy and compassion, because while a villain only ever fights for themselves a hero fights for the good of everyone, and that gives them an incredible will no other alignment can match. Or at least that's how it works in D&D.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was getting at, all right.


If you, as a paladin, are fighting something, it's most likely because it is a danger. You're not going to leave it to heal so that it can terrorize innocents in your absence. You're not going to try to make the fight fair so that it has a sporting chance of killing you (and, in your absence, innocents). Most of the time, it's not even in your best interest to talk things over with the evil creature, since most of them can just go back on any agreement that you've made and then get back to harming innocents.


In our example above, a goblin identified himself as an ally to the party's enemies. The paladin, instead of giving aid to the party's enemies (who were clearly well-equipped and dangerous), engaged them. He then proceeded to subdue them and, instead of allowing a chance for their threat to return after the party left, he killed them.


And don't automatically assume that "good" equals "agreeable." Some of the best conflicts are good-on-good.

A Chaotic Good ranger could come to blows if he finds a paladin's heavy-handed justice too stifling on villagers' freedom.

A paladin of a Lawful Neutral church of Justice is coming to bring a murderer to justice. Upon finding the murderer, he is trying to make amends by caring for his victim's family. To incarcerate him would mean dooming this family to starvation. The paladin decides that he is already paying his penance and that justice is served. His church is not amused.



The variety of ways to be good (even Lawful Good) is what makes it all fun and interesting. Some paladins are a bit over the top. Some paladins are a lot more reserved.

[Augmental]

The biggest problem I see here is that the paladin slowly choked the goblin to death, when he could have just let another party member kill it a lot faster.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The biggest problem I see here is that the paladin slowly choked the goblin to death, when he could have just let another party member kill it a lot faster.

Again, this was misfortune, not a deliberate action. The dice just didn't like that poor goblin.

If the crusader had wacked it with his weapon and rolled "minimal damage" and taken just as long to kill it, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion.

[Killer Angel]

A little late for the party, but...

A paladin is the Paragon of virtue, it's behavior should be above all suspicion.
If you start questioning its actions, to the point you need to start a thread, this means something is going wrong. :smallwink:

[Hopeless]

So, a classic morality mess. Is the Paladin being.. a Paladin?

Okay just finished reading the thread!

The crusader was negotiating as the lead goblin talked to him leaving the goblin's allies to spread out to surround the party.
The paladin engaged the goblin negotiating after he refused his challenge but since he was negotiating any attack could have backfired after all the paladin didn't know what the others were doing and whether they had additional backup (which they didn't but thats why he has Detect Evil and as described he didn't use it, dumb mistake not a downfall one mind you).

Once the others had been defeated by his comrades there was no need for him to continue grappling, he represents his church and their image is of vital importance if they want to grow and prosper and other than converting by sword his actions wouldn't be a credit to his faith.

He could have disengaged and even have one of his comrades deal with the goblin but he chose a rather nasty and foolish method of ending the goblin's life.

His party could have been under threat by another group whilst he did this and the fact he took a great deal of time instead of acknowledging his comrades isn't a good sign.

I agree its a chaotic act and not evil, but the fact he didn't use his detect evil means he doesn't know these goblins are evil and assuming they all are is sure fire road towards falling from grace.

At the very least he needs to seek a priest of his faith to talk to and explain why he needs to be showing his comrades why his faith is worth worshipping not drive them and others away with your singleminded zeal thats better off by being a cleric than a paladin.

[Amphetryon]

A little late for the party, but...

A paladin is the Paragon of virtue, it's behavior should be above all suspicion.
If you start questioning its actions, to the point you need to start a thread, this means something is going wrong. :smallwink:

Can you describe an action a Paladin would take in the course of adventuring and fighting the forces of Evil that's 100% free of moral uncertainty, such that none would question either the action or the motives?

[beforemath]

A little late for the party, but...

A paladin is the Paragon of virtue, it's behavior should be above all suspicion.
If you start questioning its actions, to the point you need to start a thread, this means something is going wrong. :smallwink:

Hrm... But everyone *always* questions paladins' actions...


Logically, that means that everything is always going wrong.




Taking into account the D&D games that I've been in, I can't argue with that logic.

[hoverfrog]

I haven't read all the comments but if a chaotic good character stood by and allowed the "former" paladin to murder someone doesn't that also say something about the morality of that character too?

My suggestion is to ask the paladin to justify their actions. Perhaps he saw a clear and present danger in allowing the goblin to live. What if he'd gotten free and gone to fetch reinforcements? What if he recognised some of the equipment as belonging to murder victims and the penalty of death had already been prescribed for it? In that case he was carrying out an execution rather than killing a helpless prisoner in cold blood.

[Killer Angel]

Can you describe an action a Paladin would take in the course of adventuring and fighting the forces of Evil that's 100% free of moral uncertainty, such that none would question either the action or the motives?

Well, if a paladin avoids to kill enemies while they're unconscious, that would be a nice starter... :smallwink:
What's the next step? taking prisoners, and killing them after interrogations 'cause they're evil?

[Amphetryon]

Well, if a paladin avoids to kill enemies while they're unconscious, that would be a nice starter... :smallwink:
What's the next step? taking prisoners, and killing them after interrogations 'cause they're evil?

So a Paladin who refuses to actually rid his sworn charges of the menace they're facing once and for all is unquestionably good? And one who tortures enemies by putting them in near-death situations without letting their suffering end - potentially through repeated fights - isn't being the tiniest bit sadistic?

Really?

[ZDPhoenix]

I know you already have your feedback, but it sounds like you've got a roleplayer that should have played a neutral-aligned fighter; or an Inquisitor, with that attitude.

[Killer Angel]

So a Paladin who refuses to actually rid his sworn charges of the menace they're facing once and for all is unquestionably good? And one who tortures enemies by putting them in near-death situations without letting their suffering end - potentially through repeated fights - isn't being the tiniest bit sadistic?

Really?

A paladin, in every circumstance, should be guided by good. Not killing a prisoner, is not sadistic, neither cruel, even if you know that the prisoner will try to escape to kill you later.
To further answer you previous question:


Can you describe an action a Paladin would take in the course of adventuring and fighting the forces of Evil that's 100% free of moral uncertainty, such that none would question either the action or the motives?

A Paladin will face moral choices (see link below). She will probably suffer for them, but she'll be right, if she follows the path of good. Remember that a paladin does good things, in a lawful way.
A paladin that acts good, while being torn by a difficult decision, acts in this way (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0482.html).
A paladin that acts lawful and doesn't question herself, follows the Miko's path. Executing a prisoner, is more on the Lawful side , rather than the Good one.

[Amphetryon]

Not killing a prisoner, is not sadistic, neither cruel, even if you know that the prisoner will try to escape to kill you later.


My point was that the Paladin's motivations and methodology have as much to do with whether a Paladin (or anyone else) is behaving in a Lawful and Good manner as the actions themselves. For example, taken devoid of context, the above could indicate torture and maiming is neither sadistic nor cruel (though maiming is hard to actually achieve in D&D due to the HP mechanic).

[Killer Angel]

My point was that the Paladin's motivations and methodology have as much to do with whether a Paladin (or anyone else) is behaving in a Lawful and Good manner as the actions themselves.

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

[Burner28]

Can you describe an action a Paladin would take in the course of adventuring and fighting the forces of Evil that's 100% free of moral uncertainty, such that none would question either the action or the motives?

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

[Starbuck_II]

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

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

[Yahzi]

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

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

[Amphetryon]

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

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

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

[yakri]

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

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

[Kane0]

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

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

[Blightedmarsh]

My two cents:

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

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

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

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


As the OP said "good is not necessarily nice"

[Starbuck_II]

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

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

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

[Threadnaught]

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

I'm sorry, but that is utter crap.

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

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

[Amphetryon]

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

[Water_Bear]

I'm sorry, but that is utter crap.

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

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

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

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

[Threadnaught]

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


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

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

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

[Water_Bear]

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

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


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

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

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

[huttj509]

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


"I challenge you to single combat!"

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

All valid methods of declining a challenge.

[Threadnaught]

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

Angry drunk challenges us to a fight.

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


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

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

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

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

[Kelb_Panthera]

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

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

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

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

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

[Starbuck_II]

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

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

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

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