PDA

View Full Version : DM Help See this what do/alignment question



Pinjata
2014-12-12, 04:42 AM
You are a LG paladin. While marching on your way to the next village, where something is attacking local sheeps, you are a witness to {scrubbed}.

What do you do? Do not read spoiler before you have a well constructed reply.

Bullies too are victims. If you smite them, you basically fall. How should LG react to such a situation?

Kane0
2014-12-12, 05:13 AM
This thread is sort of a can of worms, you know that right?

That said, a paladin in my hands would wade in with the nonlethal damage in full swing, he doesnt have time for this crap. Once they are subdued its to the local authorities with them, or at least a nearby church or something with a note detailing what he witnessed and did.

Then its back on the road to kill slay threats to civilisation and innocents and other heroic duties. He'll check back in later to make sure everyone was sorted out properly and if not, will try to find time to discipline them himself. But priorities being what they are, chances would be theres some dragon or necromancer or something that needs to be dealt with more immediately than horrible children.
To be honest if he heard that they were continually getting out of hand and they refused to lern their lesson he would have fewer and fewer qualms about responding with reasonable force. He's a knight that defends the innocent, not a damned preacher.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-12-12, 05:14 AM
Seeing as I'm almost certainly larger and far more imposing than either of the bullies; what with being clad in heavy armor, toting a large sword, and riding on the back of a radiant steed; I simply pull them apart (not a combat action) and demand an explanation, perhaps with an intimidate check. After at least an attempt to talk to them I'd walk the victim the remainder of the distance back to the village (or her outlying home if it's nearby) after admonishing the other girls to go about their business. Then continue on with the quest.

While bullying isn't a minor issue for the people involved, it -is- a minor issue compared to some lethal beasty running around and/or people's livelihoods being threatened. It's certainly -far- beneath the notice of a soldier against the darkness like a paladin. Pass that noise off to a cleric or parish priest (NPC adept or expert). I wasn't given the ability to smite so that I could help teenagers deal with their crap.

Mastikator
2014-12-12, 05:22 AM
If I as a paladin, a trained warrior with weapons and armor, showed up then I could very easily intimidate the bullies to leave without using violence (because I have a sword and they are unarmed), if it doesn't work then I doubt a kick in the stomach would do the trick. Once they've run home I'd ask the bullied victim what it was about and if she needs help, and I'd probably offer to let her tag along to the village I'm headed to and give her some martial technique advice for self defense in the future.
I may not be able to solve the problem of bullying forever, but if I can help her fend for herself in my absence then that's what I'll do.

Pinjata
2014-12-12, 05:58 AM
Neat answers.

I posted this because:
- this vid really shocked me
- i have problems roleplaying LG
- want to troll my PCs with such an event or two when GMing

The thing is in character I'd want to practically re-educate all three. Turn the victim into some sort of a monk and dig dig dig to find the reasons why the bullies are as they are. Which is not LG, especially given the beasties that roam the land.

Tarlek Flamehai
2014-12-12, 06:41 AM
Not every problem can be solved with an afterschool special. The bullies I have known were never "curable" they either grew out of it (like many personality flaws caused by the shallowness of youth) or they didn't. I have never known a bully to change their behavior because of "the magic of friendship."

Solaris
2014-12-12, 10:49 AM
Not every problem can be solved with an afterschool special. The bullies I have known were never "curable" they either grew out of it (like many personality flaws caused by the shallowness of youth) or they didn't. I have never known a bully to change their behavior because of "the magic of friendship."

This is very true in the real world.

However, thanks to D&D and the BoED, we can use Diplomacy to brainwash people, which isn't creepy at all.

I use my Diplomancy to convince the parents of the bullies to come along, and the bullies that it's in their best interest to do so. Not only does it give me greater opportunity while not keeping me from pursuing my mission, seeing more of the world is generally good for young people. From there it's only a matter of time and rolling before they see the light. After the adventure, I return 'em to their village changed people.

Jay R
2014-12-12, 11:54 AM
Not every problem can be solved with an afterschool special. The bullies I have known were never "curable" they either grew out of it (like many personality flaws caused by the shallowness of youth) or they didn't. I have never known a bully to change their behavior because of "the magic of friendship."

No. But I've known two who changed their behavior because of a punch in the nose.

My paladin stops them, without drawing a weapon. (And I have not watched and will not watch the video.) Unless the paladin has teaching skills, that ends his duties. Stopping one act does not imply taking on the job of local cop or spiritual advisor for the next year.

Michael7123
2014-12-12, 12:19 PM
Two words.

Intimidate check.

Maybe use a heal light wounds on the victim if it was needed, but probably not.

Then back to saving the world.

Sith_Happens
2014-12-12, 12:25 PM
Seeing as I'm almost certainly larger and far more imposing than either of the bullies; what with being clad in heavy armor, toting a large sword, and riding on the back of a radiant steed; I simply pull them apart (not a combat action) and demand an explanation, perhaps with an intimidate check. After at least an attempt to talk to them I'd walk the victim the remainder of the distance back to the village (or her outlying home if it's nearby) after admonishing the other girls to go about their business. Then continue on with the quest.

While bullying isn't a minor issue for the people involved, it -is- a minor issue compared to some lethal beasty running around and/or people's livelihoods being threatened. It's certainly -far- beneath the notice of a soldier against the darkness like a paladin. Pass that noise off to a cleric or parish priest (NPC adept or expert). I wasn't given the ability to smite so that I could help teenagers deal with their crap.

This.

That said, I object to your spoiler. There's nothing about Smite Evil that precludes dealing nonlethal damage.:smalltongue:

Milodiah
2014-12-12, 12:26 PM
There is nonlethal damage for a reason :smallwink:

I guarantee you, 90% of the parties you drop this on won't go full-on Attack Pattern Alpha on two peasant bullies. They'll send the fighter over with a quickly-acquired heavy stick, tell them to knock it off, then whack them around if they somehow ignore the Intimidate check.

With the casters, rogue, ranger, etc. in full-on Attack Pattern Alpha buffed-up +5 Swords of Ass-Kicking drawn just in case this is a trap. Because this is D&D and anything that's not a level-appropriate random combat encounter is probably a trap.


Also, I object to the notion that such plebeian matters are somehow "below" a paladin. Would you walk past a wounded Commoner without healing them just because they're a Commoner and such people are "beneath" you? Would you ignore the mugging behind the tavern because the alcoholic brigand is hardly a world-shattering evil?

I'd be more inclined to make a Paladin fall after a (long) history of such behavior than the classic "if you do what's right, you'll Fall, because I as the DM have engineered an insidious Catch-22! (*twirls mustache*)" sort of nonsense. Lawful Good paladins don't have to be polite or patient, but they should at least be altruistic (because why else would they BE paladins), and should definitely be upholding the law. Because c'mon, these examples take up 15 seconds, tops.

Then again, it kinda boils down to which god you support. St. Cuthbert would probably get fed up with his paladin ignoring matters of JUSTICE, whereas Wee Jas probably wouldn't care...it's always weird to me that people acknowledge Clerics as having different tenants and opinions, but Paladins are just...Paladins.

Solaris
2014-12-12, 12:36 PM
Also, I object to the notion that such plebeian matters are somehow "below" a paladin. Would you walk past a wounded Commoner without healing them just because they're a Commoner and such people are "beneath" you? Would you ignore the mugging behind the tavern because the alcoholic brigand is hardly a world-shattering evil?

I'd be more inclined to make a Paladin fall after a (long) history of such behavior than the classic "if you do what's right, you'll Fall, because I as the DM have engineered an insidious Catch-22! (*twirls mustache*)" sort of nonsense. Lawful Good paladins don't have to be polite or patient, but they should at least be altruistic (because why else would they BE paladins), and should definitely be upholding the law. Because c'mon, these examples take up 15 seconds, tops.

Then again, it kinda boils down to which god you support. St. Cuthbert would probably get fed up with his paladin ignoring matters of JUSTICE, whereas Wee Jas probably wouldn't care...it's always weird to me that people acknowledge Clerics as having different tenants and opinions, but Paladins are just...Paladins.

Agreed. While the Paladin can't save everyone, that doesn't mean he shouldn't at least give it his best shot.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-12-12, 01:39 PM
This.

That said, I object to your spoiler. There's nothing about Smite Evil that precludes dealing nonlethal damage.:smalltongue:

No but beating on children isn't the first course of action that comes to mind when I'm wearing steel plates around all my vitals and they're completely incapable of doing me harm. As a rogue I might be inclined to give 'em a little tap with a blackjack if they're approaching the age of majority since they -could- conceivably do me real harm.


There is nonlethal damage for a reason :smallwink:

I guarantee you, 90% of the parties you drop this on won't go full-on Attack Pattern Alpha on two peasant bullies. They'll send the fighter over with a quickly-acquired heavy stick, tell them to knock it off, then whack them around if they somehow ignore the Intimidate check.

With the casters, rogue, ranger, etc. in full-on Attack Pattern Alpha buffed-up +5 Swords of Ass-Kicking drawn just in case this is a trap. Because this is D&D and anything that's not a level-appropriate random combat encounter is probably a trap.

The paranoia I thoroughly approve of. Not so much the steel clad warrior clubing a couple of idiot teenagers.



Also, I object to the notion that such plebeian matters are somehow "below" a paladin. Would you walk past a wounded Commoner without healing them just because they're a Commoner and such people are "beneath" you? Would you ignore the mugging behind the tavern because the alcoholic brigand is hardly a world-shattering evil?

Two things:

I never said to ignore the situation, just to pass it on to someone more suitable to the task. A paladin's skill set and abiliity is geared to doing lethal battle with truly evil foes, not counseling half-wit children.

Of course a paladin should offer healing to any wounded persons he happens upon, however he shouldn't be going out of his way to find wounded people under normal circumstances. Again, not his wheelhouse. Same goes for muggers. A paladin is not a paramedic or a cop. He's a soldier in the war against evil.


I'd be more inclined to make a Paladin fall after a (long) history of such behavior than the classic "if you do what's right, you'll Fall, because I as the DM have engineered an insidious Catch-22! (*twirls mustache*)" sort of nonsense. Lawful Good paladins don't have to be polite or patient, but they should at least be altruistic (because why else would they BE paladins), and should definitely be upholding the law. Because c'mon, these examples take up 15 seconds, tops.

I agree. A paladin that sees himself as -too- good to bother with the common folk, even when they're suffering right in front of him. Probably -should- fall. It's not a violation of the code but such consistent behavior will lead to an alignment shift to LN as it represents a mind utterly consumed by duty to the exclusion of all else.


Then again, it kinda boils down to which god you support. St. Cuthbert would probably get fed up with his paladin ignoring matters of JUSTICE, whereas Wee Jas probably wouldn't care...it's always weird to me that people acknowledge Clerics as having different tenants and opinions, but Paladins are just...Paladins.

Eeeeehhhhhhh

Maybe. In 3.5 the paladin's call and code don't come from the gods (except in FR) so they are, on a fundamental level, all coming from the same place. That place is certainly -colored- by whatever god they follow, if any, but their primary concern is finding and destroying evil.

I'm given to understand that this is not the case in PF but I"m not overmuch familiar.

Red Fel
2014-12-12, 02:16 PM
As some posters have pointed out already, the OP seems to presume a false dichotomy: Your Paladin either leaves the victim to suffer or goes full-on murderhobo. And again, as others have pointed out, that's simply not so. There's a broad spectrum of options available.

Think of Superman catching neighborhood bullies. I'm sure it must have happened on at least one occasion in the comics. Him, or any other recognizable superhero. Two kids picking on a third kid. Dude in spandex shows up, scowls, shakes head. Bullies look terrified, and bail. (As others have mentioned, "Intimidate check.") No violence required - heck, no words required. You're a freaking Paladin - a literal knight in shining armor. Your sword shouldn't be out for a couple of neighborhood thugs.

Want to be aggressive? Fine. Provoke an attack. Once they utterly fail to hurt you, laugh until they slink away. Or, a few sharp, non-lethal blows. Or, buff the victim and let the victim fight back.

Don't want to get involved at all? You monster. Fine. After the fight is over, approach the victim, patch up his wounds. Talk to him. Remind him that he has worth as a person, that bad people can't take that away. Remind him that he can stand up for himself, but also that there's no shame in running from a fight you can't win. If you don't want to be the shield that protects the victim, you can at least be the open hand that comforts him.

Point is, it's not "ignore or resort to murder." There's a lot to be done here.

As an aside: Kelb, I question your assumption that a Paladin's skillset isn't "counseling half-wit children." I think that's a characterization issue. My Paladins are all about helping people. Sometimes, that means using weapons. Sometimes, it means working the farm. Sometimes, it means giving them a shoulder to cry on, or being there to listen, or any number of other after school specials. I like playing Paladins with social skills, and I don't just take them because a Paladin has a use for Cha; I take them because it makes sense for someone whose role in life is to protect the innocent to have a way to comfort and inspire them. My Paladins aren't just soldiers in the war against Evil; they're protectors in the battle to save Good. And that means the occasional hug.

My Paladins are huggers, is what I'm trying to say.

jedipotter
2014-12-12, 04:21 PM
What do you do? Do not read spoiler before you have a well constructed reply.



Kinda depends on what you think good is, and what type of paladin you are too.

For example I would be fine with:

1.Pathetic domestic disputes, even more so the actions of children, are beneath me. I'm a paladin, a holy warrior vs evil. I'm not a babysitter, a teacher or even a cleric. I'd be fine with ignoring it.

2.Survival of the Fittest I'm a paladin that believes in strength, of mind and spirit and faith and body. I became a paladin by hard work and training, the very day I decided to be one of the strong. People that choose to be weak victims are left to their own devices. Again, I'd ignore it.

3.Social Order I believe in a strong social order. And dislike anyone who does not fit into society. People must fit into society, not society to fit into people. The bullies are the majority, the strong social order, so they have both the right and duty to pick on the others who choose not to fit in. Again, ignore.

Now, fair warning: my view don't follow the couple of scribbles in a D&D book on page 42 written years ago where someone who has radically different view then I do, wrote their bias in the book as ''official''. So, just don't bother saying ''oh on page 42 it says''.

Sith_Happens
2014-12-12, 05:01 PM
Kinda depends on what you think good is, and what type of paladin you are too.

For example I would be fine with:

1.Pathetic domestic disputes, even more so the actions of children, are beneath me. I'm a paladin, a holy warrior vs evil. I'm not a babysitter, a teacher or even a cleric. I'd be fine with ignoring it.

2.Survival of the Fittest I'm a paladin that believes in strength, of mind and spirit and faith and body. I became a paladin by hard work and training, the very day I decided to be one of the strong. People that choose to be weak victims are left to their own devices. Again, I'd ignore it.

3.Social Order I believe in a strong social order. And dislike anyone who does not fit into society. People must fit into society, not society to fit into people. The bullies are the majority, the strong social order, so they have both the right and duty to pick on the others who choose not to fit in. Again, ignore.

Now, fair warning: my view don't follow the couple of scribbles in a D&D book on page 42 written years ago where someone who has radically different view then I do, wrote their bias in the book as ''official''. So, just don't bother saying ''oh on page 42 it says''.

Um... okay. I personally can't wrap my head how 2 or 3 is anything but the exact opposite of Paladinly no matter how severely you houserule the code or the alignment system itself, but if you can then more power to you I guess.:smallconfused:

jedipotter
2014-12-12, 06:13 PM
Um... okay. I personally can't wrap my head how 2 or 3 is anything but the exact opposite of Paladinly no matter how severely you houserule the code or the alignment system itself, but if you can then more power to you I guess.:smallconfused:

2.Survival of the Fittest. This is the ''give the man a fish he eats for one meal, teach the man to fish and he can feed himself for life.'' A paladin can't body guard everyone in the world, it's up to each and every ''everyone'' to defend themselves. To teach someone ''just give in'' or ''call for help'' when attacked is wrong, and sooner or later that will lead to bad things happening to them. There will not always be help right around the corner. It's the big difference between ''the orc thug attacked my farm so I shot him in the head with a crossbow'' and ''local farm family murdered by orc thug''.

The paladin only defends the truly helpless ones: small children, the elderly, the wounded and so on. Everyone one else from 13 to 60 only gets the paladins aid. The paladin will help the person do a needed task, but not do it for them.

3.Social Order This is the more Lawful paladin that believes in order. And society provides order. And if an individual chooses to go against that order, then they are choosing to make themselves a target. They are free to do so, of course, but the burden is on their head.

In most cases, even if you don't 100% believe in the social order, you should follow it. Take the Winter Ball. It's a formal affair. Period. You want to go to the ball, then you must dress up. Period. If you don't like it, then your free to not go to the Winter Ball....your even free to make a ''dress like trash'' ball if you wish.

And in the bigger picture you should not stay in a place that does not fit your views. If your in Blood Town where they eat meat all the time, you as a grass eater would be better off moving to another place.

And for the OP example attack: you should have protected yourself in advance. If you knew ''maybe'' someone did not ''maybe'' like you, you should have protected yourself. Don't be caught alone. Keep and find allies close by. Again, the burden of defense is on the person.

Solaris
2014-12-12, 06:48 PM
1.Pathetic domestic disputes, even more so the actions of children, are beneath me. I'm a paladin, a holy warrior vs evil. I'm not a babysitter, a teacher or even a cleric. I'd be fine with ignoring it.
'Cause "Puny Mortals" is totally how a holy warrior ought to be addressing those less than him.
I can see passing this up if you have a reason to believe your mission is that pressing - but in that case, you'd better have a good reason for having slept last night instead of riding hard all night, 'cause there's no reason you can't take ten minutes to deal with this issue.


2.Survival of the Fittest I'm a paladin that believes in strength, of mind and spirit and faith and body. I became a paladin by hard work and training, the very day I decided to be one of the strong. People that choose to be weak victims are left to their own devices. Again, I'd ignore it.
That's... that's not remotely LG, much less the sort of paragon of good a paladin should be.
At best it's CG (libertarian-style). At best. This might surprise you, but (and this is speaking as a former Army sergeant of the old breed who's been reprimanded more than once for being... less than kindly) letting people crumble is not going to help them levitate by their bootstraps.
No, really. I'm all for people defending themselves. I'll freely dispense advice, pointers, and training on self-defense borne from my military experience. But it's straight up bull to sneer at someone as being weak just because they're getting their asses handed to them. It may well be that you were able to become a mighty and awesome champion of justice without any help... but probably not. Realistically, not.
So how can you, mighty champion of justice, justify passing up the opportunity to right a wrong that's going down right in front of your eyes?


3.Social Order I believe in a strong social order. And dislike anyone who does not fit into society. People must fit into society, not society to fit into people. The bullies are the majority, the strong social order, so they have both the right and duty to pick on the others who choose not to fit in. Again, ignore.
You're, again, missing the good. Where's the altruism necessary for a paladin? Might does not make right. If it did, there'd be no need for a paladin to exist. Yes, paladins have to be lawful - but that doesn't mean they have to do anything but resist a genocidal, evil government.
Furthermore, bullies are not the accepted social order. They're an aberration that's only barely tolerated by the social order, and then only because many authority figures in those bizarre environments wherein we throw children and expect them to emerge non-sociopaths are outright lazy. Thus, your pseudo-logic is doomed from the very conception on practically every possible front.

And by the logic that it's the victim's fault for being caught unawares and defenseless... Do I really need to follow this through to its conclusion, or can we skip straight to "You're blaming the victim, and that's both morally and logically wrong" without resorting to rape analogies?

Kitten Champion
2014-12-12, 08:03 PM
Any real-world responsible adult would have some idea of how to react to such a situation... and hopefully none of which involves drawing a weapon. Said adult might not want to get involved, because apathy is many a persons' watchword, but for someone subscribing to the concept of LG - much less a paladin - I would expect a greater determination and impetus to do what they believe is right when confronted with injustice. Even when they'd much rather drop their sword and shield, throw off their armour, slip into a warm bath to get the goblin blood out their hair, flop onto a cozy inn mattress, and sleep like they've just been enchanted.

They're personable and chivalrous, otherwise what's the point?

Vitruviansquid
2014-12-12, 08:21 PM
I swoop in and keep the king's peace however he wants it kept, whether that means putting on a saturday morning special for these kids or just killing them all off hand.

jedipotter
2014-12-12, 08:23 PM
'Cause "Puny Mortals" is totally how a holy warrior ought to be addressing those less than him.

This is the downfall of many a paladin from many a DM: they think being good means your a slave to every event that happens within your sight and you should always drop everything to do Disney Good.

Now note, I'm not saying that good people should not do it, just that it is not a paladins job. The same way you don't send a SWAT team member to open someones locked car or you don't send an army ranger to help someone find a lost cell phone. Now you could send them sure, or they might volunteer or even choose to do the action themselves....but my point is that it is not a ''do this or fall from paladin status'' type thing. And there are plenty of non-paladin good people to send to do minor things.

Lets take the military spin: Private Mallone is told to guard a door and left alone. Ten minutes later Sally comes over and asks her help as her kitty is stuck in a tree. Does Private Mallone disobey orders and leave his post just as ''helping a little girl'' as it is the right thing to do? Or is his job of being a solder more important then doing minor good acts?

A paladin is an elite warrior, his job is to fight big evil threats....not be a good servant.



That's... that's not remotely LG, much less the sort of paragon of good a paladin should be.
No, really. I'm all for people defending themselves. I'll freely dispense advice, pointers, and training on self-defense borne from my military experience. But it's straight up bull to sneer at someone as being weak just because they're getting their asses handed to them. It may well be that you were able to become a mighty and awesome champion of justice without any help... but probably not. Realistically, not.
So how can you, mighty champion of justice, justify passing up the opportunity to right a wrong that's going down right in front of your eyes?

The good paladin is seeing a different wrong: the wrong of weakness. The victim chose to be a victim, and that is there choice. And it makes them weak. Again a paladin might help someone in need, but is not going to fight their fight for them.

So it's not saying they are weak as they are loosing a fight, it's more saying they are weak as they refuse to fight and worse are not ready. It comes back to again that the paladin wants people to know how to fish, and does not just want to hand out free fish every day.

For example, take Alyssa, 13 years old. She is in great shape and works out regularly and eats good food. She is quite well read on a wide range of topics. She has taken several self defense classes. Several first aid classes. Several survival classes. She has had basic weapons and gun training, she owns plenty of knives and a gun. She has been taught several skills deemed necessary, like she can change a car tire or jump a car that won't start, she knows how to treat and handle dogs, and so forth. And both her parents keep on top of her and make sure that all of the above skills are razor sharp.

Then take Zoe 13 too. She is out of shape and eat garbage...and knows very little other then what she half remembers from watching TV or maybe vaguely half remembers learning about in school(so she might know some geometry).

Now take any traumatic event: Who is has a better chance of dealing with anything? Say the girl and her aunt get a flat tire way out on route 99. Well the aunt and Zoe call for help on their cells and just sit in the car, helpless, until help arrives. Meanwhile Alyssa calls to let everyone know what happened while she is changing the tire on the car. (true story) And a couple minutes later the aunt and Alyssa are well on their way. And later the aunt is beyond amazed that Alyssa knew exactly what to do and how to do it. And she tells the story of how Alyssa was very clam and confidant with a very good ''don't worry aunt, I got this''.

Now see, the paladin wants a world were all little girls are Alyssas and not Zoes.



You're, again, missing the good. Where's the altruism necessary for a paladin? Might does not make right. If it did, there'd be no need for a paladin to exist. Yes, paladins have to be lawful - but that doesn't mean they have to do anything but resist a genocidal, evil government.

Well, not a genocidal, evil government, sure.....but they have to support any other government. But then politics is hard and there is way too much gray. And few governments do ''pure evil'', it's more most governments are just ''not so good'' or they ''Try''.



Furthermore, bullies are not the accepted social order. They're an aberration that's only barely tolerated by the social order, and then only because many authority figures in those bizarre environments wherein we throw children and expect them to emerge non-sociopaths are outright lazy. Thus, your pseudo-logic is doomed from the very conception on practically every possible front.

Bullies are the accepted social order....just look around. they are not ''barely tolerated'', they are rewarded.

Take the classic: Quarterback Zack is a bully to Nerd Nate. And Nate ''does the supposed right thing'' and tells. Almost immediately no one believes it, why Zack is such a nice young boy and from a good family. Almost half of the people are very apathetic and just ignore it as ''eh, boys will be boys'' and worse almost half of the people that are left are football zombies and all they care about is the ''big game Saturday Night'' and making sure the ''cool football team wins''. And then the couple people that are left are 100% on Zacks side as they don't want to ''hurt his future'' with this bad stuff and want to just make it go away. Your lucky to find even one person to stand up and support Nate.....



And by the logic that it's the victim's fault for being caught unawares and defenseless... Do I really need to follow this through to its conclusion, or can we skip straight to "You're blaming the victim, and that's both morally and logically wrong" without resorting to rape analogies?

It is the victims fault for being a victim. It's a choice. If you do something that is high risk, that is all on you. And if your not prepared, then your just asking to be in trouble.

Take Alyssa and Zoe, just going to the mall. Zoe has her purse and cell phone and nothing else of real use. Alyssa has her purse, cell phone, pepper spray and three knives(one in her purse, one hidden on her body ''for them to find'' and one ''hidden on her body for them to likely not find''). Zoe just knows random pop culture trivia. Alyssa knows lots of self defense moves and lots of soft spots and weak spots to exploit on any human being...and that is not even using her knife. Zoe is utterly unaware of anything around her as she is texting all the time. Alyssa is always keenly aware of where she is, other people, and places and objects. Zoe just ''does whatever she wants'' and ignores her parents. Alyssa has set check in times where she must check in (and it has been years sense she missed one) and by her own choice she keeps her parents ''in the loop'' about every 15 minutes she is in ''public''(forcing her dad to delete 200 posts, that he read, a night, sigh).

So if a scarey guy jumps out of the bushes...who is going to have a better chance?

And this does not even mention that Alyssa knows plenty of mental self defense too. If worst come to worse, she knows how to act, what to say and what to do to manipulate someone to her advantage. And she is told, all most daily, that ''nothing is more important then you coming home safely to us. You must do whatever you need to do to keep yourself safe and come home. We support you 100%''.

And again, the paladin wants every girl in the world to be like Alyssa....and not Zoe.

Sartharina
2014-12-12, 08:33 PM
Bullies too are victims. If you smite them, you basically fall. How should LG react to such a situation? In response to the spoiler - no, they are not. They immediately and permanently give up their 'victim' status the moment they attack and prey on someone weaker than them without provocation.

Given that this is an all-out assault... sword through the chest, Smiting optional. Bullies cannot be tolerated, and the lesson an attempt at mercy would provide is 'just make sure you're the biggest fish around', instead of the importance of 'Don't be a bully." (Or maybe I just lack sympathy for abusive 'children' after seeing a teenager rape an elderly woman to death at a bus stop.)

Palegreenpants
2014-12-12, 08:36 PM
Honestly, the LG thing to do would be to separate all the girls, then exit with the victim for consolation, or have some serious conversation with all of them right there. No combat necessary. This is the sort of thing should be peanuts to a paladin. Thwack major evil, and solve small-scale jazz in your off time.

Edit: As a story-building point, the victim might make a good squire/apprentice. Oh, story branches everywhere!

Jay R
2014-12-12, 08:37 PM
Kinda depends on what you think good is, and what type of paladin you are too.

For example I would be fine with:

1.Pathetic domestic disputes, even more so the actions of children, are beneath me. I'm a paladin, a holy warrior vs evil. I'm not a babysitter, a teacher or even a cleric. I'd be fine with ignoring it.

2.Survival of the Fittest I'm a paladin that believes in strength, of mind and spirit and faith and body. I became a paladin by hard work and training, the very day I decided to be one of the strong. People that choose to be weak victims are left to their own devices. Again, I'd ignore it.

3.Social Order I believe in a strong social order. And dislike anyone who does not fit into society. People must fit into society, not society to fit into people. The bullies are the majority, the strong social order, so they have both the right and duty to pick on the others who choose not to fit in. Again, ignore.

Now, fair warning: my view don't follow the couple of scribbles in a D&D book on page 42 written years ago where someone who has radically different view then I do, wrote their bias in the book as ''official''. So, just don't bother saying ''oh on page 42 it says''.

I understand that different people have different views. In my game, anyone who does 1 is not a paladin, anyone who does 1 and 3 is not Good, and anyone who does 1 and 2 is not Lawful.

Sartharina
2014-12-12, 08:42 PM
I understand that different people have different views. In my game, anyone who does 1 is not a paladin, anyone who does 1 and 3 is not Good, and anyone who does 1 and 2 is not Lawful.Anyone who believes in 2 is a Paladin of Tyranny or Slaughter.

Paladins of Freedom and Honor recognize that becoming strong is traumatic, and not for everyone. They subject themselves to the trials and tribulations to attain strength so others don't have to.

The Paladin Code, not their alignment, requires them to put at least a token effort into resolving the situation. After all - all it takes for Evil to Triumph is for Good people to do nothing. Paladins go above and beyond the call, and cannot afford to Do Nothing. (But they may put it on the To Do list, or delegate it to another if it's urgent and they are not able to handle a situation immediately)

A paladin is not responsible for all domestic disputes everywhere... but they ARE responsible for everything that happens around them. They are where they are for a reason, and they cannot shirk their duty.

Palegreenpants
2014-12-12, 08:45 PM
I understand that different people have different views. In my game, anyone who does 1 is not a paladin, anyone who does 1 and 3 is not Good, and anyone who does 1 and 2 is not Lawful.

In my mind, none of those points, as thus defined and accepted, are truly hallmarks of goodness. If a paladin cannot selflessly serve good and order at all levels of society, they're doing it wrong.

Akulatraxis
2014-12-12, 09:10 PM
It is the victims fault for being a victim. It's a choice. If you do something that is high risk, that is all on you. And if your not prepared, then your just asking to be in trouble.

Any Lawful society assumes that any and all of its members have the right to safety, mostly regardless of preparedness. Paladins are lawful and therefore their code should force them to protect those that live in society, no matter their ability to defend themselves or their own alignment.

Moreover I find it strange to assume that just because someone is prepared means they will not become a victim of a crime. There are always going to be some crimes one is not prepared for, random chance always plays a part and anyone can find themselves in a bad spot. Any adventuring party knows that. It is not the paladin's job to choose who in his society to protect and who should and should not suffer a crime. It is his job to wade in and sort out the situation with the best intentions as his code, order or god dictate.

jedipotter
2014-12-12, 09:16 PM
I understand that different people have different views. In my game, anyone who does 1 is not a paladin, anyone who does 1 and 3 is not Good, and anyone who does 1 and 2 is not Lawful.

So is your view on 1. just that a paladin must be doing good 24/7? Is nothing too trivial for the paladin? And I don't want to go to the extreme of ''when a dragon attacks the city the paladin instead chooses to read a book to some school kids to teach them a good lesson'' as that is just a dumb argument.

But do you see a paladin, a divine holy warrior, getting up in the morning and putting on their armor and shield and weapon and then getting their mount and heading off around town.....too look for incredibly minor acts of good they can do. You don't think the other good people should take care of the ''little stuff''?

And if 1. is not good, are you saying all good people must do good at all times(other then emergencies). So are you going down the path that a good person would give [I]every last copper they have[/I to help others and be poor. And anyone that does not do so, and live poor, is not good?

And if you will jump back and say the good person only needs to do ''a little good'', well who decides what ''a little is''? If someone needs help in the form of money a good person should give it....but ok how much? And if your going to say ''what they can afford'', well who decides that?

Is the paladin that sells his armor and weapons to feed some hungry people good, and the paladin that says ''sorry I must keep my weapons and armor'' then not good?

How is 3. not good?

How is 1. not Lawful. Having a personal code of ''I don't get involved with little stuff'' is very lawful. It prevents the paladin from running around endlessly from dawn to dusk ''doing good'' every second.

And 2. seems lawful, how is it not?

Sartharina
2014-12-12, 09:24 PM
So is your view on 1. just that a paladin must be doing good 24/7? Is nothing too trivial for the paladin? And I don't want to go to the extreme of ''when a dragon attacks the city the paladin instead chooses to read a book to some school kids to teach them a good lesson'' as that is just a dumb argument.

But do you see a paladin, a divine holy warrior, getting up in the morning and putting on their armor and shield and weapon and then getting their mount and heading off around town.....too look for incredibly minor acts of good they can do. You don't think the other good people should take care of the ''little stuff''?

And if 1. is not good, are you saying all good people must do good at all times(other then emergencies). So are you going down the path that a good person would give every last copper they have to help others and be poor. And anyone that does not do so, and live poor, is not good? Paladins are not only Good - it's their Code, not Alignment, that requires them to act. And even then, it's not "Get up in the morning, then go looking around town for Evil to quell" - it's "When going out and about on your business, keep an eye open for Evil to quell and Good to encourage." Mr. Paladin wouldn't be hunting down all the little things - but he won't overlook it when the little things plop down right in front of him.

And we're not talking about "Doing Good" here - we're talking about "Stopping Evil"

How is 3. not good?Because it's Tyranny. "Stand up for what's right, even if you're standing alone". "What's right is not always popular. What's popular is not always right"

How is 1. not Lawful. Having a personal code of ''I don't get involved with little stuff'' is very lawful. It prevents the paladin from running around endlessly from dawn to dusk ''doing good'' every second.Because 'little stuff' isn't defined, and is nothing but a can of loopholes.

And 2. seems lawful, how is it not?Because it's individual-driven, and entirely Evil.

jedipotter
2014-12-12, 09:37 PM
Any Lawful society assumes that any and all of its members have the right to safety, mostly regardless of preparedness. Paladins are lawful and therefore their code should force them to protect those that live in society, no matter their ability to defend themselves or their own alignment.

The protection is the problem though. You want everyone to be strong and able to stand up for themselves, if you ''protect'' people too much, they become helpless.

You don't want the paladin running over and killing every foe before the other good people can even draw their weapons. They will never get things like experience, confidence and ''on the job training'' if they never draw a weapon. The same way you don't want people just sitting back and doing nothing when a foe attacks and have them say ''oh just call our servant lap dog paladin to take care of it.''

Again, it's the fight a foe for some one and you protect them for the moment. Teach them how to fight and stand up for themselves and they are protected for life.






Moreover I find it strange to assume that just because someone is prepared means they will not become a victim of a crime. There are always going to be some crimes one is not prepared for, random chance always plays a part and anyone can find themselves in a bad spot. Any adventuring party knows that. It is not the paladin's job to choose who in his society to protect and who should and should not suffer a crime. It is his job to wade in and sort out the situation with the best intentions as his code, order or god dictate.

Very few prepared people become victims of crimes. They know what to do to avoid it, and how to stop the crime seconds after it starts.

Random chance can put you in a bad spot, but it depends if your ready for that spot or not.


And I will go back to it's not the paladins job to be a community activist. That is a job for priests (not clerics either) and even common folk.

It's again like saying a Navy SEAL reports for duty at 0600. He equips himself with full tactical armor, battle gear and weapons. Then he will go wander around the local schools and playgrounds, looking for things like kids fighting that he can break up.

Now, no Navy SEAL does that. It is not the job of a Navy SEAL to do that. The same way it is not a paladins.

YossarianLives
2014-12-12, 09:54 PM
I would charge the bullies and full power attack and smite evil them into tiny pieces of gooey paste

In reality I would probably try to talk it out with them using my maxed diplomacy skill and high charisma.



And I will go back to it's not the paladins job to be a community activist. That is a job for priests (not clerics either) and even common folk.
It's again like saying a Navy SEAL reports for duty at 0600. He equips himself with full tactical armor, battle gear and weapons. Then he will go wander around the local schools and playgrounds, looking for things like kids fighting that he can break up.
Now, no Navy SEAL does that. It is not the job of a Navy SEAL to do that. The same way it is not a paladins.

That would really depend on your definition of a "paladin". In my opinion paladins of honour or freedom are one of the only classes that has to be good and so they should act like good people. Personally I wish paladins were played less like murderhoboy zealots and more like nice people that go around healing and helping the community. Whether a navy SEAL does good things and helps people in the long run in the real world someone who goes around murdering people is not good, and probably south of neutral as well.

jedipotter
2014-12-12, 09:59 PM
Paladins are not only Good - it's their Code, not Alignment, that requires them to act. And even then, it's not "Get up in the morning, then go looking around town for Evil to quell" - it's "When going out and about on your business, keep an eye open for Evil to quell and Good to encourage." Mr. Paladin wouldn't be hunting down all the little things - but he won't overlook it when the little things plop down right in front of him.


Well by ''Code'' your talking about what some bias person scribbled in a book years ago, right? See we can't really go by that. It's like having a die hard 3.5E D&D fan write in an official WotC D&D rulebook that ''3.5E is the best edition ever and all the really smart people only play that edition." See how scribbles in a book make no sense?




And we're not talking about "Doing Good" here - we're talking about "Stopping Evil"
Because it's Tyranny. "Stand up for what's right, even if you're standing alone". "What's right is not always popular. What's popular is not always right"


And ''standing up for what is right'' only works if what is happening is wrong. And that depends on a lot of things. And right and wrong can really depend....things are not so black and white.

Lets take the example from Divergent(the movie): Tris has to fight the annoying guy in hand to hand combat. Tris is weak, out of shape and does not know how to fight. Annoying guy is physically stronger, aggressive and knows a bit about fighting. So if you say ''both of them are new members'' or even ''both of them are human'' then it is a 100% fair fight, right? Although Tris does not even have a slim hope of winning the fight.

So if a paladin was there, would he stop the fight? Would he fight for Tris? Would he demand the fight be ''right'' by having Tris only fight another girl that is exactly at her level of strength, athleticism and fighting skills?



Because it's individual-driven, and entirely Evil.

Sadly this goes back to them book scribbles. And it's the big, big deference between the view of ''Peter Quill won the first place trophy and is better then everyone'' and ''no one person won anything and everyone gets a 'participation trophy' ''

Sartharina
2014-12-12, 10:17 PM
Well by ''Code'' your talking about what some bias person scribbled in a book years ago, right? See we can't really go by that. It's like having a die hard 3.5E D&D fan write in an official WotC D&D rulebook that ''3.5E is the best edition ever and all the really smart people only play that edition." See how scribbles in a book make no sense?We're talking a Paladin here, defined by his code (Depending on edition). Without the code, we're not dealing with a Paladin.



And ''standing up for what is right'' only works if what is happening is wrong. And that depends on a lot of things. And right and wrong can really depend....things are not so black and white.

Lets take the example from Divergent(the movie): Tris has to fight the annoying guy in hand to hand combat. Tris is weak, out of shape and does not know how to fight. Annoying guy is physically stronger, aggressive and knows a bit about fighting. So if you say ''both of them are new members'' or even ''both of them are human'' then it is a 100% fair fight, right? Although Tris does not even have a slim hope of winning the fight.

So if a paladin was there, would he stop the fight? Would he fight for Tris? Would he demand the fight be ''right'' by having Tris only fight another girl that is exactly at her level of strength, athleticism and fighting skills?I don't know the situation at all. Why is anyone fighting? I have no idea what Divergent is.


Sadly this goes back to them book scribbles. And it's the big, big deference between the view of ''Peter Quill won the first place trophy and is better then everyone'' and ''no one person won anything and everyone gets a 'participation trophy' ''It's more that your view initially veered toward "Peter Quill won the first place trophy and is thus the only person who matters and everyone else is a slacker who should be fed to the sharks"
That would really depend on your definition of a "paladin". In my opinion paladins of honour or freedom are one of the only classes that has to be good and so they should act like good people. Personally I wish paladins were played less like murderhoboy zealots and more like nice people that go around healing and helping the community. Whether a navy SEAL does good things and helps people in the long run in the real world someone who goes around murdering people is not good, and probably south of neutral as well.Um... did you miss the part where Paladins are primarily Soldiers and Warriors?

D+1
2014-12-12, 10:35 PM
Barring specific rules for a given edition, or a given DM's table - it is not the job of a paladin to force everyone to be LG. It is the job of a paladin to KILL evil things so that the world and everyone left in it is so much the better for it. If it were MY paladin I would nonetheless exert some of those "It takes a village" kind of rights and teach a few life lessons to all concerned - and those lessons could conceivably be physically painful for the abusers but hardly permanently damaging. After all, I'm a PALADIN - not a psychologist or a social worker. And then I'd make a point of stopping back to ensure that the lessons have been retained. That's generally the kind of PC I'd be running as a paladin. However, I'd strenuously assert that there is no reason a paladin would be REQUIRED to get involved.

As for morality traps I don't believe that paladins are actually subject to them except in the most rare and esoteric circumstances - and they still would never result in a paladins FALL. A paladin falls by choosing to do evil when they know and nonetheless accept that it's evil. Paladins live and breathe "doing the right thing." There just isn't a situation where a paladin would NOT KNOW what the right thing to do is. If it should somehow come to pass that he DOESN'T know what's the rightest bestest thing to do then he is NOT going to fall for making a good-faith effort. If a player doesn't know what's the right thing to do he has only to ask the DM. He doesn't EVER have to guess and then be punished gleefully by the DM for guessing incorrectly. if the DM doesn't know or won't say then the player should vehemently refuse to accept punishment of his PC for making an honest attempt at doing right in the face of obfuscation and pointless entrapment by a DM.

But that's just me.

Jay R
2014-12-12, 11:23 PM
So is your view on 1. just that a paladin must be doing good 24/7?

No, and I did not say that, nor anything that can be twisted into that. He didn't go looking for an unjust act. He happened upon it. He's looking at one right now. Walking away is itself an unjust act.


Is nothing too trivial for the paladin?

Watching an unjust act and deciding to ignore it because it is "too trivial" is an unjust act.


But do you see a paladin, a divine holy warrior, getting up in the morning and putting on their armor and shield and weapon and then getting their mount and heading off around town.....too look for incredibly minor acts of good they can do. You don't think the other good people should take care of the ''little stuff''?

I did not once talk about looking for it. This is a completely off the subject. No, he is not required to go on patrol. But he has already seen it.

By the way, this is not my idea. In the 16th century tracts on honor, honor was associated with virtue - primarily the virtues of justice and valor. Some said that justice alone was enough, because walking away from injustice was itself an unjust act.


And if 1. is not good, are you saying all good people must do good at all times(other then emergencies). So are you going down the path that a good person would give [I]every last copper they have[/I to help others and be poor. And anyone that does not do so, and live poor, is not good?

No. I did not mention donating money in any form. Please stop making up nonsense and asking if I said it.

But if I see somebody stealing money from a poor person, and do nothing about it, then I'm an accessory to the crime.


And if you will jump back and say the good person only needs to do ''a little good'', well who decides what ''a little is''? If someone needs help in the form of money a good person should give it....but ok how much? And if your going to say ''what they can afford'', well who decides that?

I'm not talking about giving away money, I haven't said anything about giving away money, and you will not succeed in detouring me into a discussion about giving away money.

Solaris
2014-12-13, 12:41 AM
This is the downfall of many a paladin from many a DM: they think being good means your a slave to every event that happens within your sight and you should always drop everything to do Disney Good.
As it turns out, yes. At its core, the Paladin's Code means his life is not his own when others have need of it.
Don't like it? Don't be a Paladin.


Now note, I'm not saying that good people should not do it, just that it is not a paladins job. The same way you don't send a SWAT team member to open someones locked car or you don't send an army ranger to help someone find a lost cell phone. Now you could send them sure, or they might volunteer or even choose to do the action themselves....but my point is that it is not a ''do this or fall from paladin status'' type thing. And there are plenty of non-paladin good people to send to do minor things.

Once again with the "Punitiful Mortals" thing.
This might surprise you, but a Paladin is supposed to be a good person - and permitting evil to go unopposed is an evil act. Just because you are mighty does not mean you should ignore the small crimes that happen to fall right into your lap. After all, as a Paladin you're a servant of the divine - which means that your god may well have meant for you to wind up in this situation precisely to avert the attack.


Lets take the military spin: Private Mallone is told to guard a door and left alone. Ten minutes later Sally comes over and asks her help as her kitty is stuck in a tree. Does Private Mallone disobey orders and leave his post just as ''helping a little girl'' as it is the right thing to do? Or is his job of being a solder more important then doing minor good acts?

A paladin is an elite warrior, his job is to fight big evil threats....not be a good servant.

If my soldier told me they were ten minutes late to formation because they broke up a fight, I wouldn't bat an eyelash. I'd commend them for doing their job in maintaining good order and discipline to the betterment of the civilian community, in accordance with regulation and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Heck, I might even use it as a bullet in writing up an AAM (maybe MOVSM, if they make a habit out of it).

The presented situation is nothing like guard duty, which necessitates a constant presence, and is much more like hitting the hard time on a formation. They're not already on duty, they're heading to their place of duty.


The good paladin is seeing a different wrong: the wrong of weakness. The victim chose to be a victim, and that is there choice. And it makes them weak. Again a paladin might help someone in need, but is not going to fight their fight for them.

So it's not saying they are weak as they are loosing a fight, it's more saying they are weak as they refuse to fight and worse are not ready. It comes back to again that the paladin wants people to know how to fish, and does not just want to hand out free fish every day.

For example, take Alyssa, 13 years old. She is in great shape and works out regularly and eats good food. She is quite well read on a wide range of topics. She has taken several self defense classes. Several first aid classes. Several survival classes. She has had basic weapons and gun training, she owns plenty of knives and a gun. She has been taught several skills deemed necessary, like she can change a car tire or jump a car that won't start, she knows how to treat and handle dogs, and so forth. And both her parents keep on top of her and make sure that all of the above skills are razor sharp.

Then take Zoe 13 too. She is out of shape and eat garbage...and knows very little other then what she half remembers from watching TV or maybe vaguely half remembers learning about in school(so she might know some geometry).

Now take any traumatic event: Who is has a better chance of dealing with anything? Say the girl and her aunt get a flat tire way out on route 99. Well the aunt and Zoe call for help on their cells and just sit in the car, helpless, until help arrives. Meanwhile Alyssa calls to let everyone know what happened while she is changing the tire on the car. (true story) And a couple minutes later the aunt and Alyssa are well on their way. And later the aunt is beyond amazed that Alyssa knew exactly what to do and how to do it. And she tells the story of how Alyssa was very clam and confidant with a very good ''don't worry aunt, I got this''.

Now see, the paladin wants a world were all little girls are Alyssas and not Zoes.

This is cute.
Not a whole lot of bearing in reality, but cute.

That's not remotely a Lawful Good stance. That's a half-baked social Darwinist stance, which really falls more along the lines of Lawful Evil. Speaking as someone who used to professionally turn Zoes into Alyssas, "Ha-ha, you suck because you choose to suck" is the exact opposite of how it's done.


Well, not a genocidal, evil government, sure.....but they have to support any other government. But then politics is hard and there is way too much gray. And few governments do ''pure evil'', it's more most governments are just ''not so good'' or they ''Try''.

No, no they wouldn't have to support any other government. That's not what Lawful means.
Lawful means the Paladin has to abide by his own, personal code of honor. He behaves in a regulated, disciplined way. This may be completely and totally independent of the local legal system, but it likely (due to the nature of legal systems) matches up rather well, for the most part.


Bullies are the accepted social order....just look around. they are not ''barely tolerated'', they are rewarded.

Take the classic: Quarterback Zack is a bully to Nerd Nate. And Nate ''does the supposed right thing'' and tells. Almost immediately no one believes it, why Zack is such a nice young boy and from a good family. Almost half of the people are very apathetic and just ignore it as ''eh, boys will be boys'' and worse almost half of the people that are left are football zombies and all they care about is the ''big game Saturday Night'' and making sure the ''cool football team wins''. And then the couple people that are left are 100% on Zacks side as they don't want to ''hurt his future'' with this bad stuff and want to just make it go away. Your lucky to find even one person to stand up and support Nate.....

You haven't left high school yet. I can tell.
It may comfort you to learn that this is not the case outside the academic environment, nor even in schools that don't delude themselves into thinking athletics are all that important.


It is the victims fault for being a victim. It's a choice. If you do something that is high risk, that is all on you. And if your not prepared, then your just asking to be in trouble.

Take Alyssa and Zoe, just going to the mall. Zoe has her purse and cell phone and nothing else of real use. Alyssa has her purse, cell phone, pepper spray and three knives(one in her purse, one hidden on her body ''for them to find'' and one ''hidden on her body for them to likely not find''). Zoe just knows random pop culture trivia. Alyssa knows lots of self defense moves and lots of soft spots and weak spots to exploit on any human being...and that is not even using her knife. Zoe is utterly unaware of anything around her as she is texting all the time. Alyssa is always keenly aware of where she is, other people, and places and objects. Zoe just ''does whatever she wants'' and ignores her parents. Alyssa has set check in times where she must check in (and it has been years sense she missed one) and by her own choice she keeps her parents ''in the loop'' about every 15 minutes she is in ''public''(forcing her dad to delete 200 posts, that he read, a night, sigh).

So if a scarey guy jumps out of the bushes...who is going to have a better chance?

And this does not even mention that Alyssa knows plenty of mental self defense too. If worst come to worse, she knows how to act, what to say and what to do to manipulate someone to her advantage. And she is told, all most daily, that ''nothing is more important then you coming home safely to us. You must do whatever you need to do to keep yourself safe and come home. We support you 100%''.

And again, the paladin wants every girl in the world to be like Alyssa....and not Zoe.

That's right, if she didn't want to get raped she wouldn't have worn that skirt. It's totally her fault for dressing sexy, and not at all the fault of the people who actually attacked her.
Oh, wait, that's a logical fallacy called blaming the victim.

Dude, the onus falls on the attacker. Period. The victim may choose to mitigate the effects of the attack, but without the attacker there is no attack. Therefore, by the simple logic of cause and effect, it is not the victim's fault they're attacked.

Sartharina
2014-12-13, 02:15 AM
If my soldier told me they were ten minutes late to formation because they broke up a fight, I wouldn't bat an eyelash. I'd commend them for doing their job in maintaining good order and discipline to the betterment of the civilian community, in accordance with regulation and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Heck, I might even use it as a bullet in writing up an AAM (maybe MOVSM, if they make a habit out of it).

The presented situation is nothing like guard duty, which necessitates a constant presence, and is much more like hitting the hard time on a formation. They're not already on duty, they're heading to their place of duty.Actually, it may be, depending on circumstance, be more like hitting Op Time than casual formation. I don't know much about military, but what little I do know is "In dangerous situations, missing timing can be deadly". It might be more like the "Convoy and Pedestrian" military situation (where you effectively have the choice of hit the pedestrian, or wreck the convoy)



Dude, the onus falls on the attacker. Period. The victim may choose to mitigate the effects of the attack, but without the attacker there is no attack. Therefore, by the simple logic of cause and effect, it is not the victim's fault they're attacked.Morally and legally and technically, I agree with you. in practice - people are ultimately responsible for their own well-being. Defensive Driving is a valuable skill both on and off the road (But you cannot assume everyone who doesn't drive defensively is morally deficient/at fault)

jedipotter
2014-12-13, 02:43 AM
No, and I did not say that, nor anything that can be twisted into that. He didn't go looking for an unjust act. He happened upon it. He's looking at one right now. Walking away is itself an unjust act.

Watching an unjust act and deciding to ignore it because it is "too trivial" is an unjust act.


I disagree. I think it's wrong to force a paladin to ''not look for random trouble'', but demand that ''if they see anything, no matter how slight, they must act immediately.'' Your view is the paladin is some type of community activist ''always ready to help''. I see the paladin as a holy warrior, made to fight the big, deep dark evils.


As it turns out, yes. At its core, the Paladin's Code means his life is not his own when others have need of it.
Don't like it? Don't be a Paladin.

Just depends what that code is....



Once again with the "Punitiful Mortals" thing.
This might surprise you, but a Paladin is supposed to be a good person - and permitting evil to go unopposed is an evil act. Just because you are mighty does not mean you should ignore the small crimes that happen to fall right into your lap. After all, as a Paladin you're a servant of the divine - which means that your god may well have meant for you to wind up in this situation precisely to avert the attack.

Note that the flaw I see is this reduces the paladin to being just a ''good community organizer'' and not a Holy Warrior. You have one nice, kind, non-violent caring person with lots of social skills and training and you have one violent-in-the-good way, powerful warrior of a person with lots of divine combative powers and combat training. So of the two who is better suited to break up a playground fight?



If my soldier told me they were ten minutes late to formation because they broke up a fight, I wouldn't bat an eyelash.

Sure, maybe once or twice. But if you go by the absolute that the paladin must stop and do good, no matter what....then they will never be on time for anything. They would have a hard time even taking a single step before they got side tracked.



This is cute.
Not a whole lot of bearing in reality, but cute.

Alyssa is a cute girl, and she is real(and she rides horses too)....



That's not remotely a Lawful Good stance. That's a half-baked social Darwinist stance, which really falls more along the lines of Lawful Evil. Speaking as someone who used to professionally turn Zoes into Alyssas, "Ha-ha, you suck because you choose to suck" is the exact opposite of how it's done.

Well, it works for me. Tell someone straight out they ''suck as they are choosing to suck'' and give them the choice ''you want to just suck'' or you ''want to change''.

And why is training and preparing someone not Lawful Good Again?



It may comfort you to learn that this is not the case outside the academic environment, nor even in schools that don't delude themselves into thinking athletics are all that important.

Oh, yea, it's a post bully society out there....



That's right, if she didn't want to get raped she wouldn't have worn that skirt. It's totally her fault for dressing sexy, and not at all the fault of the people who actually attacked her.
Oh, wait, that's a logical fallacy called blaming the victim.

Again, I see the different fallacy: the one that says someone is free to do whatever they want and to somehow only expect good things to happen. And dressing sexy is often just the first step as then they ditch their friends and go run off with a guy they just met a couple of minutes ago and allow the guy to drive her many miles away to a ''cool party'', that turns out to not be so cool and bad things happen. So sure none of that is their fault...except all of it is. And when you teach people simple concepts like ''no matter how cute or nice he is, you do not get into a car and drive anywhere with a stranger'' the world becomes a better place.

The same way you can just walk anywhere you feel like it at any time of the day or night. You want to take a walk down a dark street at 1 am, it's not your fault if something happens. Or if you carry tons of cash on your person and flash it around all the time, it's not your fault if someone does something to grab that cash. You leave your car running while you run into the Quick-E-mart to get a monster and it's not your fault if someone steals your car....



it is not the victim's fault they're attacked.

It sure is most of the time.

Now sure, there is some random attacks that just happen any time and any place that you can't see coming. But the rest you can see coming miles away.

Again choosing to bad path is entirely the person fault. You can't just say ''I can go anywhere'' or ''do anything'' and expect nothing to happen.

PersonMan
2014-12-13, 03:29 AM
The problem you get when you dismiss a widely accepted general baseline for discussion with 'it's just someone's biased scribbles' is that you open yourself to someone using the exact same logic against your own arguments.

For example:

'Give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, feed him for his entire life'? Just someone's biased blathering.

There's also a difference between training and preparing someone to help them deal with things and going 'haha weakling' when you see someone who can't deal with them. Teaching someone to swim so they don't drown when the river floods the slum? Good. Ignoring them as they drown, saying that 'well I'm not a social worker, they can't swim because they choose to not be able to' isn't.

I'd also disagree that Lawful means just blindly following whatever social order is accepted at the time. Especially since Lawful is generally considered to be consistent, and this interpretation makes them the exact opposite. Cross a border? Your morals are now completely different. Enter a small region with a vastly different culture than the surrounding area? Better forget about attacking that cult, it's socially accepted here.

"I do what society tells me to do" works as a jelly-spine Lawful until you realize that it makes absolutely no sense on someone who is A. probably travelling a lot and B. should not be wishy-washy about their morals, seeing as those are why they are going around risking their life constantly.

EDIT: As for the actual question, it'd depend, but most Paladins I've played would probably deal with it with some combination of nonlethal force and Intimidation (depending on the character, potentially Bluff as well).

Red Fel
2014-12-13, 08:51 AM
Jedi, I think you're seeing a false dichotomy.

You've suggested, in essence, that a Paladin's choices are (1) to emphasize the L over the G, almost to a sociopathic degree, by refusing to get involved in anything that doesn't involve his martial prowess and a kingdom-threatening enemy, or (2) to be "Disney Good," butting in on any level of suffering, no matter how small, that occurs within his sight. As with the OP's false dichotomy, you're missing the spectrum in between.

Unlike the OP's false dichotomy, however, this is a spectrum with a tendency; a Paladin is supposed to tend towards #2. Maybe not hit it directly - frankly, it would bog the game down if you did - but close to it.

Again, let's take Superman as an ur-example. If I mentioned "Superman rescuing kittens from trees," you would have an image in your head. If you had any passing familiarity with the character, you'd see it. This is someone who fights giant robots, stops galactic conquerors, and on one occasion sped around the planet until he went back in time (although we don't much talk about that); and he stops to rescue kittens. Yeah. He does that.

Does that mean that a Paladin has to be full-on after school special stops-at-crossing-signs-buys-crying-kids-ice-cream-offers-to-walk-your-dog slave to the public need? No. It means that, when he sees real suffering and it is within his ability to fix it, he should take action. It's that simple. Now, if he's in a position where he has to choose - for instance, there's a Dragon attacking the next town over right now - then little Fluffy can wait on that branch for a few minutes. (Hang in there!) Paladins can prioritize. But if the party is wandering aimlessly, and passes somebody suffering, and the Paladin has the ability to immediately ameliorate that suffering, he should.

As others have mentioned, that's the point of the Paladin. That's what Paladins do. They are the noblest of noble souls who feel a calling to seek justice and ease suffering. Otherwise, you're just a Cleric with cruddier spells, or a Fighter with a Smite attack.

Sartharina
2014-12-13, 09:25 AM
Ultimately, I think the reaction to the situation is time crunch. There are a lot of discussions about 'lesser of two Evils', but 'lesser of two Goods' is also a thing.

The greatest Good, of course, is redeeming evil. (And bullies ARE evil) - this requires more than just scaring the bully into backing down - it'll be back at it as soon as the shock subsides, and possibly with a vengeance. It requires making the bully realize just how vile they are and recognizing that it's a bad thing.

I reiterate that, if there is a time crunch (Which it sounds like there might be), it's better to resort to the lesser Good, which Paladins are specialized in - Slay the monster, not matter how human-like its skin may be.

hamishspence
2014-12-13, 09:42 AM
I think the BOED guidelines may apply here - execution for serious crimes is not evil, but execution for "less serious crimes" may be. Crimes that take place "in civilization" should generally be judged by the local law enforcement - unless the paladin has good reason to think local law enforcement is corrupt. "Defend the innocent" is much more important than "punish the guilty". And so forth.

A paladin should not be doing things that are likely to cause the locals to try and arrest them for murder.

This post summed it up best:



That said, a paladin in my hands would wade in with the nonlethal damage in full swing, he doesnt have time for this crap. Once they are subdued its to the local authorities with them, or at least a nearby church or something with a note detailing what he witnessed and did.

Then its back on the road to kill slay threats to civilisation and innocents and other heroic duties. He'll check back in later to make sure everyone was sorted out properly and if not, will try to find time to discipline them himself.

Solaris
2014-12-13, 10:00 AM
Actually, it may be, depending on circumstance, be more like hitting Op Time than casual formation. I don't know much about military, but what little I do know is "In dangerous situations, missing timing can be deadly". It might be more like the "Convoy and Pedestrian" military situation (where you effectively have the choice of hit the pedestrian, or wreck the convoy)

Riding from one village to the next to deal with something killing sheep is a much, much looser time requirement than hitting an SP time. After all, the worst that's happened is sheep getting attacked - it's not like sentient lives are at risk (yet, anyhow, but that's metagaming). Thus, the comparison with hitting a formation. Nobody really has an important hard time for a formation outside of a warzone (and if they think they do, they're morons).

And if they made a habit of it? Rock on, troop. Good job being where you needed to be and when you needed to be there. It's not a moral or ethical defect to be unfortunate.


Morally and legally and technically, I agree with you. in practice - people are ultimately responsible for their own well-being. Defensive Driving is a valuable skill both on and off the road (But you cannot assume everyone who doesn't drive defensively is morally deficient/at fault)

Being responsible for your own well-being doesn't remove the onus of responsibility from the attacker one whit, though. That's a distinction I'm thinking certain elements in this discussion are having... difficulties with.

Sartharina
2014-12-13, 10:08 AM
I think the BOED guidelines may apply here - execution for serious crimes is not evil, but execution for "less serious crimes" may be. Crimes that take place "in civilization" should generally be judged by the local law enforcement - unless the paladin has good reason to think local law enforcement is corrupt. "Defend the innocent" is much more important than "punish the guilty". And so forth.

A paladin should not be doing things that are likely to cause the locals to try and arrest them for murder.

This post summed it up best:
That works if the Paladin has the time to do so. If not - he's still Protecting the Innocent by going stabbity on the bully, and far more effectively than he would if he simply incapacitated or chased off the bully but left them free to terrorize the victim when the paladin's not around.
Being responsible for your own well-being doesn't remove the onus of responsibility from the attacker one whit, though. That's a distinction I'm thinking certain elements in this discussion are having... difficulties with.Absolutely agreed. But it's always worth being aware that an attacker may not give a **** about their guilt, in which case, while not Morally Required, defense is still a good idea.

hamishspence
2014-12-13, 10:09 AM
If not - he's still Protecting the Innocent by going stabbity on the bully, and far more effectively than he would if he simply incapacitated or chased off the bully but left them free to terrorize the victim when the paladin's not around.

He may also, however, be committing Murder - which is a pretty major Evil act.

Sartharina
2014-12-13, 10:12 AM
He may also, however, be committing Murder - which is a pretty major Evil act.Not if he kills someone who's severely harming someone else. While its definition may be situational, a ride-by sword-assisted rescue does not fall under it.

hamishspence
2014-12-13, 10:30 AM
I haven't seen the video yet - but if a civilian with a weapon licence, were to "go all stabbity on bullies" - a court would expect some pretty strong justification so as not to convict of manslaughter or even second degree murder.

Shouldn't similar principles apply?

Sartharina
2014-12-13, 10:37 AM
I haven't seen the video yet - but if a civilian with a weapon licence, were to "go all stabbity on bullies" - a court would expect some pretty strong justification so as not to convict of manslaughter or even second degree murder.

Shouldn't similar principles apply?Paladins are not Civilians. They're Police Officers with a jurisdiction of "The Entire World" with a badge issued by "Cosmic Law and Good itself".

Kelb_Panthera
2014-12-13, 10:37 AM
Ultimately, I think the reaction to the situation is time crunch. There are a lot of discussions about 'lesser of two Evils', but 'lesser of two Goods' is also a thing.

The greatest Good, of course, is redeeming evil. (And bullies ARE evil) - this requires more than just scaring the bully into backing down - it'll be back at it as soon as the shock subsides, and possibly with a vengeance. It requires making the bully realize just how vile they are and recognizing that it's a bad thing.

I reiterate that, if there is a time crunch (Which it sounds like there might be), it's better to resort to the lesser Good, which Paladins are specialized in - Slay the monster, not matter how human-like its skin may be.

This is a bit extreme. Bullies aren't necessarily evil. They're definitely heading in that direction but they aren't necessarily there yet. Certainly bullies in the throws of youthful ignorance should be treated with non-lethal force. The harm they're doing, unless they're to the point of permanently crippling their victim, is reversible. If they -are- crippling their victim, they're not engaged in bullying, they're engaged in assault and the situation -demands- the paladin lay a beatdown on them followed by turning them over to the local authorities.

Lethal force is reserved for foes who are a viable threat to the paladin, when there is no legitimate authority to lean on, or when the foe is irredeemable (such as a cultist or cleric of a dark god or demon prince).

I don't mean to be dismissive of any bullying victims' trauma but Good measures its violence in proportion to the perpetrators' crimes. Intimidation and bringing despair does -not- warrant a sword in the gut. Possibly a beating, even a savage one, but not a death sentence.

hamishspence
2014-12-13, 10:38 AM
Paladins are not Civilians. They're Police Officers with a jurisdiction of "The Entire World" with a badge issued by "Cosmic Law and Good itself".
And if they go beyond what's permitted - they "lose their badge" (Fall).

Sartharina
2014-12-13, 10:47 AM
This is a bit extreme. Bullies aren't necessarily evil. They're definitely heading in that direction but they aren't necessarily there yet. Certainly bullies in the throws of youthful ignorance should be treated with non-lethal force. The harm they're doing, unless they're to the point of permanently crippling their victim, is reversible. If they -are- crippling their victim, they're not engaged in bullying, they're engaged in assault and the situation -demands- the paladin lay a beatdown on them followed by turning them over to the local authorities.The situation I saw in the video was definitely Assault. And the Paladin IS the authority. And the harm they're doing is NOT reversable without psychiatric help - physical wounds heal quickly, hurt least, and don't matter. Mental scars can last forever.


Lethal force is reserved for foes who are a viable threat to the paladin, when there is no legitimate authority to lean on, or when the foe is irredeemable (such as a cultist or cleric of a dark god or demon prince).Lethal force is reserved for foes who are a lethal threat to their victims, which this bully very much is (Even if she eventually backs off on her own).


I don't mean to be dismissive of any bullying victims' trauma but Good measures its violence in proportion to the perpetrators' crimes. Intimidation and bringing despair does -not- warrant a sword in the gut. Possibly a beating, even a savage one, but not a death sentence.Meh... I'm torn on this. By the book, inflicting excessive pain is evil, while killing to protect an innocent is not. If the bully is Not Evil, they are sent to the appropriate reward for their life to that point before they can burn in the hellfires or get tortured in the abyss forever. If they are Evil, then they deserve the fate they've earned. (I'm trying to decide whether this is purple-textable or not, given there's a thread in the 5e forum arguing about the morality of inflicting pain for 'corrective' measures.)

Or is Inquisitional Torture considered Good?

hamishspence
2014-12-13, 10:55 AM
If the bully is Not Evil, they are sent to the appropriate reward for their life to that point before they can burn in the hellfires or get tortured in the abyss forever. If they are Evil, then they deserve the fate they've earned.

Personally I prefer the Eberron approach to Evil alignment:

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20041122a


In a crowd of ten commoners, odds are good that three will be evil. But that doesn't mean they are monsters or even killers -- each is just a greedy, selfish person who willingly watches others suffer. The sword is no answer here; the paladin is charged to protect these people.

Strong implication that the vast majority of Evil people don't deserve death, much less "torment in the lower planes forever".

Sartharina
2014-12-13, 10:57 AM
Strong implication that the vast majority of Evil people don't deserve death, much less "torment in the lower planes forever".Eberron's alignment and afterlife is not the same as the rest of D&D's.

And we're talking about someone who's in the middle of beating the **** out of someone physically, emotionally, and verbally. Paladins kill bandits for less.

hamishspence
2014-12-13, 11:02 AM
Eberron's alignment and afterlife is not the same as the rest of D&D's.

Nor is it especially different. The biggest difference is that clerics (but not paladins) can't lose their clerical powers, and that some "Always X alignment" monsters have been moved to "Usually X alignment" and so on down for "Usually X" and "Often X".

The basic assumptions about what acts count as Good, and what count as Evil, are the same.


Paladins kill bandits for less.
Paladins are more likely to kill bandits that have murdered people than those that have only robbed people. And according to DMG2, if a bandit surrenders, adventurers in general are forbidden to use lethal force against them - but are obliged to take them back to town for trial.

Sartharina
2014-12-13, 11:07 AM
Paladins are more likely to kill bandits that have murdered people than those that have only robbed people. And according to DMG2, if a bandit surrenders, adventurers in general are forbidden to use lethal force against them - but are obliged to take them back to town for trial.The DMG 2 has nothing that isn't a waste of text beyond the Gloryborn Armor template. The rest of it is overpriced firewood.

There is nothing that makes the Town's authority to kill the bandit any greater than the Adventurer's authority to kill the bandit. Or rather - an Adventurer's authority is no less than that of a community's.

And while this long route is the Greater Good act, we're dealing with a situation where there isn't the time to do this:
Reforming the Bully>Killing the Bully>Momentarily stopping the bully for them to resume the next day>Ingoring the bully.

hamishspence
2014-12-13, 11:19 AM
And while this long route is the Greater Good act, we're dealing with a situation where there isn't the time to do this

As pointed out:


Riding from one village to the next to deal with something killing sheep is a much, much looser time requirement than hitting an SP time. After all, the worst that's happened is sheep getting attacked - it's not like sentient lives are at risk (yet, anyhow, but that's metagaming).

If "assault" is on the borderline between "minor crime" and "serious crime" in this D&D world - the Paladin is wise to err on the side of caution, and arrest, rather than "execute".

Sartharina
2014-12-13, 11:58 AM
As pointed out:

If "assault" is on the borderline between "minor crime" and "serious crime" in this D&D world - the Paladin is wise to err on the side of caution, and arrest, rather than "execute".Oh, right. It's about saving sheep... I thought it was a more urgent thing for some reason.

Hopefully it's not actually a cult sacrifice to bring Ramses the Lambentor into the world. If you have the time, knock the bully down and haul them to someone with time to set them straight. Maybe hold them at swordpoint for a while.

Red Fel
2014-12-13, 03:13 PM
You know what I might actually be okay with? What might be fun, funny, and effective at the same time?

Paladin is in a rush. Dragon the next town over isn't going to slay itself. Paladin sees victim being victimized. Paladin, galloping by on his majestic steed, grabs the offender(s) as he passes, hauls them up onto horseback, and proceeds to gallop on, while no-longer-victim stares in semi-shock.

Paladin, still galloping full speed, explains to the stunned attackers, "I'm in a bit of a rush, so we've got to make this quick. There's a dragon the next town over that needs slaying, and I imagine you don't want to be there when it happens. So you're going to tell me, as briefly as possible, why what you're doing was necessary. If I like what I hear, I'll pull Sunshine here over long enough for you to climb down and rethink your actions. If I don't, you'll be disembarking while Sunshine is running top speed. And you'd better make it quick, because I think I smell dragonfire."

I like this plan. I want to use it someday.

Jay R
2014-12-13, 03:29 PM
I disagree. I think it's wrong to force a paladin to ''not look for random trouble'', but demand that ''if they see anything, no matter how slight, they must act immediately.'' Your view is the paladin is some type of community activist ''always ready to help''. I see the paladin as a holy warrior, made to fight the big, deep dark evils.

Giggle. "Community activist"? You're actually understating my position significantly. This is what I think the ordinary decent person should do. If I see a crime, I should help instantly if I have the ability, or call the police if I don't.

This is what my ranger will do in Mike's game, what my wizard will do in Wil's game, and even what my thief/wizard will do in Dirk's game.


You know what I might actually be okay with? What might be fun, funny, and effective at the same time?

Paladin is in a rush. Dragon the next town over isn't going to slay itself. Paladin sees victim being victimized. Paladin, galloping by on his majestic steed, grabs the offender(s) as he passes, hauls them up onto horseback, and proceeds to gallop on, while no-longer-victim stares in semi-shock.

Paladin, still galloping full speed, explains to the stunned attackers, "I'm in a bit of a rush, so we've got to make this quick. There's a dragon the next town over that needs slaying, and I imagine you don't want to be there when it happens. So you're going to tell me, as briefly as possible, why what you're doing was necessary. If I like what I hear, I'll pull Sunshine here over long enough for you to climb down and rethink your actions. If I don't, you'll be disembarking while Sunshine is running top speed. And you'd better make it quick, because I think I smell dragonfire."

I like this plan. I want to use it someday.

This. This is a paladin. Holy warrior focused on his mission, and uncompromising in his fight for justice.

Milodiah
2014-12-13, 03:44 PM
This. This is a paladin. Holy warrior focused on his mission, and uncompromising in his fight for justice.


"I sure hope you hit Level 2 while you were beating up that little girl, 'cuz there's a dragon over that hill and you've just been drafted."

Kelb_Panthera
2014-12-13, 04:46 PM
The situation I saw in the video was definitely Assault. And the Paladin IS the authority. And the harm they're doing is NOT reversable without psychiatric help - physical wounds heal quickly, hurt least, and don't matter. Mental scars can last forever.

To be completely honest, I didn't watch the whole video because I've seen others like it. After the first few moments I presumed that it was standard fare. Two or so bullies talking crap leading up to a short dustup of flailing hands and the victim maybe ending up curled into a ball to protect her vitals while the bullies throw a few kicks before losing interest/being run off by some third party. Unless that presumption is -way- off, there was never more than a slim chance of any lasting physical damage being done and that's why I say violent intervention would be excessive. If the bullies picked up some kind of bludgeon and/or were really going to town on the victim while she was being held in place then a few nonlethal attacks would be warranted but they're -still- children and there's still a legitimate local authority to drag them to unless this is inexplicably happening out in the wilderness. I was gonna go back and watch the whole thing but the mods scrubbed it. PM?


Lethal force is reserved for foes who are a lethal threat to their victims, which this bully very much is (Even if she eventually backs off on her own).

The very fact that she's unwilling to actually kill her victim is a -strong- sign that the bully isn't actually evil yet. Since I didn't watch the video, what, exactly, made her probably lethal? A knife? A club? or was it just unarmed savagery? In that last case, no, there was no significant risk of lethality. People are harder to kill than most people think.

In the case that it was potentialy lethal, which I still doubt, that would warrant lethal force from the victim, not the paladin. The rules that I reference for alignment, D&D 3.5's books of exalted deeds and vile darkness, are very clear on the fact that -all- sapient creatures have the right to live. A good character should only be willing to kill when there are no other reasonable courses to take. That's not the case here.


Meh... I'm torn on this. By the book, inflicting excessive pain is evil, while killing to protect an innocent is not. If the bully is Not Evil, they are sent to the appropriate reward for their life to that point before they can burn in the hellfires or get tortured in the abyss forever. If they are Evil, then they deserve the fate they've earned. (I'm trying to decide whether this is purple-textable or not, given there's a thread in the 5e forum arguing about the morality of inflicting pain for 'corrective' measures.)

The key word there is excessive. A good beating may well be necessary in this situation. Taken to extreme this line of reasoning would paint -all- nonlethal damage as evil. I don't think that's where you're going but that's where this road leads.

As for this afterlife nonsense, good and evil are -much- more concerned with mortal life than what comes after. One of the powers' dirty little secrets is that while they're composed of divine energy and wield it against each other, they can't generate it themselves, at least not very much. Mortals, however, -do- generate divine power during the course of their lives, quite a bit in fact. That's why mortal lives matter and that's why it's important for the embodiments and harbingers of the four sides of the great wheel to try and sway mortals to their sides. Sending evil souls to hell or the abyss makes hell and the abyss stronger but letting them live as they are tilts the balance of the mortal realm towards evil. So, as a harbinger of good, you prevent them from doing evil to preserve the prime, convert them when you can to strengthen good, and kill them when you must because they'll do more to strengthen evil in the mortal realm than they will as larvae in the lower planes.


Or is Inquisitional Torture considered Good?

There's a -world- of difference between corporal punishment as negative reinforcement as part of the social order and actual torture for the intent of behavioral modification; a.k.a. brainwashing.


As to the lasting psychological damage of bullying; it's no small thing. I readily acknowledge that. It's not, however, on the same order of magnitude as killing or crippling someone and it -can- be reversed both with and without counseling.

Mental resilience and the ability to self examine and deal with past events necessarily vary from one person to the next. The damage done in youth, or its absence, shape who we become as adults.

Some victims of bullying never get over it, even with counseling, and tend to lead meek, quiet lives in which they avoid conflict as much as possible. Others rail against it, seek aid in becoming stronger, and become defenders of those weaker than themselves. Still others quietly brood over it, seek positions of authority or someone to teach them to be stronger, and eventually become bullies themselves. Focusing on only the first group as though that was the only possible outcome and declaring bullies evil monsters to be slain unless doing otherwise would be convenient is, at best, short-sighted and excessive. At worst it's succumbing to hatred and abandoning mercy to ultimately become a creature of evil yourself.

Lodraygazagtar
2014-12-13, 05:42 PM
Yeah, I hate {scrubbed}, whatever that is. Since your post has been edited by a moderator, my advice is to go the old-school RPG way and just kill everything. Who cares about alignment? Become a blackguard or something.

Pinjata
2014-12-13, 07:55 PM
Splendid discussion.

Thanks for all the input :) It sort of cleared up my dilemmas on LG behaviour.

Sartharina
2014-12-14, 01:41 AM
To be completely honest, I didn't watch the whole video because I've seen others like it. After the first few moments I presumed that it was standard fare. Two or so bullies talking crap leading up to a short dustup of flailing hands and the victim maybe ending up curled into a ball to protect her vitals while the bullies throw a few kicks before losing interest/being run off by some third party. Unless that presumption is -way- off, there was never more than a slim chance of any lasting physical damage being done and that's why I say violent intervention would be excessive. If the bullies picked up some kind of bludgeon and/or were really going to town on the victim while she was being held in place then a few nonlethal attacks would be warranted but they're -still- children and there's still a legitimate local authority to drag them to unless this is inexplicably happening out in the wilderness. I was gonna go back and watch the whole thing but the mods scrubbed it. PM?

The very fact that she's unwilling to actually kill her victim is a -strong- sign that the bully isn't actually evil yet. Since I didn't watch the video, what, exactly, made her probably lethal? A knife? A club? or was it just unarmed savagery? In that last case, no, there was no significant risk of lethality. People are harder to kill than most people think.It doesn't have to be lethal. Anyone so vile as to inflict that degree of savagery has forfeited the right to life.

And have you been living under a rock these past few weeks? Unarmed savagery is extremely lethal - especially from those who don't realize just how lethal it is. The only person who can truly be considered 'unarmed' is one who's armless, legless, and toothless.


In the case that it was potentialy lethal, which I still doubt, that would warrant lethal force from the victim, not the paladin. The rules that I reference for alignment, D&D 3.5's books of exalted deeds and vile darkness, are very clear on the fact that -all- sapient creatures have the right to live. A good character should only be willing to kill when there are no other reasonable courses to take. That's not the case here.If a situation warrants lethal force from a victim or even appears to warrant lethal force from the victim, it also warrants lethal force from any bystanders. Otherwise, you have a sick case of only the strong having rights, because the victims are almost never in a position to exercise their right to using lethal force in defense.


In the case that it was potentialy lethal, which I still doubt, that would warrant lethal force from the victim, not the paladin. The rules that I reference for alignment, D&D 3.5's books of exalted deeds and vile darkness, are very clear on the fact that -all- sapient creatures have the right to live.They also have the right to throw their right to live away. Actions have consequences. Committing Evil actions in front of a Paladin has the direct consequence of receiving a one-way trip to the next life.


As to the lasting psychological damage of bullying; it's no small thing. I readily acknowledge that. It's not, however, on the same order of magnitude as killing or crippling someone and it -can- be reversed both with and without counseling.

Mental resilience and the ability to self examine and deal with past events necessarily vary from one person to the next. The damage done in youth, or its absence, shape who we become as adults.

Some victims of bullying never get over it, even with counseling, and tend to lead meek, quiet lives in which they avoid conflict as much as possible. Others rail against it, seek aid in becoming stronger, and become defenders of those weaker than themselves. Still others quietly brood over it, seek positions of authority or someone to teach them to be stronger, and eventually become bullies themselves. Focusing on only the first group as though that was the only possible outcome and declaring bullies evil monsters to be slain unless doing otherwise would be convenient is, at best, short-sighted and excessive. At worst it's succumbing to hatred and abandoning mercy to ultimately become a creature of evil yourself.Decisive anti-bullying action protects the first from happening, empowers the second to happen by setting a powerful good example, and warns against the third happening. Mercy is a luxury that should not be applied at the expense of innocents.


"Mercy is to be displayed for the lawbreaker that does so by accident. Benevolence is for the harmless. Pacifism in the fantasy milieu is for those who would be slaves.

hamishspence
2014-12-14, 02:45 AM
Mercy is a luxury that should not be applied at the expense of innocents.
Gygax

"Mercy is to be displayed for the lawbreaker that does so by accident. Benevolence is for the harmless. Pacifism in the fantasy milieu is for those who would be slaves."
BoED writers decided otherwise. The Vow of Nonviolence and Vow of Peace feats are only about forbidding lethal violence - "knocking people out", or "using just enough nonlethal force to get manacles on the offender" is perfectly fine.

Milodiah
2014-12-14, 03:24 AM
So...with a vow of nonviolence I could walk down the street punching everyone into unconsciousness and not violate my core tenants? And bar-fights? All that's fine, just no murdering?

hamishspence
2014-12-14, 03:33 AM
So...with a vow of nonviolence I could walk down the street punching everyone into unconsciousness and not violate my core tenants? And bar-fights? All that's fine, just no murdering?

As written - yes. Though "unjustified nonlethal violence" might still qualify as Evil if the DM's feeling harsh, the vow has more to do with not harming or causing suffering, than not fighting.

It also applies only to humanoids and monstrous humanoids - whereas the Vow of Peace (which has Vow of Nonviolence as a prerequisite) is stricter, and applies to everything except constructs and undead.

Sartharina
2014-12-14, 08:43 AM
BoED writers decided otherwise. The Vow of Nonviolence and Vow of Peace feats are only about forbidding lethal violence - "knocking people out", or "using just enough nonlethal force to get manacles on the offender" is perfectly fine. BoED's vows are a terrible source for determining moral action.
"Because some people get uncontrollable and violent when drunk, can't drink ever"
"Because some people commit rape, or lose their cool when cheated on, can't have sex ever"
"Because some people take money from others and hoard wealth that's not theirs, can't have any money"
"Because some people kill innocents for fun, can't kill anyone ever"
etc.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-12-14, 01:45 PM
It doesn't have to be lethal. Anyone so vile as to inflict that degree of savagery has forfeited the right to life.

That's not for a paladin to decide when they're in settled territorty.


And have you been living under a rock these past few weeks? Unarmed savagery is extremely lethal - especially from those who don't realize just how lethal it is. The only person who can truly be considered 'unarmed' is one who's armless, legless, and toothless.

No, unarmed savagery must be paired with skil or dumped on a victim for a shockingly long time to become lethal except in the occasional case of dumb luck. To consider only paraplegics as being unarmed is definitely -not- a good viewpoint. Taken to extreme this leads to paladins killing toddlers for being mean to each other because "they're armed and could kill that other one." It's nonsensical.

Put another way, a careless person could choke to death on a chicken bone. Does that mean that chicken is evil and should be erradicated?


If a situation warrants lethal force from a victim or even appears to warrant lethal force from the victim, it also warrants lethal force from any bystanders. Otherwise, you have a sick case of only the strong having rights, because the victims are almost never in a position to exercise their right to using lethal force in defense.

Welcome to mob mentality. The victim has the right to defend themselves with lethal force to protect their own life. Bystanders have no rights pertaining to the situation at all but -good- bystanders should, if they are able to do so, try to stop -anyone- from being killed. Only if that's not possible should the intervening person resort to lethal force. What you're describing is how lynch mobs are formed. Even if you could twist logic hard enough to squeeze it into good (which you can't), it's very much not lawful; that other thing a paladin has to be.


They also have the right to throw their right to live away. Actions have consequences. Committing Evil actions in front of a Paladin has the direct consequence of receiving a one-way trip to the next life.

No, they have the right to throw their lives away. Big difference. Not all evil warrants summary execution. If it did then smite-on-sight paladins would be perfectly acceptable. They're not. Good characters, which paladins are supposed to exemplify as best they are able, are supposed to temper their violence against necessity and with mercy.


Decisive anti-bullying action protects the first from happening, empowers the second to happen by setting a powerful good example, and warns against the third happening. Mercy is a luxury that should not be applied at the expense of innocents.

You're half right. Decisive anti-bullying action -is- a very good idea but no deterrent is perfect, all three outcomes, and several others besides, will still occur. Immediate and summary execution for bullies doesn't stop bullies from happening but it -does- give those that still engage in such behavior a strong incentive to -not- allow their victims to survive. That's exacerbating the problem, not fixing it.

Mercy is -not- a luxury. It is one of the core tenets of good. An appeal to authority argument doesn't change that. Gygax may have invented the game but by modern standards he would be considered by many to be a terrible DM; his use of spontaneously lethal traps that serve no in world purpose but instead exist only to screw over players that can't read his mind for example. The quoted statement does not reflect the modern rules defining good and there's nothing in it to even suggest it's a good viewpoint, not a lawful one, in the first place. Given that it specifically references "lawbreaker," rather than any other form of villain or antagonist, I'm more than comfortable saying that it was intended to be a viewpoint espousing Law, not Good.

This is not to say that you cannot be good without mercy but to abandon mercy means to double down on other aspects of good, such as bringing hope. A policy of mercilessly slaughtering anyone who does even trivial acts of evil breeds fear and despair, not hope.

Sartharina
2014-12-14, 02:14 PM
That's not for a paladin to decide when they're in settled territorty.Yes it is. Paladins have universal jurisdictions, and any territory that does not recognize that authority is at odds with Law and Good, invalidating their own claims to be lawful or virtuous territories. It's part of their Divine Initiation. Paladins have rights and responsibilities with their station as the chosen enforcers and emissaries of Lawful Good on the Material Plane.


No, unarmed savagery must be paired with skil or dumped on a victim for a shockingly long time to become lethal except in the occasional case of dumb luck. To consider only paraplegics as being unarmed is definitely -not- a good viewpoint. Taken to extreme this leads to paladins killing toddlers for being mean to each other because "they're armed and could kill that other one." It's nonsensical.Sorry - any post-pubescent person is capable of applying a dangerous amount of lethal force. And letting prepubescents live despite being some of the most wicked and horrific creatures in existence is a necessary evil because most of them will outgrow that phase.


Put another way, a careless person could choke to death on a chicken bone. Does that mean that chicken is evil and should be erradicated?No. He choked himself.


Welcome to mob mentality. The victim has the right to defend themselves with lethal force to protect their own life. Bystanders have no rights pertaining to the situation at all but -good- bystanders should, if they are able to do so, try to stop -anyone- from being killed. Only if that's not possible should the intervening person resort to lethal force. What you're describing is how lynch mobs are formed. Even if you could twist logic hard enough to squeeze it into good (which you can't), it's very much not lawful; that other thing a paladin has to be.You're the one empowering lynch-mob mentality, not me. Bystanders have the right to defend people with the same right as the person being threatened. Everyone else recognizes that equality. If a mob is trying to kill a person, a bystander has the right to use lethal force to protect the victim.



No, they have the right to throw their lives away. Big difference. Not all evil warrants summary execution. If it did then smite-on-sight paladins would be perfectly acceptable. They're not. Good characters, which paladins are supposed to exemplify as best they are able, are supposed to temper their violence against necessity and with mercy.Violence requires violence to stop. Mercy is for offenses committed in ignorance or accident.


You're half right. Decisive anti-bullying action -is- a very good idea but no deterrent is perfect, all three outcomes, and several others besides, will still occur. Immediate and summary execution for bullies doesn't stop bullies from happening but it -does- give those that still engage in such behavior a strong incentive to -not- allow their victims to survive. That's exacerbating the problem, not fixing it.Those that still engage in such find themselves not surviving. It's hard to kill someone when you're missing your own head.


Mercy is -not- a luxury. It is one of the core tenets of good. An appeal to authority argument doesn't change that. Gygax may have invented the game but by modern standards he would be considered by many to be a terrible DM; his use of spontaneously lethal traps that serve no in world purpose but instead exist only to screw over players that can't read his mind for example. The quoted statement does not reflect the modern rules defining good and there's nothing in it to even suggest it's a good viewpoint, not a lawful one, in the first place. Given that it specifically references "lawbreaker," rather than any other form of villain or antagonist, I'm more than comfortable saying that it was intended to be a viewpoint espousing Law, not Good.

This is not to say that you cannot be good without mercy but to abandon mercy means to double down on other aspects of good, such as bringing hope. A policy of mercilessly slaughtering anyone who does even trivial acts of evil breeds fear and despair, not hope.We're not discussing 'trivial' acts here. And slaughtering Evil brings hope, security, and safety as it empowers people and liberates them from cruelty, torment, and abuse from those who engage in Evil.

And in a Lawful Good society(The only type Paladins fight for and serve) all other types of villains are Lawbreakers, and there are no non-evil Lawbreakers. Lawful Good is Law applied to Good.

hamishspence
2014-12-14, 02:29 PM
Aren't the majority of human societies in a D&D world some kind of Neutral (LN, CN, TN)?

"Respect legitimate authority" is in the code. But not all "legitimate authority" is LG.

You could even have two LG kingdoms, which are rivals, and while not actively undermining or attacking one another (which would be incompatible with Good) - don't consider members of paladin orders from the "rival" kingdom to have any authority on their territory.

Cormyr and the Dalelands, in Faerun, spring to mind - the Dales have their own paladins, after all - and wouldn't appreciate Cormyrian paladins throwing their weight around.

Sartharina
2014-12-14, 02:56 PM
Aren't the majority of human societies in a D&D world some kind of Neutral (LN, CN, TN)?

"Respect legitimate authority" is in the code. But not all "legitimate authority" is LG.Their authority is only legitimate in as far as it agrees with and conforms to Lawful Good.


You could even have two LG kingdoms, which are rivals, and while not actively undermining or attacking one another (which would be incompatible with Good) - don't consider members of paladin orders from the "rival" kingdom to have any authority on their territory.

Cormyr and the Dalelands, in Faerun, spring to mind - the Dales have their own paladins, after all - and wouldn't appreciate Cormyrian paladins throwing their weight around.That's because Forgotten Realms is weird with its paladins, dividing their loyalty among Lawful Good, God, and Nation, as opposed to the pure Lawful Good true paladins follow to the exclusion of all other masters.

hamishspence
2014-12-14, 03:06 PM
For an example of a "core 3.0 paladin" who states that she would have saved someone from being lynched without trial, even if they were evil, there's this scene from the City of Fire novel:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=8912025&postcount=17

Paladins carrying out the lynchings themselves, doesn't make much sense.

Sartharina
2014-12-14, 03:34 PM
For an example of a "core 3.0 paladin" who states that she would have saved someone from being lynched without trial, even if they were evil, there's this scene from the City of Fire novel:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=8912025&postcount=17

Paladins carrying out the lynchings themselves, doesn't make much sense.... I'm sorry, I'm not seeing the part in that excerpt where she stopped the battle between the Ogre Leader+raiders and Regdar's vigilante justice party to give them a trial for his crimes. In fact, it quite clearly states that, after she arrived, she joined in on executing the Ogre Leader. There's your "Paladin Carrying out a Lynching" situation right there.

Later, she stepped in to protect Krusk because the vigilante justice team moved against him without any of them confirming his guilt. What you are saying, though, is that had the Villagers decided to move ahead and kill Krusk anyway despite her pleadings and attempts of nonviolent/nonlethal interference, the right course of action would be for her to just let them go ahead and kill him because she doesn't have the right to resort to lethal force to protect him from the mob. Krusk was protected because there was nobody invested with the power of arbitration (Such as a Knight or Paladin or Judge) that witnessed him or saw anyone witness him engage in illegal/immoral acts. A paladin, being a type of Knight chosen by Cosmic Lawful Good itself, though, does have the authority of judgement, sentencing, and execution, though they can and prefer to defer to local arbitration when practical.

Oh, wait. D&D is a world of magic, and so she could just cast Sleep and Color Spray or similar spells on the villagers to subdue them.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-12-14, 03:38 PM
Yes it is. Paladins have universal jurisdictions, and any territory that does not recognize that authority is at odds with Law and Good, invalidating their own claims to be lawful or virtuous territories. It's part of their Divine Initiation. Paladins have rights and responsibilities with their station as the chosen enforcers and emissaries of Lawful Good on the Material Plane.

This is just plain wrong. The paladins' code demands that they recognize legitimate authority and not all legitimate authority is lawful -and- good. Any theocracy under the church of St. Cuthbert, who sponsors paladins btw, would -certainly- give such authority to -their- paladins but would arrest and try any paladin of Heironeous that just waltzed in and slew several of its citizens without warning because it would represent a lawful neutral authority structure.

A paladin -does not- have universal authority any more than even a god does. They have a universal -responsibility- to exemplify their alignment and protect innocents but they -do not- have universal authority to act on this responsibility however they please.


Sorry - any post-pubescent person is capable of applying a dangerous amount of lethal force. And letting prepubescents live despite being some of the most wicked and horrific creatures in existence is a necessary evil because most of them will outgrow that phase.

So they're not responsible for themselves until they're 25? That's when, in humans at least, the changes that begin with the onset of puberty become finalized on average. That's rather generous since most RL authorities peg the age of majority around 18-21.

A closed fist, flailed without thought will take a stunningly long time to do any real damage, even in fairly large grown men, unless the flailer gets lucky. The human body is much, much more resilient than most people think. For lethality to be reasonably expected there needs to be a weapon, a dramatic difference in size and weight of the two parties, or for the antagonizing group to outnumber the victim(s) by a significant enough margin that they can work in concert to greater effect than they could in any one-on-one fight.


You're the one empowering lynch-mob mentality, not me. Bystanders have the right to defend people with the same right as the person being threatened. Everyone else recognizes that equality. If a mob is trying to kill a person, a bystander has the right to use lethal force to protect the victim.

If a mob is trying to kill a person then lethal force is -necessary- for the bystander that's trying to step in to protect himself. A mob isn't going to treat the interventionist any better than their victim who, and this is the real killer, may well deserve to be lynched. When you happen upon a situation like this you have -no- way of knowing who is in the right until you calm all parties down and examine the situation rationally. You can't do that if you just step in sword hewing and spells sizzling. Much more importantly, if the mob's target is, indeed, guilty of whatever they're trying to lynch him for, the paladin stepping in with lethal force will be leveling it against neutral and good people as well as evil ones and fall.

All of that is, however, a shifting of goalposts. I wasn't saying you were enabling mob mentality but succumbing to it. Guilty unless proven innocent leads to a -lot- of needless and unwarranted deaths.


Violence requires violence to stop.

It does, but not necessarily on the same scale. Non-lethal force -can- stop lethal violence far more often than not.


Mercy is for offenses committed in ignorance or accident.

Mercy is for -all- good characters to offer whenever they're able. To abandon it is a major blow struck for evil, not against it.


Those that still engage in such find themselves not surviving. It's hard to kill someone when you're missing your own head.

Only if they're caught and only if they're convicted. Throughout history death and maiming have been common legal punishments for all kinds of crimes from the trivial to the extreme. They have -never- been able to stamp out those crimes altogether. Until very recently, in the historical sense, intimidation without authority, bullying, wasn't even recognized as something criminal and to a large extent still isn't; much less a crime warranting summary execution.


We're not discussing 'trivial' acts here.

Triviality is a matter of scale. For the victim of a bully, no, there's nothing trivial about bullying. On the scale of criminal action, however, it's very much trivial since it's standing next to murder, arson, assault, trafficking in necessarily harmful substances, etc and so on.

Again, I'm not trying to marginalize or belittle the harm done by bullies to their victims; merely trying to put it in proper perspective.


And slaughtering Evil brings hope, security, and safety as it empowers people and liberates them from cruelty, torment, and abuse from those who engage in Evil.

That's just it though. Fully a third of all humans and significant portions of other humanoid races -are- evil or neutral and not all evil beings and creatures are clearly so. In the cases where you're slaughtering obviously evil creatures or people, you're right. That does lend people in a structured society a sense of protection and safety. In the cases of much less obvious evil and evil of a much smaller scale, however, such draconian measures breed fear and discontent. If there was a story on the news tomorrow of a vigilante shooting a teenager for bullying, the public outcry and call for his arrest would be staggering. He would be the -target- of lynch mobs. The same would be true if he were a peace officer, except maybe the mobs, but it would -also- lead to people seriously questioning the peace keeping organization if he wasn't punished for his gross over-reaction.

You have to remember that most people have -no- ability to determine the alignment of those around them and even a paladin can only detect evil with concentration. To determine if anyone involved in a situation is evil, with reasonable certainty, requires the paladin to stand by and do -nothing- for at least 6 seconds. To determine that the evil party isn't, if one is present, the 'victim' takes three times that.


And in a Lawful Good society(The only type Paladins fight for and serve) all other types of villains are Lawbreakers, and there are no non-evil Lawbreakers. Lawful Good is Law applied to Good.

This is just laughable. As numerous societies throughout history have proven quite adeptly, you can't legislate morality. You also can't avoid at least some degree of corruption in authority.

You're also just plain wrong about paladins not serving any non-lawful or non-good authorities. See my previous example of the paladins of St Cuthbert and his lawful neutral church and, in the case of theocracies, governments. In FR there's also the church of Sune Fire-hair. A chaotic good organization that, nevertheless, sponsors lawful good paladins.

Paladins have only as much temporal authority as the local societal structure gives them unless that society is either evil or a corrupted neutral on the good-evil axis. They very much -cannot- do whatever they please, claiming moral authority, without breaking with the code's stricture to respect legitimate authority and, if they do so consistently, ultimately falling.

hamishspence
2014-12-14, 03:40 PM
If the villagers were trying to kill Krusk - without trial - using the minimum necessary amount of lethal force to defend him is legitimate.

If Krusk was being bullied though, nonlethal force becomes the "minimum necessary amount".


You have to remember that most people have -no- ability to determine the alignment of those around them and even a paladin can only detect evil with concentration. To determine if anyone involved in a situation is evil, with reasonable certainty, requires the paladin to stand by and do -nothing- for at least 6 seconds. To determine that the evil party isn't, if one is present, the 'victim' takes three times that.


And in 5e they can't even do that - all they can detect are fiends, celestials, and undead.

Sartharina
2014-12-14, 03:53 PM
This is just plain wrong. The paladins' code demands that they recognize legitimate authority and not all legitimate authority is lawful -and- good. Any theocracy under the church of St. Cuthbert, who sponsors paladins btw, would -certainly- give such authority to -their- paladins but would arrest and try any paladin of Heironeous that just waltzed in and slew several of its citizens without warning because it would represent a lawful neutral authority structure.A large part of St. Cuthbert's authority is Lawful Good. Paladins would respect that part of his authority as legitimate. They would not respect the non-Good aspects of his authority. Lawful Neutral tolerates Unjust Laws. Lawful Good does not.


A paladin -does not- have universal authority any more than even a god does. They have a universal -responsibility- to exemplify their alignment and protect innocents but they -do not- have universal authority to act on this responsibility however they please.A Paladin's authority comes directly from Law and Good itself. Deities serve their own interests, and are mere allies to cosmic Lawful Good, not enforcers of it. Yes, paladins DO have greater authority than Deities.


A closed fist, flailed without thought will take a stunningly long time to do any real damage, even in fairly large grown men, unless the flailer gets lucky. The human body is much, much more resilient than most people think. For lethality to be reasonably expected there needs to be a weapon, a dramatic difference in size and weight of the two parties, or for the antagonizing group to outnumber the victim(s) by a significant enough margin that they can work in concert to greater effect than they could in any one-on-one fight.... I guess I've seen too many assaulters 'get lucky', then...


If a mob is trying to kill a person then lethal force is -necessary- for the bystander that's trying to step in to protect himself. A mob isn't going to treat the interventionist any better than their victim who, and this is the real killer, may well deserve to be lynched. When you happen upon a situation like this you have -no- way of knowing who is in the right until you calm all parties down and examine the situation rationally. You can't do that if you just step in sword hewing and spells sizzling. Much more importantly, if the mob's target is, indeed, guilty of whatever they're trying to lynch him for, the paladin stepping in with lethal force will be leveling it against neutral and good people as well as evil ones and fall.

All of that is, however, a shifting of goalposts. I wasn't saying you were enabling mob mentality but succumbing to it. Guilty unless proven innocent leads to a -lot- of needless and unwarranted deaths.I'm not talking about "Guilty until proven Innocent" I'm saying "Guilty after being Proven Guilty". The first thing a Paladin should try to do in any situation is determine innocence and guilt.

Mercy is for -all- good characters to offer whenever they're able. To abandon it is a major blow struck for evil, not against it.


Only if they're caught and only if they're convicted. Throughout history death and maiming have been common legal punishments for all kinds of crimes from the trivial to the extreme. They have -never- been able to stamp out those crimes altogether. Until very recently, in the historical sense, intimidation without authority, bullying, wasn't even recognized as something criminal and to a large extent still isn't; much less a crime warranting summary execution.When bullying turns into assault and abuse (As in the situation we're discussing), though, it is a heinous crime. And while the punishments cannot stamp the crimes out altogether, they do dramatically lower the proliferation of those crimes. Just because there will always be Evil is not an excuse to not fight Evil where you can.


Triviality is a matter of scale. For the victim of a bully, no, there's nothing trivial about bullying. On the scale of criminal action, however, it's very much trivial since it's standing next to murder, arson, assault, trafficking in necessarily harmful substances, etc and so on.

Again, I'm not trying to marginalize or belittle the harm done by bullies to their victims; merely trying to put it in proper perspective.Bullying to the extent observed is Assault.


That's just it though. Fully a third of all humans and significant portions of other humanoid races -are- evil or neutral and not all evil beings and creatures are clearly so. In the cases where you're slaughtering obviously evil creatures or people, you're right. That does lend people in a structured society a sense of protection and safety. In the cases of much less obvious evil and evil of a much smaller scale, however, such draconian measures breed fear and discontent. If there was a story on the news tomorrow of a vigilante shooting a teenager for bullying, the public outcry and call for his arrest would be staggering. He would be the -target- of lynch mobs. The same would be true if he were a peace officer, except maybe the mobs, but it would -also- lead to people seriously questioning the peace keeping organization if he wasn't punished for his gross over-reaction.And if the story was on a vigilante saving a kid from a bully, there would be a public cheer. Media Spin can change anything.

hamishspence
2014-12-14, 03:56 PM
When bullying turns into assault and abuse (As in the situation we're discussing), though, it is a heinous crime.

But not necessarily a capital crime like Murder. Even Gygax only invoked "eye for eye and tooth for tooth"

http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/on-alignment-by-gygax.html

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is by no means anything but Lawful and Good. Prisoners guilty of murder or similar capital crimes can be executed without violating any precept of the alignment.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-12-14, 04:37 PM
A large part of St. Cuthbert's authority is Lawful Good. Paladins would respect that part of his authority as legitimate. They would not respect the non-Good aspects of his authority. Lawful Neutral tolerates Unjust Laws. Lawful Good does not.

This is nonsense. The church of St. Cuthbert is one of the most organized and structured of all of the churches presented in the greyhawk setting. A paladin would not be recognized or sponsored by the church if he didn't accept the church's doctrine (Known and named as "The Law") at least nominally. You're talking about a paladin that respects St Cuthbert, not one that serves him.


A Paladin's authority comes directly from Law and Good itself. Deities serve their own interests, and are mere allies to cosmic Lawful Good, not enforcers of it. Yes, paladins DO have greater authority than Deities.

The gods of law and good are -embodiments- of those concepts and lawful good deities, such as Heironeous, embody their confluence. They are literally law and good incarnate in a way that goes beyond even the celestial (and not so celestial) creatures that serve them. Yes, they have their own, sometimes even conflicting, agendas. That doesn't change the fact that they -are- the authorities that represent their portfolios. That a paladin can wield holy power without their intervention doesn't change this fact.

Far, far more importantly; neither cosmic law nor cosmic good has any more authority over the prime than their counterparts; cosmic chaos and cosmic evil. You're standing on a false premise.


... I guess I've seen too many assaulters 'get lucky', then...

If you've actually seen someone beaten to death with bare hands, let me ask you this: did it take seconds, or minutes? I'm not talking about the horrific aftermath of such an event but the event itself. Barring intervention or loss of interest a person can certainly kill another person with their bare hands. They could also do it with half a toothpick. I'm talking about scale and reasonable expectation, not mere possibility.


I'm not talking about "Guilty until proven Innocent" I'm saying "Guilty after being Proven Guilty". The first thing a Paladin should try to do in any situation is determine innocence and guilt.

And I'm saying that you can't be certain of guilt with scant, superficial knowledge of a situation. Walking into -any- situation with your sword leading is only very, very rarely acceptable. It's never acceptable in a situation where you have the overwhelming advantage over your foe and a legitimate authority structure to lean on in determining the appropriate punishment, if any, for -perceived- crimes.

Let's tweak the situation just a bit. Instead of a couple of little girls in a park or someone's yard, lets make it a couple of drunks in an alley you happened to be taking a shortcut through. The situation is otherwise identical; you have no idea what prompted the "bullies" to pick on the "victim." Their exhortations of the "victim's" worthlessness may well be warranted. Maybe he beats his kids, maybe he spends all day getting drunk and high, or maybe he spends all day carefully plotting the downfall of his enemies, including these two, and they simply don't have the linguistic skill to articulate that in a succinct way. You don't know any of this, you just see two "bullies" berating a "victim" until they work themselves up into assaulting him. Then you wade in, sword drawn, and kill two people you know nothing about for engaging in -apparently- evil behavior.

Guess who just became a fighter with no bonus feats, nevermind calling into question the reliability of -all- paladins for the people of this town rather than making them feel safe and secure in the knowledge that evil is punished.


When bullying turns into assault and abuse (As in the situation we're discussing), though, it is a heinous crime. And while the punishments cannot stamp the crimes out altogether, they do dramatically lower the proliferation of those crimes. Just because there will always be Evil is not an excuse to not fight Evil where you can.

Yes, but it still doesn't warrant summary execution. Punishment of some sort, certainly, but that's why structured society, the result of the ideas of law being overlayed on a community, exists.


Bullying to the extent observed is Assault.

Then your argument is that assault warrants execution. Does that sound right to you?


And if the story was on a vigilante saving a kid from a bully, there would be a public cheer. Media Spin can change anything.

This is naive. Some, certainly, would cheer. Others would most certainly not. Still others very much -would- call for the vigilante's head on a pike for killing a child. Humanity isn't so homogeneous that any universal response can be reasonably expected. The point remains that it most definitely -would- cause an uproar in the community and the vigilante definitely would be called to trial to answer for his actions in -any- society, save those who would simply deem him a criminal for acting outside the accepted legal structure and declare him an enemy of the state to be killed on sight.

hamishspence
2014-12-14, 04:50 PM
The gods of law and good are -embodiments- of those concepts and lawful good deities, such as Heironeous, embody their confluence. They are literally law and good incarnate in a way that goes beyond even the celestial (and not so celestial) creatures that serve them.

Some might be - but others might be ascended mortals.



And I'm saying that you can't be certain of guilt with scant, superficial knowledge of a situation.

Indeed. Being "chosen" as a paladin certainly doesn't grant infallibility - just a few extra powers.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-12-14, 05:25 PM
Some might be - but others might be ascended mortals.

I'd be willing to hazard a guess that having your mortal flesh replaced by the concentrated concept-matter of the outer planes, combined with becoming the focus of your newfound portfolio sense, would make it -very- hard not to eventually -become- an embodiment of such things. See the second Mystra for an example of such.

Sith_Happens
2014-12-14, 06:03 PM
BoED writers decided otherwise. The Vow of Nonviolence and Vow of Peace feats are only about forbidding lethal violence - "knocking people out", or "using just enough nonlethal force to get manacles on the offender" is perfectly fine.

The Vow feats (except for Obedience) involve picking some behavior known to sometimes lead to evil and going above and beyond the call to not be evil about it in exchange for certain benefits. They're not really good metrics by which to judge alignment issues.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-12-14, 06:15 PM
The Vow feats (except for Obedience) involve picking some behavior known to sometimes lead to evil and going above and beyond the call to not be evil about it in exchange for certain benefits. They're not really good metrics by which to judge alignment issues.

This, and other misconceptions like it, is the source of a -lot- of misconception about alignment and the alignment books in particular.

The sacred vows don't have the adherent forswearing those things because they sometimes lead to evil but specifically because they are -good- things that distract from seeking perfection of the self.

To whit


Exceptionally virtuous characters might swear
sacred vows, forever sacrificing the enjoyment of some worldly
pleasure—alcohol or stimulants, sex, or material possessions—
or course of action, including violence.

Sith_Happens
2014-12-14, 06:21 PM
This, and other misconceptions like it, is the source of a -lot- of misconception about alignment and the alignment books in particular.

The sacred vows don't have the adherent forswearing those things because they sometimes lead to evil but specifically because they are -good- things that distract from seeking perfection of the self.

To whit

That makes my second sentence even more true, though, which is the important part.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-12-14, 06:25 PM
That makes my second sentence even more true, though, which is the important part.

Oh definitely. I didn't say I disagreed with your overall point.

Milodiah
2014-12-14, 06:41 PM
Personally, I don't even think of vows as being related to alignment. I mean, it's perfectly conceivable RAW-wise (if somewhat unlikely) that someone could go through life with a Vow of Nonviolence and a Chaotic Evil alignment without too much cognitive dissonance.