3.5 Need some opinions on how this scenario would work for a paladin

[Pika...]

Sup. I was daydreaming a bit ago and came up with this scenario concerning if it would be allowable for a paladin.

The basics:

1. The party is in orc territory/lands.
2. A band of orc slave trades ambushes them, hoping to add them to a chain with various slaves already cuffed to it (a bunch of goblins and some female orcs).
3. The party wins, but the slavers get away with the unconscious female halfling.
4. The chained slaves are still there, still chained and looking confused.

So here is my question. Since a paladin is supposed to follow local laws and is supposed to be as much Law focused as he is Good focused, and since he is in orc territory/lands where slavery is not only legal but part of the common way of life, could he just pick up the chain with all the goblins and female orc slaves, head to the orc tribe, track down where/who the halfling was sold to and offer the new "owner" a great deal for one small halfling (it even says in the MM1 that orcs pride themselves on how many orc females they own, so it would be an awesome deal for the orc)?

[Yora]

So he uses the slaves as loot from a fight and wants to trade them in?
I'm pretty sure that's very much not aproved of by any paladin code.

A paladin is supposed to have respect for local customs and to consider carefully how breaking the customs would disrupt the lives of the innocent citizens. It would be quite inappropiate to use violent force to free a prisioner because the punishment seems a bit too harsh for what he has done. But there is a point where a paladin has to make a conscious descision if the local customs are to inhumane to be respected and he is compelled to fight this evil that is happening to innocent people. If he is lucky, it's a situation which the code of his order explicitly mentions. If not, he has to trust his consciousness if the greater good is better served by becoming active or acepting the nescesity of tolerating an undesireable situation.
But I'm pretty sure no lawful good characters consciousness would tell him, that it's better for the people and the peace of the region, to keep people in orc slavery if they could be freed.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

So here is my question. Since a paladin is supposed to follow local laws and is supposed to be as much Law focused as he is Good focused

Where does it say that?

[Berserk Monk]

No. I think the paladin should try to rescue the halfling without putting anyone, even the orcs and goblins, into any harm.

[Signmaker]

Consider: Paladins gain their powers through divine favour, hence the need to adhere to a 'code'.

Therefore, the portfolio of a god, as well as appropriate knowledge of said god trumps any local law, even if it's the direct opposite.

I've personally ran in to a DM that utilized the same "Slaves are legal" bit. Needless to say, my Paladin followed divine rule rather than mortal rule. Lost her powers due to it, but that's unrelated to what the case usually is.

[Pika...]

Consider: Paladins gain their powers through divine favour, hence the need to adhere to a 'code'.

Therefore, the portfolio of a god, as well as appropriate knowledge of said god trumps any local law, even if it's the direct opposite.

I've personally ran in to a DM that utilized the same "Slaves are legal" bit. Needless to say, my Paladin followed divine rule rather than mortal rule. Lost her powers due to it, but that's unrelated to what the case usually is.

Hmm...that's an interesting way to look at it.

But what if you are a paladin of Primas for example?

[Pika...]

So he uses the slaves as loot from a fight and wants to trade them in?
I'm pretty sure that's very much not aproved of by any paladin code.

A paladin is supposed to have respect for local customs and to consider carefully how breaking the customs would disrupt the lives of the innocent citizens. It would be quite inappropiate to use violent force to free a prisioner because the punishment seems a bit too harsh for what he has done. But there is a point where a paladin has to make a conscious descision if the local customs are to inhumane to be respected and he is compelled to fight this evil that is happening to innocent people. If he is lucky, it's a situation which the code of his order explicitly mentions. If not, he has to trust his consciousness if the greater good is better served by becoming active or acepting the nescesity of tolerating an undesireable situation.
But I'm pretty sure no lawful good characters consciousness would tell him, that it's better for the people and the peace of the region, to keep people in orc slavery if they could be freed.

Oops. Missed your edit.

I am starting to see how a character can balance both law and good thanks to your post.

However, wouldn't destroying the orcs' slave system, which is the base of their economy/workforce/etc cause their society to collapse?

[ColdSepp]

The specifications of a paladins code should be determined between the player and the DM before the game starts, so that both are aware of what it is.

How it interacts with local law, rulership, etc. all need to decided before the game starts. Otherwise, you get misunderstands.

[Glyde]

I don't think Paladins adhere to local laws, but rather their deity's code.

And I don't think any good-aligned deity allows slavery. Paladin would commence smiting.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

Since a paladin is supposed to follow local laws

Nope. A Paladin is supposed to follow his Paladin Code which means follow local laws if they don't conflict with his Paladin Code. So unless you can suppose a Paladin comes from a society where, according to the Paladin Code, slavery is OK, no the paladin should not return the slaves.

Now, the Paladin Code says you must help others but it does not say when or how. So for ex, if the party had spotted the orc slavers first and the paladin and his party had determined that they had no chance to free the slaves, then the paladin is still true to his code even if they had not tried to free the slaves. The Paladin Code does not require the paladin to commit to suicidal attacks...well at least not all the time. So for ex, if the paladin's Code said slaves MUST be freed at any cost, then yes he should have attacked even if his team mates did not accompany him.

The only way NOT freeing slaves could normally be an acceptable choice is if freeing the slaves would be pointless or even put them slaves themselves into danger. The usual way to tell this is that the slave npc will point this out themselves...for ex...

Paladin: You are free now! Escape to the surface while our party continues to valiantly fight the servants of the Spider Queen

Human Commoner 1: You do realize that I am 10 miles into the underdark where I'm effectively blind, I have 3 hp at my max and I can only attack with a rusty dagger.

If you are in doubt as to whether this is the situation, ask the DM out-of-character.

What is in this paladin's Code? Well that is up to the player and his DM. But it is safe to assume this...if you think it's questionable then it's probably against the code.

As for the dilemna of freeing the slaves, chasing the orcs and freeing the halfling, this lead to one of the features...or bugs...of the Paladin class. The obvious answer is to do all 3!

[T.G. Oskar]

Bartering the slaves to save another isn't well appreciated by the Code. It doesn't seem as a gross violation (the Pally's attempting a trade, not slaughtering women and children; plus, he may not understand why the orcs themselves are treated as slaves), but promoting slavery is a stain the Paladin has to clean pretty well.

The best option, as usual, would be Diplomacy. If the Paladin has Diplomacy, of course. Try to barter for both the halfling and the slaves. It shows respect for the land's fair laws (note that I said fair; to the Paladin, slavery isn't a fair law and hence pays it no importance) Also, given that the Paladin isn't automatically on "Smite Evil" mode, it may even serve as a bartering chip.

In the case the Paladin doesn't seem to have Diplomacy, but there's someone that does, allow such person to do it. Same thing. Just, recall that said person is doing the negotiations, and the Paladin is just part of them.

The scenario is reasonable: it's not a lose-lose situation (and if you're the DM, you shouldn't provide the Paladin with a lose-lose situation unless the player is quite experienced and shows enough merits for it) It shows on whose its loyalties lie, and what it would do to remain pure of heart while ensuring the safety of all. It may even cause the orcs to grow less prejudiced.

As a final point, Paladins are supposed to be Lawful, but being Lawful doesn't mean attaching to the letter of the law. That's what a Lawful Neutral would do (and what a Lawful Evil would hastily point out, and do so as long as it benefits it), since it doesn't have any regard to the benevolence of the law or the benefits it provides. Lawful Good people wouldn't endorse a law that actually goes against their beliefs; however, they wouldn't go completely against it if they know they're going to be at a losing battle. They may show their contempt and complain, though. Of course, sometimes it's required to follow action.

As a final point: the Code's only exacting point is that a Paladin loses its status and power at the first willing act of evil it commits; not the first Chaotic act. Perhaps it does if it becomes less rigid and becomes way too flexible, since it would entail a change in alignment. But one single Chaotic act wouldn't remove it of its powers.

[SurlySeraph]

There are any number of solutions to this problem that a paladin could take, depending on whether he's more Lawful or more Good. I'd recommend the pragmatic way: Detect Evil on the slaves, free the good ones, and trade the evil ones for the halfling.

[Nero24200]

Simply because somthing is the local law doesn't mean the paladin is obligated to follow. It even states that a paladin is allowed to protest against a law he/she beleives is unfair. What if, for instance, a paladin is in a society were, by law, folk are require to rape, pillage, murder, and in other words, perform evil acts constantly. Is the lawful part of the paladin's code going to force him/her to join in? I don't see why, since performing all those evil acts would make him/her fall anyway.

Remember as well that paladins do not gain Smite Chaos, or Aura of Law, they are more focused on fighting evil, so if a paladin is forced to choose between defending good or defending law, he/she should choose the former.

Now, barting slaves for the halfing is, in my book, an evil act. I don't see in any way how slavery can be good, and in not freeing the slaves but instead, trading them, he/she is activly encouraging it.

Now, what the paladin should do is free the slaves then attempt to rescuse the halfling, by force if he/she deems it nessicery. Who knows, maybe karma might offer the paladin a hand for having to make the tough choice and have the freed slaves help him.

[Triaxx]

Actually, a sensible Paladin will realize that not only will it better serve his code to free the slaves, but that the slaves likely have information on just where the halfling is being taken and how the slavers hold prisoners. Not to mention being potentially grateful enough to bring help to 'punish' the slavers.

It might be a case of 'it's legal, but only because it's traditional, and no one is really happy about it.' Gives great RP material and a real sense of accomplishment that they've' positively influenced the area.

[Yora]

There are any number of solutions to this problem that a paladin could take, depending on whether he's more Lawful or more Good. I'd recommend the pragmatic way: Detect Evil on the slaves, free the good ones, and trade the evil ones for the halfling.

Doing evil things to evil people is still evil.

[Killer Angel]

So here is my question. Since a paladin is supposed to follow local laws and is supposed to be as much Law focused as he is Good focused, and since he is in orc territory/lands where slavery is not only legal but part of the common way of life

A paladin must act good, following lawful ways.
I don't think that a paladin will give a damn about any "law" or society based on an chaotic or evil behaviour.
(Would any paladin care about devil's laws?.. i don't think).

Still, if you want to adhere to orchish laws... the orcs tried to ambush the group to take the pcs as slaves. They failed and losed the slaves, which now belong to the paladin.
He can do what he wants with his slaves, including set them free.
And he can ambush the orcs, the same way they do, 'cause (for them) it's evidently a social acceptable behaviour....

[JeenLeen]

Does the paladin know anything about how slaves are treated or why they are slaves?
If it's how slaves are generally thought of -- property kept in poor housing and conditions to be used until unusable, then discarded -- then promoting or operating in that system seems evil and "assocating with evil" (even if not an evil party member).
Are the goblins prisoners of war, or villagers who were raided?

In the Wheel of Time series, there is a form of slavery which, after a set time, the slave is released. In the video game Tales of Phantasia, IIRC, everyone is technically a slave to the king and wear a collar to symbolize this, but it effectively doesn't matter.

I assume the evil/common form of slavery is how orcs (CE) would operate, but it depends on the worldview. Hobgoblin slavers (LE) might not be as cruel, even if from a pragmatic view.
I apologize if the above was offensive to anyone, but I do think the form of slavery should matter for the paladin. It is a medieval-esque fantasy world.

[Sinfire Titan]

Doing evil things to evil people is still evil.

Unless you are a Grey Guard...

[Telonius]

Oops. Missed your edit.

I am starting to see how a character can balance both law and good thanks to your post.

However, wouldn't destroying the orcs' slave system, which is the base of their economy/workforce/etc cause their society to collapse?

Straitlaced Paladin answer: Yes, and good riddance to it. Let them rebuild it from the ground up without the slavery. If anyone is harmed in the process, it falls on the person who's committing the evil, not on me.

Mellower Paladin answer: Yes, and it's an excellent opportunity to use the crisis to improve their alignment generally. Orcs aren't unthinking brutes. Appeal to their reason, show them why their society collapsed, and teach them how to be better in the future.

[Tokiko Mima]

In this case, be sure and view the 'Lawful' part of Lawful Good alignment as indicating a Paladins respect for honor and their Code, rather than a general respect for the status quo. A paladin on the 333rd layer of the Abyss need not treat inhabiting demons according to local laws as written by the demon prince Graz'zt, for example. A paladin usually only defends cultures that promote Paladin values, i.e. places where the Good alignment holds sway.

Within reason, a Paladin should try and work with the local populace, but remember that the 'Good' part of a Paladin's alignment almost always has more weight then the 'Lawful' part; Paladins fall for committing a single intentionally Evil act but not for a Chaotic one, unless it's influential enough to actually change their alignment.

Treating sentient creatures like property is almost always going to be evil to a large extent, even if it is local law and custom. Paladins will, in general, be opposed to slavery. That doesn't mean every Paladin has to ride out and liberate every slave, or disrupt orcish society because it promotes slavery (Though some Paladins can and do crusade with this in mind.) It does mean that the Paladin themselves should never participate in that system, and trading slaves for a captive is doing just that.

[#Raptor]

Doing evil things to evil people is still evil.

Yeah... but I really wonder what a Paladin would be supposed to do with any evil slaves in this situation.

- Just free them? Then there are all those evil slaves running around that are up to no good.
- Kill them? Coldblooded murder. Maybe ok for a greyguard, but not for a normal paladin.
- Put them in a jailcell? He won't have the time for this if he also wants to free the halfling. Also, its questionable if any jail in the gameworld would even imprison people for merely being evil. Most likely not.

[JeenLeen]

- Put them in a jailcell? He won't have the time for this if he also wants to free the halfling. Also, its questionable if any jail in the gameworld would even imprison people for merely being evil. Most likely not.

But it might imprison them for being goblins or orcs. But, then, probably not any better than leaving them as slaves; and they'd probably be executed instead.

[PurinaDragonCho]

In my opinion, every time somebody writes "paladin" on their character sheet, they need to write up their own code of conduct in consultation with the DM. These issues of following the law versus following their own code always come up. I think in the absence of a written code, the question to be considered is probably something like "what would Sir Galahad do?" And I don't think Galahad would say "slavery is legal here, so these slaves are now my property."

Also, if a player decides to play a paladin and doesn't take the responsibility of coming up with his own code of conduct ahead of time, he or she deserves what they get when the DM says, "that violates your code of conduct."

In my opinion, anyway.

[hamishspence]

There is a book (Quintessenial Paladin 2) with a section dedicated to the code, and how to write your own.

It also has optional graduations of violation- I.e. if its small, you only lose a small amount of your paladin powere, if its big, you lose the lot. And mitigating factors (you break a minor rule to keep a major one) and aggravating factors (you break it after being warned)

[Lapak]

Yeah... but I really wonder what a Paladin would be supposed to do with any evil slaves in this situation.

- Just free them? Then there are all those evil slaves running around that are up to no good.

Paladins generally shouldn't be auto-killing people because they ping evil. What you're suggesting could be just as easily argued in a human town: he should kill every person he meets who pings evil, because otherwise there's evil people running around up to no good! Freeing them is probably the right answer.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

As a GM, I'd allow it. You are purposefully not trying to make waves, and not stuck on "Smite Everything". You are attempting to coexist peacefully with a traditionally hostile race, showing them respect, and hopefully showing them that there are more peaceful ways to deal with non-orcs. Perhaps the Orcs were simply needing a good example for them to begin the process of changing their ways, and this gesture of acceptance is the first step on that path.

Of course, it would be better to ask the slaves which ones would prefer to remain slaves, and which would wish to be free. If all the slaves wish to be free, then he is probably just a simple and cruel individual who needs to be removed from this life for the protection of all that is good and just. But if some of the slaves actually prefer a life of slavery under his aegis... who are we to judge their culture? Free the ones who don't want to be slaves, trade the rest for your friend.

[Tokiko Mima]

Of course, it would be better to ask the slaves which ones would prefer to remain slaves, and which would wish to be free.

The problem I see is that if you're treating them as slaves, why would it matter what they thought or wanted? You're talking about property here; most people don't allow their horse to decide if it wants to carry them.

If you treat them as individuals with the ability to make choices in their lives, then you're asking them to forgo making anymore choices, and march into bondage and sublimate themselves because it will make less waves on their society for you. That's a pretty big thing to ask anyone in a casual fashion. Unconsciously waving around your martial prowess and the total control you have over the situation as you do that, you're likely to get answers from former slaves that will be based mainly around their odds of being hurt (by you or their former masters) in the immediate future, and not on their honest opinions of their desires to be slaves.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

The problem I see is that if you're treating them as slaves, why would it matter what they thought or wanted? You're talking about property here; most people don't allow their horse to decide if it wants to carry them.

If you treat them as individuals with the ability to make choices in their lives, then you're asking them to forgo making anymore choices, and march into bondage and sublimate themselves because it will make less waves on their society for you. That's a pretty big thing to ask anyone in a casual fashion. Unconsciously waving around your martial prowess and the total control you have over the situation as you do that, you're likely to get answers from former slaves that will be based mainly around their odds of being hurt (by you or their former masters) in the immediate future, and not on their honest opinions of their desires to be slaves.

Wheel of Morality, turn turn turn. Tell us the lesson that we should learn...

That's the problem with the Paladin class: everyone has a different interpretation of what is 'good'. When the GM and the Paladin's player have different interpretations, it leads to problems.

Also you are specifically missing the point. The point is not to cause less waves, the point is to demonstrate to a hostile race that hostility is not the only answer.

As far as your last point, I don't agree. Ask a slave what their former master was like, and you are going to get a list of complaints. Only those who were truly loyal to him would state a preference to return to him. You reward that loyalty, perhaps even love, by allowing them to return to their protector in exchange for your friend.

[Starbuck_II]

- Kill them? Coldblooded murder. Maybe ok for a greyguard, but not for a normal paladin.

No, not cold blooded. The Paladin hates evil. He hates it. It would be hot blooded murder.
That is allowed.

Wheel of Morality, turn turn turn. Tell us the lesson that we should learn...

Yakko: ...and todays lesson is "Early to rise & early to bed makes a man healthy but socially dead."

[hamishspence]

legally, cold blooded murder can be any murder where the murderer shows no remorse, or any murder where the victim is unarmed and no physical threat.