LG is not Stupid redo: A Paladin puzzle

[mao]

So you are a paladin and you just killed all the ,males in an orc village, what do you do w the orc babies? I honestly don't see a clear answer for this. A lot would depend on how Orcs are made, Are they inherently evil? Is there a chance of redemption for them? Is the paladin going to find a way to place these babies in good orphanages? As I said I don't really have an answer to this that would be accepted by all paladins.

[Admin Pete]

It really depends on how you run your world. In some of my campaigns were orcs are all evil, all the time there are no orcs babies, orcs are formed fully adult by abiogenesis from the effluvium of evil coming from the nether world. In my current play by post campaign, orcs and most other humanoid monster have the same range of alignments that humans and demi-humans do and in all actuality most humanoid monsters are in fact demi-humans and although they tend to be Chaotic, Chaotic does not mean evil and therefore the Paladin is not entitled to go out and kill willy-nilly, but only those he knows to be evil or to be harming, abusing, killing innocents. (That is the broad brush, not the whole story and there are other nuisances that I would go into with the players if it ever comes up.)

BTW I only put baby humanoid monsters in the game if they are not inherently evil.

[Deleted]

If Orcs are irredeemably evil, then they do not have free will; in that case they are humanoid animals. If you kill a basilisk or a giant spider, what do you do with its young?

[mao]

Feb 15, 2018 13:39:35 GMT -5 @gronanofsimmerya said:

If Orcs are irredeemably evil, then they do not have free will; in that case they are humanoid animals. If you kill a basilisk or a giant spider, what do you do with its young?

I agree 100% with your premise HOWEVER it is a whole nuther thing for paladins ripping babies away from screaming Orc women, it does however present a great RPing conundrum for LG Chars. Thats how I run it once in a while(as with most things,moderation).

[Admin Pete]

For me it boils down to this, I don't enjoy playing or reffing certain types of apparent moral conundrums (even though that is not what they are IMC).

I agree with @gronanofsimmerya , if they are inherently and irredeemably evil, then they do not have free will and if they do not have free will then there is no moral issue with killing the young(more like killing baby venomous snakes whose bite could already kill); however, I would rather the question did not even come up so I just make them all adult.

In my play by post campaign they do have free will and are no more likely to be evil than humans are in which case killing orc babies or a whole orc village men, women and children is an evil act, something a paladin would not do.

[mao]

Feb 15, 2018 13:58:16 GMT -5 Admin Pete said:

For me it boils down to this, I don't enjoy playing or reffing certain types of apparent moral conundrums (even though that is not what they are IMC).

I agree with @gronanofsimmerya , if they are inherently and irredeemably evil, then they do not have free will and if they do not have free will then there is no moral issue with killing the young(more like killing baby venomous snakes whose bite could already kill); however, I would rather the question did not even come up so I just make them all adult.

In my play by post campaign they do have free will and are no more likely to be evil than humans are in which case killing orc babies or a whole orc village men, women and children is an evil act, something a paladin would not do.

 I tend to be very edgy as a DM, also a LONG time ago this group of mine formed and when it comes to violence my game is NC-17

[Admin Pete]

Feb 15, 2018 14:23:30 GMT -5 mao said:

Feb 15, 2018 13:58:16 GMT -5 Admin Pete said:

For me it boils down to this, I don't enjoy playing or reffing certain types of apparent moral conundrums (even though that is not what they are IMC).

I agree with @gronanofsimmerya , if they are inherently and irredeemably evil, then they do not have free will and if they do not have free will then there is no moral issue with killing the young(more like killing baby venomous snakes whose bite could already kill); however, I would rather the question did not even come up so I just make them all adult.

In my play by post campaign they do have free will and are no more likely to be evil than humans are in which case killing orc babies or a whole orc village men, women and children is an evil act, something a paladin would not do.

 I tend to be very edgy as a DM, also a LONG time ago this group of mine formed and when it comes to violence my game is NC-17

 We apparently have a different definition of edgy and for game violence I don't do graphic descriptions, even when I was in college.

[ripx187]

We play similar games mao. I enjoy these conundrums. Good and Evil are perspectives. I enjoy reading Superman comics because of these ideas. Many people don't like Superman because he always wins, but they ignore the fact that Superman wants to do right by everybody. He is just as concerned for the enemy as he is for his friends and whatever he does he wants to have a win-win for everyone involved if he can.

When I was a kid I was a diehard Doctor Who fan (still am), and at one point the Doctor had a chance to kill all of the Daleks (his arch enemy), he could save galaxies if he chose to, but the Daleks were in the formative stages, they hadn't yet hurt anyone and were innocent. Do you kill innocent creatures even if you know what they will grow up to be? He wanted to, he really did, but in the end he couldn't push the button.

Are the Goblinoid monsters forced out into the wilderness because they are stupid and violent? What does that say when mankind itself is just as stupid and just as violent? I don't know these answers. Orcs to me, and the way that I play them, are warpigs. They are unable to grow past it. War is their religion, it defines them. They are us at our most ugliest. If they could get along with one another, they could wipe out humanity. This is what holds them back.

[Deleted]

I don't have paladins IMC but, quite frankly, I'd avoid putting her in such a position if I did. Not because I'm afraid of that sort of play, mind you. No, I'm just not willing to spend precious gaming time (a rarity for me these days) with alignment arguments at the table.

And you know there will be one!

[robkuntz]

Alignment is a game construct and should not be compared to human morality. Were the Crusading Knights and Paladins of Charlemagne, the latter being what the conception of the Paladin is built upon, perfectly moral?   NO!!  They were absolved of sins by their spiritual leaders in the Church and for "the greater good" (i.e., the "greater good" being whatever CAUSE at the time that furthered the aims of the Church, and thus we are back to human conditions and constructs defining morality issues based upon decree and not absolutes)  Again this is a game construct and to go down that path of historical morality bearing (equalling game bearings) is largely a squiggly path strewn with inconsistencies especially when one studies the myriad historical examples (such as the extermination of Meso-American indian cultures by the Spanish upon order of the Catholic Church, etc.). 

[Deleted]

Feb 19, 2018 19:02:39 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

Alignment is a game construct and should not be compared to human morality. Were the Crusading Knights and Paladins of Charlemagne, the latter being what the conception of the Paladin is built upon, perfectly moral?   NO!!  They were absolved of sins by their spiritual leaders in the Church and for "the greater good" (i.e., the "greater good" being whatever CAUSE at the time that furthered the aims of the Church, and thus we are back to human conditions and constructs defining morality issues based upon decree and not absolutes)  Again this is a game construct and to go down that path of historical morality bearing (equalling game bearings) is largely a squiggly path strewn with inconsistencies especially when one studies the myriad historical examples (such as the extermination of Meso-American indian cultures by the Spanish upon order of the Catholic Church, etc.). 

While I agree with your statement wholeheartedly, the scenario I described would still spark an argument that would soak up precious game time. This is why I would avoid it. Well ... that and I don't care for the paladin class.

Thanks for your perspective! You're one of the smartest guys I know and I always love to hear your thoughts on any gaming related matter. Or jut about anything else, come to that.

[ripx187]

What is a paladin? This has to be identified for each setting. I know that in the original edition of AD&D Gygax identified some ideas on what Chivalry represented, and this list would ensure that you do not reach 2nd level.

If you ask me, a Paladin cannot be represented in a Pagan religious system, but that could just be my religious bigotry. To me, a knight serves a king or a lady and is a title granted by Royalty. They must obey some specific rules, a code of honor, most notably to come when the King calls. A Paladin serves God, and answers to the church. This may be frowned upon by Nobility, as they place themselves above the nobles. If a King does allow the church to have their own armies, it can just as easily end with the crowning of a new king, and end violently.

The question is, does a GOOD (as in: competent,) king allow some order of knights that do not answer to him to exist? If he does, why?

Lawful Paladins CAN be villains, especially when one party owns something that the order believes should belong to them. Paladins from another nation who believe that God has given them permission to be in your land and take everything that belongs to you, once again, because it really belongs to them. Where Paladins good guys, or just master swordsmen who protected and served a secret society?

[robkuntz]

Well, obvious answers can be derived from what I stated. Since morality in both cases can appear to be a construct then whatever the DM and players decide for their own construct is just fine, and of course that will vary considerably, from your view, to others, to my own (I do not use straight D&D alignments, haven't since about 1976, and I too do not use paladins). IOW, there is no one answer to this, it's what works for each individual and within that there is no way to satisfy (or thus incorporate) everyone's personal view point. Thus I found the central matter rather moot to begin with, but that's my perspective.

[ripx187]

I think the Paladin class takes too many liberties with a DM's setting. The rulebooks say that they are there, and may even define them, which doesn't jive with the game that you are playing. It is one of the best examples NOT to prescribe to published rulebooks, especially if you have a player who expects you to PLAY BY THE BOOK.

[robkuntz]

Feb 19, 2018 19:55:31 GMT -5 ripx187 said:

I think the Paladin class takes too many liberties with a DM's setting. The rulebooks say that they are there, and may even define them, which doesn't jive with the game that you are playing. It is one of the best examples NOT to prescribe to published rulebooks, especially if you have a player who expects you to PLAY BY THE BOOK.

The alignment system as stated and expanded upon (in Greyhawk Supplement #1) is the cornerstone weakness which allowed such a class to manifest to begin with.  Within game terms in can work; within historical reality it is a farce as it represents what is to be striven for and less than what is possible, whereas the alignment system is an immutable and unerring construct, and therein lies the opposed and abstracted  POVs that doom it, IMO.

[Hexenritter Verlag]

In my games Paladins/Clerics are servants of a specific temple or religious Order, thus their behavior is defined by the deity that they are dedicated to, they can be benign honorable guardians of Law or depraved, violent butchers that serve some vile & dark deity of death or war. As long as they serve their deities dutifully they can use their spell-like abilities.

[ripx187]

There is always a lot of talk about alignments, and with good reason! How strict are they supposed to be enforced? Do they serve the game or not. Do they add enough to be useful or do they get in the way? As a general rule I don't think that they should be used as an excuse to tell someone how to play their character. They should not be debated during the game. Groups, gods, and  some creatures have hard alignments; individuals  don't, and they may change as a player learns more about their character through play. I'm not going to punish them for that. Alignment is more a tool for the DM than a rule. It only comes into play during specific circumstances which add something to the game state at that moment.

I personally think that it is better to have it and not need it, than to abandon it completely.  

[sixdemonbag]

I've noticed that alignment is always chosen when creating a PC and then promptly ignored as far as personality is concerned. The alignments really only come into effect when it applies to certain spells and magic items. It's a good way of limiting magical effects to a certain subset of characters.

[robkuntz]

Feb 28, 2018 16:05:11 GMT -5 sixdemonbag said:

I've noticed that alignment is always chosen when creating a PC and then promptly ignored as far as personality is concerned. The alignments really only come into effect when it applies to certain spells and magic items. It's a good way of limiting magical effects to a certain subset of characters.

Well it also comes into play with actions or inactions which are not, DM subjectively, congruent with the PC.

[sixdemonbag]

Feb 28, 2018 16:53:07 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

Feb 28, 2018 16:05:11 GMT -5 sixdemonbag said:

I've noticed that alignment is always chosen when creating a PC and then promptly ignored as far as personality is concerned. The alignments really only come into effect when it applies to certain spells and magic items. It's a good way of limiting magical effects to a certain subset of characters.

Well it also comes into play with actions or inactions which are not, DM subjectively, congruent with the PC.

True.

I'm not sure how I'd enforce this during play. If a Neutral character starts acting brazenly Lawful, I suppose I could force them to switch alignments or face some consequence. I just tend to look at alignments as playing for Team Blue, Purple, or Red, regardless of action/inaction just for simplicity's sake. I try not to restrict a player's ability to roleplay as they choose, within reason.

I can totally see, however, acting out-of-alignment as having some meaningful short-term or long-term consequences in the game-world, but I've yet to apply such. For instance, I've never had anyone want to become an Evil Priest, etc.

How do you do it?

SIDENOTE: If a player is just acting like a jerk, then that's a separate issue. And luckily, one I've never had deal with (knock on wood).

[ripx187]

Did anybody ever read Prisoner of the Horned Helmet written by James Silke and Frank Frazetta? It was based upon Frazetta's Death Dealer paintings; I read it when I was a kid and loved it, but I have no idea if it still holds up or not, but that isn't the point. This guy finds a magic helmet that turns him into this demonic killing machine, he tries to aim it at evil but the helmet is sentient and evil as all get out. Once he puts it on, only one person can take it off, and the helmet wants to kill her. There was only four books written for the series before it suddenly stops, but the first book was the best.

So, you've got this cursed helmet that turns you into a super hero but it makes you commit horrible acts that terrify you and makes you feel things that are so against your nature that it drives you insane. What do you do? It is the old Blessing and Curse trope, but it is a good trope! I see this as a RPing challange for a player, but the wrong player might go all munchkin on it. A struggle to keep your alignment is something that they can look at and understand, and the threat of losing that alignment is losing a level or two is a mechanic. I suppose that another threat is that the helmet is trying to steal your character and turn you into an NPC.

Is the DM justified in running this scenerio? I'd try to stay out if it as long as the player is struggling, but the alignment system hopefully makes this magic item easier to run.

[robkuntz]

Feb 28, 2018 18:14:06 GMT -5 ripx187 said:

Did anybody ever read Prisoner of the Horned Helmet written by James Silke and Frank Frazetta? It was based upon Frazetta's Death Dealer paintings; I read it when I was a kid and loved it, but I have no idea if it still holds up or not, but that isn't the point. This guy finds a magic helmet that turns him into this demonic killing machine, he tries to aim it at evil but the helmet is sentient and evil as all get out. Once he puts it on, only one person can take it off, and the helmet wants to kill her. There was only four books written for the series before it suddenly stops, but the first book was the best.

So, you've got this cursed helmet that turns you into a super hero but it makes you commit horrible acts that terrify you and makes you feel things that are so against your nature that it drives you insane. What do you do? It is the old Blessing and Curse trope, but it is a good trope! I see this as a RPing challange for a player, but the wrong player might go all munchkin on it. A struggle to keep your alignment is something that they can look at and understand, and the threat of losing that alignment is losing a level or two is a mechanic. I suppose that another threat is that the helmet is trying to steal your character and turn you into an NPC.

Is the DM justified in running this scenerio? I'd try to stay out if it as long as the player is struggling, but the alignment system hopefully makes this magic item easier to run.

If it can be imagined it can be run.

[sixdemonbag]

Feb 28, 2018 18:14:06 GMT -5 ripx187 said:

I'd try to stay out if it as long as the player is struggling, but the alignment system hopefully makes this magic item easier to run.

That's the way I look at it too.

[sixdemonbag]

Feb 28, 2018 18:27:55 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

If it can be imagined it can be run.

Pretty much D&D in a nutshell, very nice. Would make for a catchy slogan to boot! I think I have a new addition to my signature...

[mormonyoyoman]

"and if it can't be imagined, you are the wrong species."

[Deleted]

I find alignment to be a useful concept, but most of my players know Anderson and Moorcock and are familiar and comfortable with the notion of "alignment" as general cosmological concepts rather than hard and fast checklists. q.v. the Stephen Matuchek story where he gets captured by the Chaos-aligned Caliphate army.