|
Post by Draxy on Oct 14, 2003 3:42:03 GMT -5
Murder is merely dependent on mindset. A paladin killing an orc is murder, just as much as him killing a peasant. Situations determine legitimacy. If the peasant was a mass murderer or the orc was a diplomatic envoy, does that make either right? What if the paladin only chose to murder things that were evil. Then couldn't he be hired to assassinate an evil lord, etc? Eldritch Knight, I have to completely disagree. If the person doing the killing is really a Paladin, not just something that calls itself a Paladin it is NOT murder, as murder is defined as: If a Paladin is being played even something near correctly he is not "unlawfully" killing anyone, unless the law that demands refraining from such is immoral in the extreme. Murder is a very specific act. If the Paladin kills a peasant who is murdering others, and mind you a properly protrayed Paladin still will not kill him if their is a way to avoid it, then he is serving the public interest. If he kills a Orc peace emissary, without AS compelling a reason, then he has just committed, at the dead least, a chaotic act, and his Paladinhood is forfeit until such time as he atones. If it was done with "malice aforethought", then he has committed an evil act and his Paladinhood is forfeit FOREVER. Playing a Paladin is no piece of cake. Playing a Paladin is advanced Role Playing. He is not simply a warrior with perks and a supposed lawful good alignment. He must be the "perfect epitomy" of that alignment and a stalwart servant of his god/church/philosphy. Killing is sometimes a neccisity to prevent the deaths of others "in extremis" for a Paladin, but assassination, the taking of payment for the act of murder, is FAR outside of his purvue. If his Church, for instance, sends him out to "deal with the evil Lord", it is accepted that that MAY include the possibility of that Lord's death, but it is to be hoped that another way will be found. His Church, or other superior, of course knows this if the Paladin has been with him/her/them any amount of time. In the above example if the Paladin doesn't dilegently search for another way to "deal with the evil Lord", then he is NO Paladin. He's being lazy and selfish, both of which actions may well be viewed as chaotic actions. Draxy
|
|
|
Post by EK - Shadow of Death on Oct 14, 2003 22:20:57 GMT -5
I've played paladins quite a bit (with a very strict DM) playing them both with extreme zeal. One of my most powerful ones always erred to the side of violence. If there was an evil lord in a house, he would have his men catapult it until it was rubble. However, if there was ever a chance that there was an innocent in there, he'd charge in there himself and cut the lord to pieces. It is very possible for a paladin to consider the world tainted and attempt to purge it of all things that don't meet his requirements. Even celestials wage war on one another, and it should not be uncommon for a paladin of Helm and one of Torm to fight to the death if a holy war war ensues. Should they treat evil any less? There are some paladin kits that require them to be pacifists, but others that require them to live by the sword. Could there not be another one that requires them to serve their church in killing others? The paladin is expected to do the good thing, which involves the preservation of life; but if the existence of good requires the destruction of evil, is that not the essence of the paladin's ethos? If there is a redeemable evil, then the church would send votaries, emmisaries, etc. If there is an infallibale one, it sends its champion - the palassassin.
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Oct 15, 2003 0:59:17 GMT -5
Hi Eldritch Knight,
Not in epic legend (the only place where the Paladin ever existed in type) and not in AD&D 2nd edition either.
Quote: *"The Paladin is a noble and heroic warrior, the symbol of all that is right and true in the world. As such, he must maintain such high ideals at all times." End quote.
*From the PHB, the opening remarks about the character class, the highlighting is mine.
The protection of the innocent, not the destruction of evil, is the essence of the Paladial code and archetype. There certainly are kits that are more martial than others, but there are no official kits that I have seen that require the Paladin to abrogate the paladial code.
What you describe, according to a strict interpretation of the alignment code of AD&D, both in the first and second editions, is a Lawful good to Lawful NEUTRAL warrior. Maybe a good hearted one and one who tries to live by a code, but certainly not a Paladin. Not by "official" standards anyway.
But that said: No one will ever have a judge sitting in to watch your group and see whether or not they are following the official rules, so hell, have at it. As long as you enjoy it, that is really all that matters.
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by EK - Shadow of Death on Oct 15, 2003 23:10:41 GMT -5
I totally agree with this, and am not trying to propose something different. However, what I'm considering is a paladin who's sole purpose in life (perhaps the only assignments that he'll undertake) are the destruction and smiting of evil. An inquisitor of sorts. If he was selective about his targets and only hit high level evil people, what stops him from being a paladin? He can maintain an air of regality and righteousness around him; the only difference between him and the run-of-the-mill paladin is that this one has deeper notches on his sword.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Oct 16, 2003 1:27:48 GMT -5
Or, to take it another direction, how is a Dragon Slayer kit paladin not an assassin of dragons? The Dragon Slayer actively looks for evil dragons (color coded for ease of identification), enters their homes and kills them. Dragons are an intelligent species, certainly equally sentient and sapient to a human. How is entering their home with the intent of killing them and then actually killing the dragon not murder? It fits your definition perfectly. There, now the paladin is a professional murderer, thus assassin.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Swordhawk on Oct 16, 2003 6:33:11 GMT -5
Or, to take it another direction, how is a Dragon Slayer kit paladin not an assassin of dragons? [...] How is entering their home with the intent of killing them and then actually killing the dragon not murder? Hm. A very good point. Murder is defined as "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought". An assassin is defined as "a person who commits murder; especially : one who murders a politically important person either for hire or from fanatical motives" (Websters dictionary). If killing dragons aren't against the law, then it isn't unlawful to hunt them down and kill them - it's more like hunting. Concider the whaling debate, some people claim whales are intelligent and killing them is murder, whereas others claim they are not and killing them is not unlike killing other animals - i.e. hunting. But the Dragon Slayer paladin kit comes very close to allowing an assassin-like Paladin... and I don't like it and don't use it.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Oct 16, 2003 7:05:25 GMT -5
See, there's the trick. The whaling debate is talking about the murder of whales (at least some of them are), but it is impossible to murder anything in the real world other than another human. If I shoot someone's dog, I cannot be charged with murder.
The problem becomes, where do you draw the line in a fantasy campaign? Demihumans? Then I cannot murder orcs and slaughtering orcs is legally acceptable same as slaughtering cattle. Humanoids? Then that ignores all the intelligent monsters out there. A dragon, unlike a whale, is intelligent. It is sentient and sapient. It is quite likely, more intelligent than most of us. Therefore, should murder laws cover a dragon?
Realistically, a paladin is guilty of modern defined murder numerous times throughout his career. Each and every time a paladin enters the lair of an intelligent foe and kills it, he is guilty of murder, at least as it is defined in the real world.
In order for this debate to have any credibility at all, a broader definition of murder has to be used. A real world definition of murder simply does not apply.
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Oct 16, 2003 7:06:22 GMT -5
Hi Hussar, all,
First off, where is the Dragon Slayer kit detailed? I remember seeing it before, but can't place it off the top of my head. Was it an official kit or a net resource?
Anyway, even without remembering much about it, I would severely doubt that it states that the Paladin MUST hunt down and kill all chromatic dragons. If the kit says that, then the Paladin should be excluded by the over riding consideration of his Class, which always takes precedence over kit considerations.
Another point is: how is the Dragon Slayer hunting down these evil dragons? Is he simply sticking his nose in every cave he comes by hoping that a evil dragon might be home? Or is he hunting the beast by the number of maidens the things been eating and the amount of other extraneous damage it's doing? If so, he has more than some justification for slaying the beast if he can find it.
STILL; he had better be careful of his code. If he ends up killing a chromatic dragon that is not evilly aligned and undeserving of death, simply because it's a, say, red dragon and "everybody knows that red dragons are evil", then he has, by definition, commited a chaotic act and LOOSES his Paladinhood until he repents and performs an Atonement.* Until then he is no longer a Paladin.
Paladin's, as I've said before, are truly advanced role playing. It's not easy being the "perfect knight", but that is what the Paladin MUST BE always struggling to achieve to fulfill his Class requirements.
Too, as a final thought, an Assassin, according to my dictionary, is someone who murders for hire; and Murder is defined as "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought". If he has indeed done that, then has has, by the Paladial definition, abrogated his code.
A soldier in a battle is "lawfully empowered" to kill, either in self defense, or in the active pursuit of a lawfully given order. He MAY NOT be tried for war crimes if he stays within these bounds. It is only stepping outside of them, for instance by the slaughter of non-combatants, that makes the action "unlawful". The Paladin is most definately a "soldier". Part, but only a part, unless the DM has no imagination, of his career is spent in killing those who have put themselves beyond the Pale by their actions. It is an unfortunate, to him, consequence of the "will to evil". BUT... he is still required to, first and foremost, be
so that his example might inspire others.
Draxy
*Which, BTW, in my game would probably be finding and convincing some friendly demi-god or some such of doing a Raise Dead on the dragon and THEN putting himself at the dragon's service in any single honorable and good cause to complete the Atonement!
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Oct 16, 2003 7:28:09 GMT -5
Hi again Hussar,
The line seems to be drawn the same place as it is in this world, at definable sapience. The whale can not be defined as sapient, although there are those who would definately argue for it. The Orc, in our fantasy campaign world, most definately is. So too is the dragon.
Untrue. If the Paladin is being played according to the Paladial code he is no more guilty of murder than a modern police officer is if he kills someone in the line of duty.
Thus, in what way does the standard definition of murder not apply?
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Oct 16, 2003 9:14:22 GMT -5
Drax,
Are you saying that a paladin never enters the lair of an evil creature? As soon as he does so, he just committed pre meditated murder. Period.
The police officer MUST gain permission from a magistrate to enter a private home. A police officer MUST give the offender every possible chance to surrender. A police officer MUST adhere to a very, very strict policy of when he may draw his weapon and when he may use it. A paladin must do none of these things. Do you force the paladins in your campaigns to always gain permission to enter a dwelling? If the paladin enters enemy controlled territory, he has absolutely no authority to enter ANY dwelling without permission.
Nor, is a paladin a soldier. A soldier may only kill in time of war. Unless there is a war declared between the paladin's superiors and whatever he happens to be smacking, he is commiting murder.
The second a paladin enters the dwelling of an intelligent being, without announcing himself clearly and without a legally given warrant, he has, at the very least commited break and entry. When he kills something, even in "self defence", he is still guilty of murder. If a burgler breaks into a house and kills the home owner in a struggle where the home owner attacks the burgler with an axe, is the burgler not guilty of murder? Since the paladin has absolutely no legal rights to be where he is, he is no different than the burgler.
That's the problem Draxy. You are attempting to apply modern morality to a fantasy setting. Modern Western laws do not apply in this setting.
BTW, the Dragon Slayer kit is from the Paladin's handbook.
A paladin is not a soldier nor is he a police man. He is the chosen of a diety or force. He is a HOLY warrior. The sword hand of a god. A god's divine retribution. (Or, at least, this is one way to view a paladin, not the only way, but one way) As such, he would not view himself as commiting assassination but rather, punishing the guilty. Delivering his god's vengeance on the unbeliever.
(caps mine)
A paladin is a warrior, not a diplomat, not a policeman, a warrior. His sole purpose in life is to kill things. Cleric's are there to convert the heathen. Paladins are there to lay a hurtin on thing.
However, a paladin is not a soldier in the traditional sense. He is not part of a command structure (He may be, but that would be a house rule on the part of the DM) beyond the most rudimentary of a church leader sending him out into the world. A soldier would be given orders constantly. A soldier would not have the freedom to move about as he wished. A soldier could only take up arms in time of war. A soldier opporates within a rigidly defined command structure. A soldier is expected to act within the dictates of his orders which come from a clearly delineated authority. A soldier, to be considered a soldier, must wear a uniform. A paladin doesn't have to do any of these things. I don't know what kind of half assed army you worked for, but if I started going into people's homes in uniform and killing people that I thought were bad, they'd put me down pretty quickly.
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Oct 16, 2003 9:46:56 GMT -5
Hi Hussar,
Negative. Not period. Anyone who has ever studied law will tell you that there are more extenuating circumstances than can be listed in the space available to a single post in this forum in JUST modern jurisprudence alone.
Also not true. In pursuit of a fleeing fugitive, for example, a police officer need not knock, need not adress the dwellers in ANY manner whatsoever! Too, if he has reson to believe that a crime is in progress, the same holds true.
Too, in my games, if the being involved is in a dwelling in a city setting, then yes, the Paladin, or any other being following the local laws, MUST, if it is unlawful to enter a dwelling without permission (which, by the way, was NEVER the fact in the middle ages in any European country) then obtain such permission.
The lair of the fanatsy setting is NOT in any way the equivalent of a private home in the sub-urbs legalisticly. There is no possibility of ownership, except by squatters rights, which the police in the US can ALSO ignore.
More later... but I'm really rushed at the moment. It's good to be able to discuss this though with someone who doesn't loose his mind at a decenting opinion. Thank you.
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Oct 16, 2003 18:27:21 GMT -5
Hi again Hussar,
Sometimes yes, sometimes no, sometimes both simultaneously. In a well prepared campaign a Paladin can be a diplomat, or a officer of the local law, or both and more besides, just as soldiers in the real world can be all of those things and more simultaneously. Just look at the troops stuck in Bagdad right now. There are Marines among those fellows, and as a former US Marine, I can tell you, we believed that "to lay a hurtin on thing(s)" was our mandate directly from God.
Hussar, saying that he isn't part of a command structure is just as much a "house rule" in that the PHB, the DMG, nor any other official source I've ever seen does not state it either way.
Actually, that's what I see you as doing. There is no breaking and entering into the forest glade where the green dragon is lairing. Or into the cave in the hillside where that red dragon is sleeping on his plundered gold, or at the osasis where Mr. Blue is dining on the carcass of the child he grabbed from that Muradi camp.
The entirety of fantasy jurisprudence is based on the idea of the right of the sword, or tooth and claw, or whatever. Not too dissimiliar from medeival jurisprudence, where "God" often judged the validity of a claim by trial "de l'outrance". Hacking your enemy to bits to prove your rights was an accepted method of doing business, but muder was still considered morally and ethically reprehensible.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. You were a soldier. You know better than that.
Here again you are making the error that you accused me of.
In medieval armies, in medieval times, this was not the case. What you are talking about is modern soldiers in the US, Canada and other first and second world nations. The rebel soldiers in Panama, or Nigeria, or Somalia, like the soldiers from the time we are discussing, are no more bound by those restrictions than they are bound by the laws of the United States.
The Paladin can be many things and still remain within his code, but specificly, a murderer, by the standards and usages of the term from the time period that fantasy campaigns are meant to represent, is NOT one of them. The idea is pretty clearly stated in the PHB in the section on what evil alignment entails. I use it becuase what you seem to be allowing Paladins to do is their definition of evil!
"People and things that obstruct the evil characters plans are mere hinderances that must be overcome. If some is harmed in the process... that's too bad."
What you seem to describe is a person with exactly that attitude. THAT is NOT a Paladin. That is evil, while if a Paladin performs an evil action he irrevocably looses his Paladinhood FOREVER.
Draxy
BTW: It was the Wyrmslayer. That was why my term search didn't grab it the first time. Rereading through it though, the Paladin is NO where in it required to abrogate his Paladial code. He is still required to be a Paladin and to maintain the highest of personal standards at ALL times.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Oct 17, 2003 1:05:55 GMT -5
Sorry, got the name wrong, haven't looked at my 2e stuff in a few years. My bad.
The point is, the Wyrmslayer's sole purpose in life is to slay dragons. Period. Actually, it would be better to say that his primary goal in life is to slay evil dragons. That's a little better. Now, think about that for a second. His primary goal is the killing of intelligent species. He is going to plan (Premeditate) the death and carry out the killing of an intelligent species. That is murder by definition.
Let me ask you this, can a paladin ambush? If he can, then he is guilty of premeditated murder. His goal at the time of the ambush is to kill as many things as possible. Not to arrest, not to drive away, but to kill.
My point about all this is not really whether or not a paladin can be an assassin. By the modern definition of murder, a paladin is already a mass murderer by the time he hits mid levels. He has happily slaughtered lots of intelligent creatures in their homes. My arguement is that applying modern morality to this setting is absolutely rediculous and self-defeating. It's meaningless. Using any sort of modern, real world definition of murder and trying to apply it to a fantasy setting set in a quasi medieval period just doesn't work. Ultimately it becomes pointless.
Saying that a killing is justified is equally pointless. Justified by who? By the paladin's superiors? By the paladin's victims? By some sort of neutral third party? None of that matters. The only justification that the paladin needs is whether or not the greater good is served. If it is, then he can do it. If it isn't, he can't. End of story. You cannot generalize this beyond saying something like, "There may be sets of circumstances where it may be possible that a paladin can commit assassination for a given definition of assassination." Which, ultimately, is meaningless.
To give another example where this arguement is meaningless. It is usually accepted that a paladin can duel. He can both challenge and receive challenges. Yet, dueling, almost everywhere in Europe from the start of a dueling tradition, was considered murder and made illegal. There is a reason that people dueled at dawn, no one was around to stop it. In any modern legal sense, dueling is premeditated murder. Yet, we have no problem with a paladin doing it. It is heroic and noble and all that. So, because a paladin has this romanticized moral code any modern definitions just do not apply.
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Oct 17, 2003 1:42:31 GMT -5
Hi Hussar,
Sorry man, but that doesn't float. By that definition, every soldier who has ever killed another in combat, after maneuvering himself into position, every officer that has ever planned any action from a battle to a skirmish in which a life has been lost, are ALL murderers.
No, society says it. The very same way that they do for their police and their soldiers and any other protectors that they raise.
Killing is not murder. Murder includes the idea of killing, but not vice-versa. Murder is society's (any society's) term for "the UNLAWFUL killing" of any sapient being.
Killing to protect itself, whether that be by the execution of those who contravene it's dearest laws, by the sending of troops to battle on someone else's real estate to prevent it's own civilian population from being the people who are killed or by arming it's Police with lethal weapons, KNOWING that they will be employed, is one of any society's primary functions.
The society involved, as a collective, defines murder as the "unlawful" or unwarranted killing of another.
Killing a mass murderer, whether that one be a human being or a draconic being, is not murder. It is the society protecting itself from the depredations of that being.
Inaccurate, because the Paladin, if he is a Paladin, may not act against societal interests (lawfulness) and retain Paladial status. If he is not acting against societal interests when he kills, he is not commiting murder any more than a soldier is.
But that is exactly what you are doing with the calling of a lair, a home. You are using a psychological tag word that has connotations of safety and security and protection and applying it to a time and place where it doesn't fit. That oasis where little Khemal is being digested by the blue dragon Rothasq, is not a "home". The Paladin who goes their and kills him (if he manages it, which seems EXCEEDINGLY unlikely if the DM isn't giving it to him on a silver platter) has not invaded his home, ambushed him and murdered him; he has, as his society dictates, gone forth and eliminated a threat to itself and brought what it declares as justice to the situation.
But you must. Society decides what constitutes murder and assassination. The general meaning of the terms remain the same though, no matter what society is being discussed. Assassination is murder for some profit motive. It is seen, by all societies, including the ones in which assassins were common place, as utterly reprehensible.
The difference between a soldier in Duke Edmund's army shooting his crossbow at a rampaging ogre and killing it, even if the Duke has sent him and his troop out to hunt the ogre down in it's lair after it has fled the scene of it's latest depradations, and Argan the Black, the noted Shemtish assassin, slipping in the window of the Duke's stronghold and stabbing him through the heart with a poisoned dirk is the view point of society.
The soldier will be praised, perhaps canonicly, for his protecting the people. The assassin, even in the society from which he comes, will be viewed with disgust by society as a whole.
THAT is the difference. That is why one is murder and the other is a justifiable slaying.
Historicly this is completely and utterly untrue. For more than three quarters of the existence of the British empire, for example, it was the accepted method of settling truth of claim. Dueling is as old as mankind, but it is only in the last few hundred years that it became illegal on more than a local level anywhere in the world. Hell, it still occured, legally, in the United States, as late as the eighteen twenties in several states. Before it finally was outlawed nation wide, certain well known Congressmen engaged in it!
Drax
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Oct 17, 2003 3:57:47 GMT -5
You are still ignoring one VERY important point when you compare a paladin to a soldier. The single, only time a soldier can kill legally is during a state of warfare. Period. Full stop. A soldier may not kill at any other time than during a war (whether it is called a police action or not or whatever, you get the point). A paladin may kill at any time that he deems it as beneficial to his society. He is not a police officer who can only kill when apprehending a criminal and even then, in very specific circumstances. He can kill any time that it helps to benefit society. If he can go out and kill that marauding dragon for the good of society, then he can go out and kill that evil tyrant for the same reason. Thus, he can be a paladin and commit an assassination.
|
|