|
Post by Draxy on Oct 17, 2003 6:01:52 GMT -5
Hi Hussar,
I'm not ignoring it. The Paladin is a soldier... a soldier of his god/ethic/whatever. He IS constantly at war... with what his society and upbringing accepts as evil. As to why that makes him a soldier, I'll handle in a moment.
You are doing it again. That thing you accused me of, applying todays standards to a society based on the medieval time.
Historicly, anytime the soldier/retainers of a lord, or even the free mercenaries that wandered the lands from the end of that period into the early parts of the Industrial Age, could take up the sword at any point in the service of God (represented almost entirely by the Roman Catholic Church in Western Europe during that period) and community to "bring to justice" "witches and other abominations unto God". THIS was accepted as "common law" everywhere but England and there it was as accepted, but under the aegesis of service to the King (or Queeen during a few periods). The local village elders, usually the wealthiest merchants or yoeman farmers in the area, or the local priest, simply let it be known that something needed to be done and set a bounty and any mercenaries in the local suddenly became bounty hunters, sanctioned by the church and society.
Now, the offended party could, if they survived long enough to do it, complain to whoever the local lord was, but seldom would that help unless the Lord either was at odds with the church (unlikely and unhealthy even for a feudal lord) or wanted to "flex his muscles" (his authority) to remind everyone in the area that HE was the authority and Law. Still, the "contracted" warrior who hunted down the witch or killed the local bandit was NOT accountable for the actions he undertook by common law.
Now a Paladin in a fantasy world in such a situation STILL has to obey his code. So he must be sure that the "witch" he is being sent after has committed evil acts. If he is so convinced, then he has his proper mandate... the Inquisitor kit from the Complete Paladin's Handbook is this way.
Medeival and even Renaissance society was crude and rough edged, but they had their limits. They often, very often in France and Spain historicly, peformed just such actions. In Renaissance society, the younger sons of noble men and the sons of wealthy merchants who were martially inclined often supported themselves for their entire lives in this way. It is one of the historical facts that AD&D is based on.
That too is dependant upon the game. Not house rules, as it is clearly stated in the official sourcebooks that the Paladin "may" be in the service to some Lord or other institution. If he is, he isn't the free agent that you describe here. He had to answer for his actions to his Lord, or order, or whatever.
Once again, he can not use the methods of assassination and be the exemplar of "all that is best" in the world that his class requires him to be. He can openly, if he must, slay the evil tyrant, but he can not use the common methods of assassination and he can not do it at all unless he is truly acting for the good of his society.That makes all the difference in the world. That is how ALL alignment action in AD&D is determined. otherwise no "good" person would EVER be able to kill if he/she were not attacked directly, DIRECTLY, prior to the self defense action.
The assassin; however, does not make the moral or ethical distinctions, but the paladin is based around the moral and ethical distinctions; and society is the device that sets the standards.
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Oct 17, 2003 9:22:07 GMT -5
So answer this, if the paladin goes into the castle of an evil king, completely openly, battles his way into the throne room, announces to all there that he is here to bring the king to justice and then slays the king, has he not committed assassination?
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Oct 17, 2003 14:53:28 GMT -5
No more than the soldier, doing what he sees and his society sees as defending his country, who pilots the Enola Gay, nor the bombadier who hits the release button, nor any other member of the crew, can be accused of murder. Nor any other soldier who is battling on foreign shores at the command of his superior officers, in the defense of his nation.
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Oct 17, 2003 22:51:48 GMT -5
And if the evil tyrant is the kind of the paladin's country?
This whole arguement is rediculous. The definitions of murder and assassination are so open to interpretation as to be meaningless. Just as one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, so too is one man's executioner another man's assassin.
You keep trying to say that paladin's are soldiers. They are not soldiers. You can keep saying it, but it doesn't make it true. A paladin does not have to be part of any army. Nowhere, in any book does it say that a paladin must belong to an army. Guess what, if you're not part of an army, then you are not a soldier.
Take the examples you gave above. While you might think that the pilot of the Enola Gay is not a murderer, there are several million Japanese victims that might disagree with you. The only reason they were never tried as war criminals is because America won. Had America lost, you can bet your butt that they would be seen as monsters who murdered thousands of civilians. History is written by the victor. To justify the actions after the fact is the reward of the victor.
That's why I say this discussion is absolutely rediculous.
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Oct 18, 2003 5:34:07 GMT -5
Hi Hussar,
I really thought you were more perceptive than this. EVERY Action ever undertaken by ANY> individual in any sense is open completely to EVERYONE elses interpretation. The entire frabric of reality as a human being can interact with it is perceptual in nature.
Obviously!
Now, that said, within the framework of AD&D, which is where I've been providing quotes from, something you've failed to do, this discussion has merit and meaning. The definitions involved have to be theirs, where they've given them and the most often accepted ones where they have not. Again, obviously. It is within the framework of the game that I am, and I would have hoped that we were, discussing this. Within that framework declaring that an assassin and a Paladin are equivalent is patently ridiculous because THEY (the official sources) say it is. Period.
If the evil tyrant is of the Paladin's nation, to discuss the only thing you said in this last post that is relevant, then his society will decide whether what he has done is acceptable to them or not, but it is also down to what "fate" (the DM) decides in such a case. If the guy is really evil though, that is if his alignment, that artificiality of the game that we have to keep this discussion within for it to have relevance, is evil, then "fate" will decide that it was a correct act... if he maintained the GIVEN Paladial code when he acted.
See, that is the WHOLE thing in a nut shell. The Class itself has a very straigtforward definiton of what the paladial code is.
Now if you, as a DM, want to accept Murder and Assassination as "all that is best" in society, doesn't that say something about your perceptions? It certainly is NOT what the game gives as examples of "all that is best", and THAT, now matter how you want to dance around it, is what is in question HERE in the AD&D 1st and 2nd Edition RPG Forum. Or is that not what we're doing here?
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Oct 18, 2003 6:57:30 GMT -5
Please define "all that is best" in a society. The whole problem is that 2e defined things so vaguely and so broadly, that a paladin can commit an assassination. You continually fail to give an example as to why a paladin cannot assassinate. You say that they cannot because their code prevents them. That their paladial [sic] code disallows them from killing in this manner. I disagree.
To use the evil tyrant example. What can the paladin do about the evil tyrant then?
My point is, from a given viewpoint, a paladin commits murder almost constantly. Any time he kills something where there has not been a declaration of war or a sanction by some sort of authority, he has just commited murder, at least from a certain point of view. What you call defending the people from the dragon, I call murder. Who is right? Both of us, depending on your point of view. Regardless of how vague you want to make your answers, you cannot escape this one fact. Can a paladin commit an assassination? Well it entirely depends on how you define assassination and who is giving the answer.
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Oct 18, 2003 12:17:47 GMT -5
Hi Hussar,
Oh come on man. You are trying to be obtuse. You are an adult. You are a teacher, correct? Can you really say that you have no idea what is meant by that phrase?
If that is so, then for the American/Canadian/Western European mindset (upon which the idea of the paladin in the game is founded) it is exemplified by the ideals of justice (in as the application of laws that promote the welfare of the members of the society) , humility, proper respect for authority, courtesy, honesty, valor, honor, generosity and the avoidance of perversity.
These aren't just written in the official sources, by the way, but also in essence or fact in such diverse places as the Desiderata, the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, the Magna Carta and many another as well, as I am sure you well know.
Absolute, unmitigated, baloney. They are as exacting in nature, or more so, than anything from 3rd edition or any other game. Hell, in third edition the alignment portion of "lawful" has lost ALL meaning. Now it can also be a "personal code". What in the name of God does a personal code have to do with uninamity and all of the other things that "lawful" alignment has always been taken to mean AND was detailed to mean by Michael Moorcock, from whom the idea of the Law vs Chaos idea was borrowed in the first place? 3E's definition is the one that is so broad as to be utterly meaningless. Not 2E's.
Too, from the Paladin's Handbook we have: and and Do we see that part?
Now, from the Dungeon Masters Guide: ....
Do we see this? Taken straight from the DMG, the simple act of hiring an assassin is considered neither good nor lawful, by the system, specificly, itself.
Now, that being quoted, would you like to explain how a Paladin, who must ALWAYS act in a good AND lawful manner at ALL times or loose his paladial status can perform an action that the simple hiring of a person to preform is, again, quoted from the DMG, considered to be unrelaible and reprehensible both. and
To me at least, that is about as clear and definitive as it can be made. Of course, simply knowing what those two words (paladin and assassination) mean makes it obvious, but if you want it straight from the rule books, there you go.
Define murder then Hussar. It seems you confuse, purposely, murder with killing. The two are defined very differently, especially in a legal sense, but nearly as pointedly in every day society.
Too:
What the Hell is the mandate of his god (or whatever the individual Paladin holds as the penultimate authority) if it isn't a continuing and continuos sanction of authority?
BUT, the game system (which is what we have to be talking in terms of to have any kind of woth while dialouge in this place), very specificly does NOT!
Hey, as I've said countless times, what you as a DM want to do in your own game is your own business (and that of your players). But you can not then claim that it is the official stance if it is not accurate.
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Oct 18, 2003 21:31:10 GMT -5
Well Draxy you defined murder as the premeditated taking of life with malice aforethough (or something like that.) Works as a viable definition.
Killing, I have no problem with. Killing is what you do to something that is unintelligent. You kill a dog, you cannot murder it, no matter what the animal rights people tell you.
However, I'll ask you again, since you seem completely incapable of answering a simple question so I'll use small words, how is entering the lair of an intelligent creature for the purpose of killing that creature not murder? Squatter rights don't apply because the creature lives in unclaimed territory. He's not squatting, he's living in the home that he's lived in for the past 1000 years since he was a baby dragon. No outside authority can legitimately claim his land since the land is his. Now, Joe paladin enters the lair of the dragon with the full intention of slaying the dragon. He has premeditated and he has malice aforethought. Thus, it's murder. The justification is irrelavent. The paladin has no authority being there. That the dragon ate a couple of villagers is immaterial. The paladin isn't there to bring the dragon to justice, he's there to kill the dragon. To deliver justice so to speak. Now he has become judge, jury and executioner. Sounds like an assassin to me.
The reason I'm being obtuse as you call it Draxy is because you actually believe what you are saying actually has any relavence to the game. I realized years ago when this debate started that it was utterly and completely meaningless. You have spouted out here the exact same tired and boring arguements that you trotted out at Planet and couldn't get anywhere. Why? Because those of us that actually have stood back and have realized that no matter what either side says, it all comes down to a DM's call on a case by case situation. Whether it's RK's vampiric baron or my dragon example here, you can use the definitions in the dictionary to support anything you or anyone else wants to say.
Can a paladin be an assassin in 1e or 3e? No. Why? Because the rules specifically state that you can't because of alignment restrictions. 2e, with it's vaguely worded rules have allowed rules lawyers to run rampant for years by doing exactly what I have done here. Exploit parts of the books which are not well laid out, that are not specific and are unclear. The 2e debate ran for hundreds of pages on Planet. The 3e and 1e portion of the debate ended in two lines. Now, can you tell why I like 3e better?
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Oct 19, 2003 13:22:41 GMT -5
Hi Hussar
I don't think you know what the word *malice* means then, as if you did you wouldn't confuse it with killing, which you are still doing.
It is the "intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm without legal justification or excuse".
I've already made it VERY clear that if the dragon has not been commiting evil acts (which is best defined here... in the game... as the wanton "murder" of another sophont being) then the Paladin MAY NOT take action against it, irregardless of it's type or their perceived alignment as a group. Is that not clear?
When the Paladin is acting against one that has provided such reasons, which are the only ones his code will let him go after, then he is acting with the self same "legal justification" as an officer of the court throwing the switch that activates the electric chair in Teddy Bundy's final moments. The dragon you are defending has to have, to be eligable for the Paladin to kill him, committed acts as heinous as Bundy's.
More later. I've got to finish making my daughters favorite sauce for dinner. She aced another English test.
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Oct 20, 2003 4:57:18 GMT -5
Congrats to your little one ;D
Well, considering it's an evil dragon, it's not too hard to guess that it's done some pretty bad things.
The thing is, what you call a legitimate killing, I call murder. How can a paladin claim legal authority over a dragon? The guard who throws the switch for an execution has the authority granted to him by the leader of his country and he may only legitimately execute someone who has been convicted of a crime within his country. The dragon has not been convicted of a crime (since there has been no trial) nor has the dragon necessarily commited a crime within the paladin's country.
Now, that being said, I think we both agree that the paladin is perfectly within his rights to go out and lay a smacking on an evil rampaging dragon. Of course he does. However, from a legal point of view, he does not have that right. He becomes a vigilante should he do so. And, without legal authority to apprehend the dragon, he is murdering that dragon, at least from a certain point of view.
Let's back up a second. Can a paladin sneak into a chamber and pour poison into someone's ear? No, of course not. I think we all can agree to that. Can a paladin kill something while protecting someone else? Sure, that's all part and parcel of the whole noble cause thing. However, there are a number of actions between those two extremes where it becomes MUCH more problematic. These questionable actions are things like:
- ambush - treatment of prisoners - attacking with surprise - hunting an intelligent creature - entering a lair - opposing the ruler of a country/barony/county whatever
and many other things that come up during play. Now, the point is, it will always come down to a judgement call by the DM as to whether or not an act is justified or not. And, because it will always be a judgement call, you cannot categorically deny that it might happen.
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Oct 20, 2003 7:37:56 GMT -5
In todays society. In most of medeival Europe he would have back then if he were a member of any order of knighthood, whether as a was a knight or as a man or sargeant at arms, or as a squire in training or squire at arms; if he were part of the retinue of ANY landed nobleman, whether he was in his own lands or not or if he were directly sworn to the service of God.
That last one is yet another reason that he IS justified AND empowered, by the societal mind set of the time.
I like the cases idea. So let#s hit it as isprovided by the rule books themselves.
Ambush: unless he is a Cavalier, or is otherwise prohibited by his kit, it is considered a legitimate tactic, although it is also considered a less than sterling example of the paladial virtues. He should NOT do so unless refraining from doing so outweighs the gretaer benefits of doing so... ie: it renders him probably unable to succesful discharge his primary mission of protecting the innocent.
Treatment of prisoners: MUST be according to the HIGHEST ideals of the Paladial code. There is NO room for debate here by many statements by the rules. He must also do his utmost to see that their treatment by associates of his is correct as well.
Being a Paladin is not easy.
Attacking with surprise: see ambush. For the Paladin they are the same thing.
Hunting an intelligent creature: For any reason other than to bring it to justice for heinous crimes is unacceptable. ANY intelligent (if by that you mean sophont)creature is entitled to the same rights as the Paladin's friends and family according to the code.
Entering a lair: Again, with justification... just like a modern cop would need.
Opposing the ruler of a country/barony/county whatever: If by opposing you mean to the death, then the rules here are very clear. If the ruler is behaving in an evil manner, he is REQUIRED to, but if the ruler is not behaving so, then he MAY NOT kill him. It doesn't matter if it's the King or a peasant; the King does not, to the Paladial code, represent the law if he is abrogating "a higher law", the test is behavior, not rank.
Everyone of these you have brought up IS definitively answered in the books. If you insist, I will dig up references, but take my word for it, I can easily do so.
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Oct 20, 2003 8:21:22 GMT -5
Actually, I've seen numerous examples in Dragon and elsewhere where Paladins, in very limited circumstances, can execute prisoners. If allowing a prisoner to go would result in innocent deaths and the paladin cannot for very good reasons just take the prisoner back, then, he may execute the prisoner. Again, it is a question of doing the most good for the most people.
So, he can ambush someone or something if the benefits to society are greater than not acting. He can plan the killing of something if the benefits are greater than not acting. He can kill something if the benefits are greater than not acting. He can assassinate something if the benefits are greater than not acting.
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Oct 20, 2003 17:04:01 GMT -5
No, he can not asaassinate as assassination, both as defined generally and by the game implies a specific mindset...one of murder for selfish ends. Selfish ends, at the least, imply chaos, and thus loss of Paladial status. As I've already quoted directly from the DMG and the CPHB, the Paladial code will not, PERIOD, allow it.
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Oct 20, 2003 20:29:17 GMT -5
Just to step back for a second. Something has been bugging me for a while. Here's what:
Bold Mine
Now, perhaps you should ask your daughter, since she aced an English test, what the meaning of this word is. I'll admit, I wasn't sure. So, I went and tried to look it up. In Mirriam Webster, in Dictionary.com, the word doesn't exist. So I Googled it and find that this is a made-up word from Traveler (I think). It's interesting that you try to insult my intelligence by calling me obtuse and questioning my grasp of the language, when you cannot even use simple English terms like intelligent or sentient but must rely on made up terms from SF games.
Now, that little blast being done, you still insist that assassination must be done for selfish reasons. I suppose, in the very limited definition supplied in the books that an assassin must be payed, you are correct. However, in the real world, assassins certainly need not be payed and frequently act out of a sense of duty. Hinkely was not being payed but was trying to save his country from what he saw was a power hungry mad man (Granted Hinkely was a nutter, but you get the point), nor was Oswald working for anyone. The Israeli squads that go in and attack Palestinian terrorists are not doing it for money, they are doing it because they have been told to do so by their leaders. Yet, most people would say that they are committing assassination, including the Israelis themselves.
So, Drax, if we insist on only using the extremely limited definition of assassination as it exists in the DMG, then, yes, you would be correct, IMO, that a paladin can't do that. However, by changing the definition of the word and only using the most basic, limited definition, it's hardly a valid arguement.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Oct 21, 2003 0:32:24 GMT -5
Wahoo! Straight from the horse's mouth at WOTC. The Book of Exalted deeds states, and I quote:
Now there you go.
|
|