| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Feanor |
Posted - 14 Dec 2005 : 17:57:02
I will describe a situation involving some paladins of Tyr and I would like some opinions about it :
A young chosen of Tyr, a woman by the name of Saerileth, is sent by her god on a holy quest, to seek help from a powerful character in the Realms, called Annaren(random name), in order to punish a fallen deva. Saerileth falls in love with Annaren. During their quest, Saerileth is abducted by a powerful devil and Annaren will join forces with another chosen of Tyr, called Edorem, to rescue her. This Edorem was also in love with Saerileth and, noticing that Saerileth's affection go to Annaren, he implied that Annaren is not good enough for her (using the words "you dare to love her, you who are born of murder" - Annaren's father was an evil deity, but he was good-aligned and with a heroic reputation)and, at a second meeting, he accused Annaren of using enchantments on Saerileth, which proved to be false (using some very insulting words "Is it this man then who has taken your heart, Saerileth? If it be so, then he has deceived you! Look well upon him, this churl who would lie to a lady!").
At this moment, when he is proven wrong, he says : "(Edorem's face pales suddenly.) You--you did not deceive her! You are truly as you claimed to be, despite the magic surrounding you. The knight kneels formally before you.) I have accused you unjustly, Annaren.If combat is what is required to wash the stain of my accusation from you, so be it. If not, I will depart and trouble you no more."
Here are 2 options :
A. Annaren accepts Edorem's apology. My question is : what would be Tyr's reaction to his chosen's misdeed, having in mind that Annaren could be considered an ally of the church of Tyr, since he was on a quest for the god of justice ? I would like some opinions.
B. Annaren accepts the duel. Edorem replies : "Name your terms, for it shall be as you desire". At this moment, Saerileth interferes and pleads for Edorem's life. If Annaren accepts, we return to point A. If Charname denies her plea, Saerileth says "Please, I beg of thee, do not harm Lord Edorem. He is a Chosen of Tyr, and 'tis my bounden duty to defend him". Here are the problems :
- if a paladin of Tyr challenges someone to duel, challenge which is freely accepted by both persons, why another paladin would be compelled to fight by the side of the first one ? What does that mean, that if this Edorem fellows goes and slaps Gwydion, then Saerileth is compelled to fight beside him, if Gwydion demands satisfaction ? That seems very illogical for me.
- can a paladin interfere in a lawful one-to-one duel ?
- could Tyr deny someone's request to receive satisfaction from one of his chosen if that person was offended by that chosen ?
- do you think that Saerileth is indeed forced by her duty to act this way or it is a mistake of the DM ?
There are 2 possible outcomes here :
1. Annaren's accepts Saerileth's last plea. We return to point A.
2. Annaren refuses. Saerileth dies of heartbreak. Then Edorem gives him a speech about "your heart is black", takes Saerileth's corpse and leaves. But the problem is that the challenge remained valid. As the offended person, only Annaren could cancel the duel. If Edorem simply leaves, then he is dishonored and he could lose his paladinhood (not to forget that Edorem is at the origins of this whole mess). Opinions ? |
| 9 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 15 Dec 2005 : 21:05:14
I see this more likely. Person A has besmirched person B's honor in a fairly private matter. A then offers up... in essence.. his life to B. B likely would not want A's death, as Tyr is not a bloodlusting deity. He would prefer justice be done however. A price must be paid, and the man is offering to risk his life. Perhaps a service to be performed in the name of Tyr in penance... such as hunting down a villainous bandit or helping depose a despot.
Remember, knights held their honor highly, but knights were NOT paladins. Knights might have gladly accepted the duel and spilled the blood of another over a misunderstanding. Paladins should be above such things. |
| Feanor |
Posted - 15 Dec 2005 : 09:23:25
Ok. Any other opinion about Tyr's attitude in regard of this conflict ? I really need them. Thanks. |
| Forge |
Posted - 14 Dec 2005 : 22:37:56
Lesson of the story: (As phrased by my idol, Grumpy the dwarf) "Wimmen is p'ison, they got the wicked wiles!" |
| Feanor |
Posted - 14 Dec 2005 : 21:20:16
quote:
I will say that a "chosen of Tyr" has vastly different connotations than being a Paladin.
Well, Edorem is both a chosen and a paladin. 
But since you asked me what laws has he broken, here is what conclusions I have reached, according to the Paladin's handbook :
1. Edorem's interference can undermine the task which Saerileth has to perform. This falls into the cathegory of extreme violations of the ethos : "Inadvertently inflicting great harm on the patron's cause, such as failure to protect an artifact or important official." If Edorem's interference leads to Saerileth being cast from Annaren's side, then she cannot accomplish her task anymore. The penalty is the loss of the ability to cast spells or the loss of one of the paladinic abilities.
2. By taking Saerileth into his party and agreeing to help her in her mission, Annaren has automatically become an ally of the Church of Tyr. All ethos violations involving an official of the paladin's church or anyone associated with it belong to Cathegory 3 or 4, depending on the circumstances. To cast insult to someone associated with the church falls into Cathegory 3. Since the offence was commited twice, it falls into cathegory 4, of execrable violations. Since this was a crime against the church, this can result in Edorem being beheaded by the church of Tyr or in Tyr striking him down with a lightning bolt or causing the Earth to swallow him (the punishments dictated by the handbook). (I don't like this either, but here is the logic which led me to this : deliberate insult against a good-aligned character is a violation from cathegory 2 ; any offence of cathegory 2 against someone related to the paladin's order/church/patron goes automatically one level up ; reiterration of the offence would bring the offence into cathegory 4).
3. Annaren and Edorem worked together to free Saerileth and they draw swords together against a dangerous foe. In such a case, Annaren becomes the paladin's brother-in-arms. The paladin is bound never to cause him harm or speak ill of him, except for the case that person is evil. If the paladins shows disrespect towards his comrade, this falls into cathegory 3, of extreme violations, with the penalty described above.
4. Saerileth is the woman Edorem loves. If Edorem has openly declared his love for Saerileth, this is considered an ethos vow. The paladin is bound to remain true to his love, no matter if she reciprocates. If someone helps the paladin's beloved, then the paladin is forever in debt to that person. It also depends on the circumstances : if the person helped the paladin by giving her a healing potion, then to offend that person belongs to Cathegory 3. If the person has saved the paladin's beloved at the risk of his own life, then the paladin is bound to show him the same respect as for his own family members. If he does not, then the violation of the ethos belongs to cathegory 4. In our case, Annaren contributed to Saerileth's salvation at the risk of his own life. To offend such a person is for the paladin a violation from cathegory 4, the cathegory of execrable violations. Even a single violation belonging to this cathegory result in an immediate and irrevocable loss of the paladin status, without the possibility of atonement.
In regard of this, I have doubts Tyr would simple let this pass. Remember that he said to Mystra "I am the god of justice, not the god of fairness". If he does, he would lose his credibility before the other gods. Besides, Tyr is not known to be forgiving, like Ilmater or Lathander. Take the case of a paladin from Pool of Radiance, Miltiades : becaused he resorted to non-paladinic tactics to attack the leader of an opponent army (he tried to sneak into his camp and force that leader to fight him, don't remember exactly the details), called Zarl, he was punished by Tyr to become a death knight, denying him access in his heaven from Mount Celestia. If Tyr did that to Miltiades, then I can't imagine him overlooking Edorem's deeds. Neither Miltiades did not literally break any law, BTW.
quote:
Moreover, from what I understand, the offender above has offered to place himself at the disposal of the offended party should a duel be desired
Exactly. That is my point and that makes Saerileth's action totally unexplainable.
quote:
I'm hard pressed to see where Tyr would REQUIRE a duel, particularly between 2 warriors who stand as favored in his church.
Annaren is NOT literally a member of his church. I mean he has no obligations to Tyr (meaning that he does not take orders from Tyr, he is an ally, not a full-fledged member). Consider him like a member honoris causa or something like that. And Tyr does not require a duel, the idea is if his servants would be forced to interfere in a freely accepted duel, as Saerileth claims. From what you posted, I understand that your opinion is no.
quote:
I would say an apology and the understanding between the 2 would be acceptable. Should a duel be requested/required, I don't think that the sanctity of the duel would allow a 3d party to intervene unless one party was severely outclassed in some capacity that prevented them from participating. (Hard to joust from a wheelchair y'know.) In such a case, the participants would typically use champions to settle their squabble.
Quite clear. Saerileth speaks crap.
The point is that I try to clarify the actions of the characters in regard of their relationship with Tyr. (Note : I have a DM which is overprotective of that Edorem, that's the idea, and makes Tyr look very subjective ). |
| Forge |
Posted - 14 Dec 2005 : 20:32:19
Well, first of all, you address honor and laws regarding it, which seem to be the heart of the matter, for the disposition of that discussion has direct bearing on how Tyr would react.
I will say that a "chosen of Tyr" has vastly different connotations than being a Paladin. Moreover, from what I understand, the offender above has offered to place himself at the disposal of the offended party should a duel be desired. I'm hard pressed to see where Tyr would REQUIRE a duel, particularly between 2 warriors who stand as favored in his church. I would say an apology and the understanding between the 2 would be acceptable. Should a duel be requested/required, I don't think that the sanctity of the duel would allow a 3d party to intervene unless one party was severely outclassed in some capacity that prevented them from participating. (Hard to joust from a wheelchair y'know.) In such a case, the participants would typically use champions to settle their squabble. |
| Feanor |
Posted - 14 Dec 2005 : 20:20:17
quote:
Originally posted by Forge
Actually, only in feudal Japan and china was honor a viable offense to kill someone over. The balance could request a duel but there was no legal precedent or legal way to enforce a duel with an uncooperative opponent.
It seems we are speaking past each other. Yes, legally, when a knight is challenged to a duel, he could refuse. But when he is the author of the insult, then to decline meant dishonor. But, beside that, this is not the main point, so it's kinda useless. The problem is the next one (and that is why I posted this here) : what would Tyr's attitude be about this situation ? Saerileth claims it is her duty to Tyr to defend Edorem, but, having in mind the circumstances, this seems quite absurd.
There are more than one problem in my first post and you adressed just one. |
| Forge |
Posted - 14 Dec 2005 : 20:07:21
Actually, only in feudal Japan and china was honor a viable offense to kill someone over. The balance could request a duel but there was no legal precedent or legal way to enforce a duel with an uncooperative opponent. |
| Feanor |
Posted - 14 Dec 2005 : 19:44:43
True, but you miss my point. The idea is : how Saerileth's reaction can be explained ?
This answers only to the first question, that Tyr would not interfere. But, according to the paladin's handbook, is is forbidden for a paladin to mistreat any good character. Moreso, if that character has some tidings with his church, order or god or he is indebted to him, than an offence against him is a violation of cathegory 3, of extreme violation.
quote:
No laws were broken here really, no crimes commited. I'd say it's a matter of honor between the 2, not something that falls within the realm of the diety.
About this one observation I have to make : no crimes according to our standards. That is important to mention. I don't know how many of you are familiar with Middle Ages, but what Edorem was reason enough for Annaren to cut his throat ten times. Nowadays, in such situations, the reaction was "it does not worth it". Today yes, but in a medieval world it was. Now it's not that important, but for those people honor and prestige was everything. An offence against someone's honor was, for a knight, much more serious than murder itself. Faerun has different concepts than USA and if we judge this from the perspective of the american judicial system, we waste our time. |
| Forge |
Posted - 14 Dec 2005 : 18:53:39
No laws were broken here really, no crimes commited. I'd say it's a matter of honor between the 2, not something that falls within the realm of the diety. |
|
|
