| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
 Posted - 21 Jul 2005 : 15:40:22
|
As has been indicated there is not enough source material written to directly answer mercy killing being permitted for any reason, much the same concerning Paladins and slaves.
The Paladin archtype is based of chivalry. Even there can be some differences in what that code is.
"Then each knight rose and held up his sword handle.they all agreed as to what they would do.
"I will be kind to the weak.
I will be brave against the strong.
I will fight all who do wrong.
I will fight for those who cannot fight.
I will help those tho call me for help.
I will harm no woman.
I will help my brother knight.
I will be true to my friends.
I will ce faithful in love.""
Is one example of a moral code. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
 |
|
|
Forge
Learned Scribe
USA
218 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2005 : 16:25:19
|
I'm curious Kentinal, just out of my own curiosity, what a Paladin who swore to the oath you listed would do if attacked my a female warrior or assassin? Or if, in the heat of battle he found that he had slain a woman who was a part of the attacking force?
The reason I ask is that the tenets you laid down are close to chivalry, which existed in a society where women were closeted and still seen as property or even animals, but certainly not equals. Chivalry would have problems in today's society, and those problems would be reflected in the Realms in any situation where a woman was to be dealt with as an equal. I'm sure Storm would have something to say about it, as would Simbul or any of the female wizards found in many of the books, and CERTAINLY any typical Dark Elf female... God forbid you swear that oath and wind up fighting the Drow...
I guess my point here would be restated something like: A paladin may be BASED on a moral code, but while the source material may be chiavlry and medieval religious/social strictures, take care that you account for the game world and THEIR societal heirarchy before you base a characters responses off of your own perceptions and desires for what the character would be. |
Edited by - Forge on 21 Jul 2005 16:27:57 |
|
|
|
Xysma
Master of Realmslore
USA
1089 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2005 : 16:29:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
As has been indicated there is not enough source material written to directly answer mercy killing being permitted for any reason, much the same concerning Paladins and slaves.
The Paladin archtype is based of chivalry. Even there can be some differences in what that code is.
"Then each knight rose and held up his sword handle.they all agreed as to what they would do.
"I will be kind to the weak.
I will be brave against the strong.
I will fight all who do wrong.
I will fight for those who cannot fight.
I will help those tho call me for help.
I will harm no woman.
I will help my brother knight.
I will be true to my friends.
I will ce faithful in love.""
Is one example of a moral code.
That's what I think a paladin's moral code should be. That being said, if you can justify your actions and your DM buys it, do what you feel is right. At least you are considering whether or not your your actions follow the tenets of your god's faith, as well as your own moral code. |
War to slay, not to fight long and glorious.
Aermhar of the Tangletrees
Year of the Hooded Falcon
Xysma's Gallery
Guide to the Tomes and Tales of the Realms download from Candlekeep
Anthologies and Tales Overviews
Check out my custom action figures, hand-painted miniatures, gaming products, and other stuff on eBay.
|
|
|
|
Forge
Learned Scribe
USA
218 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2005 : 16:31:05
|
quote:
That's what I think a paladin's moral code should be.
I'm curious. Why? |
|
|
|
Xysma
Master of Realmslore
USA
1089 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2005 : 16:56:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Forge
I will agree with this to a limited extent. The problem is, Paladins serve a divine power, and each of the divine powers in Faerun lends a certain flavor to their respective followers.
Flavor yes, but the they all have ine thing in common, they must be lawful good, which implies certain similarities.
quote:
Example: The aforementioned paladin of Clangedden would never leave a Dwarf behind... EVER... But an obnoxious human rogue might get left behind without a qualm.
Maybe if he just met the human, but if they had been companions for awhile, regardless of how obnoxious he was, I don't think the dwarf would leave him.
quote:
I very much think that a "fighter with some divine abilities" IS what a Paladin is. He CAN be the knight in shining armor, but he can also be a scrappy, hard-bitten cynic. I refer to the "Pool Of Radiance" series, where Kern and Trooper are counterpoints of knightly virtue.
Also, you are again referring to "the moral code", but none of the folks who have espoused the existence of such a code have provided some kind of basis for where they find documentation of the existence of such a code.
From WotC
" The Paladin's Code
Now let's address the question of how the paladin's code of conduct governs her actions. A paladin is both lawful and good, and she must uphold both aspects of her alignment. Thus, if the laws in a particular realm are corrupt and evil, she is under no obligation to obey them.
Though a paladin must always strive to bring about a just and righteous outcome, she is not omnipotent. If someone tricks her into acting in a way that harms the innocent, or if an action of hers accidentally brings about a calamity, she may rightly feel that she is at fault. But although she should by all means attempt to redress the wrong, she should not lose her paladinhood for it. Intent is not always easy to judge, but as long as a paladin's heart was in the right place and she took reasonable precautions, she cannot be blamed for a poor result.
Should a paladin sacrifice herself to save others? In the broadest sense, yes, since doing so is the ultimate act of good. However, she must also have enough respect for her own life and ability to make sure that her sacrifice brings about a significant benefit for others. A paladin who holds the only key to saving the world should not sacrifice herself needlessly against an orc horde. As long as the paladin keeps the greater good in mind, she is adhering to her code."
|
War to slay, not to fight long and glorious.
Aermhar of the Tangletrees
Year of the Hooded Falcon
Xysma's Gallery
Guide to the Tomes and Tales of the Realms download from Candlekeep
Anthologies and Tales Overviews
Check out my custom action figures, hand-painted miniatures, gaming products, and other stuff on eBay.
|
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2005 : 16:58:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Forge
I'm curious Kentinal, just out of my own curiosity, what a Paladin who swore to the oath you listed would do if attacked my a female warrior or assassin? Or if, in the heat of battle he found that he had slain a woman who was a part of the attacking force?
"I will fight all who do wrong."
A female that took a male role would no longer have right or expectation to be treated as a female.
quote:
The reason I ask is that the tenets you laid down are close to chivalry, which existed in a society where women were closeted and still seen as property or even animals, but certainly not equals. Chivalry would have problems in today's society, and those problems would be reflected in the Realms in any situation where a woman was to be dealt with as an equal. I'm sure Storm would have something to say about it, as would Simbul or any of the female wizards found in many of the books, and CERTAINLY any typical Dark Elf female... God forbid you swear that oath and wind up fighting the Drow...
It is a chivalry code, so I am glad it sounds like one *wink*
It does not fit in modern society at all where duels are frowned on to say the least if not outright illegal in many nations of the world. It however can fit into FR (the offered code) not the rest of how a knight of the RW was expected to act (and rarely did). Also the code really only tended to apply to the nobles. A Paladin archtype however is derived from chivalry. Sir Gilihad IIRC, the one that found the Holy Grail, to some extent the Cursader Knights and of course Chaemanes (spelling) Knights all are part of the base that a Paladin is based on.
As for warrior females, as I already indicated, they would no longer be acorded the privilage of special treatment because they would be acting wrongly. A D&D Paladin job is to fight evil and that does not matter what race or sex the evil creature is.
quote:
I guess my point here would be restated something like: A paladin may be BASED on a moral code, but while the source material may be chiavlry and medieval religious/social strictures, take care that you account for the game world and THEIR societal heirarchy before you base a characters responses off of your own perceptions and desires for what the character would be.
The Paladin is required to have a moral code. The problem is source material does not go into enough detail for some types of situation.
We do have a description of what i takes to become and stay Lawful Good, we do have at least some dogma of lawful good deities. These serve as the base for a Paladin's moral code.
When one looks to see what is canon, one looks at the most recent release then if not finding an answer books backward to perhaps the frist ever printed item. What in part I am doing (at least until canon is written that addresses the issue) looking at pre-firt print to the material that inspired the Paladin and the archtype it protrays. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Forge
Learned Scribe
USA
218 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2005 : 17:04:27
|
So basically what that version of the code says if the Paladin acts in a way he/she feels is right and good then they should retain their abilities even if proven wrong. I have to assume that much of their personal feelings on a thing would be dictated by their doctrination and the dogma of their diety, hence the difference in the responses I have espoused.
However, even that commentary on the Paladin's code is a far cry from a codified set of tenets for them to live by. (Which we are not going to agree upon as a community of respected minds.) |
|
|
|
Xysma
Master of Realmslore
USA
1089 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2005 : 17:15:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Forge
So basically what that version of the code says if the Paladin acts in a way he/she feels is right and good then they should retain their abilities even if proven wrong. I have to assume that much of their personal feelings on a thing would be dictated by their doctrination and the dogma of their diety, hence the difference in the responses I have espoused.
However, even that commentary on the Paladin's code is a far cry from a codified set of tenets for them to live by. (Which we are not going to agree upon as a community of respected minds.)
Of course, everything is somewhat relative, I just can't imagine dramatic differences in the concept of murder between two good deities. By the way, if you are interested, I think the Quintessential Paladin I&II has a code like what you are looking for, I'll double check when I get home and let you know. |
War to slay, not to fight long and glorious.
Aermhar of the Tangletrees
Year of the Hooded Falcon
Xysma's Gallery
Guide to the Tomes and Tales of the Realms download from Candlekeep
Anthologies and Tales Overviews
Check out my custom action figures, hand-painted miniatures, gaming products, and other stuff on eBay.
|
|
|
|
Sariss Eldariss
Acolyte
Lesotho
11 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2005 : 17:20:51
|
Well met,
Since much of the debate revolves around a paladin and his code of honour, I figured I chip in my two copper pieces. For me a paladins code of honour was always more that an oath he swears to when knighted, it is a standard set by paladin in accordance to the wished of his diety. It is his way of life. His code governs how he lives and how he will die. The major difference between a paladin and a lawful good fighter is that the paladin is something more, he transends being a good man (or woman) and verges on being holy. His code may be a written code handed down generation to generation or it may be the oath he takes before his king or even a silent promise made in his heart to himself. The code must represent both goodness and lawfulness, and in no way can the code lead to evil. If the paladin has to JUSTIFY something by trying to see whether it is acceptable to his code or not then he is probably already in the wrong. A paladins code and his heart should usually be at peace with each other, and thus choosing between the two is often one of the most difficult decisions a paladin could ever make.
Light laughter and sweet water until next,
Sariss Eldariss |
|
|
|
Forge
Learned Scribe
USA
218 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2005 : 17:21:09
|
quote:
A female that took a male role would no longer have right or expectation to be treated as a female.
The problem is, this is NOT how the Realms works. In the Realms, women and men are equal for the vast majority of the societies. You are basing so much of the reasoning for your stance on tenets that don't apply to the Realms that it becomes suspect for those reasons.
If you stop and re-write it based on what you would want a female paladin to swear to, these holes might become more evident.
Now I acknowledge that chivalry and the Aurthorian legend are prime examples of the ideal that Paladins should aspire to, but even there I don't think we should draw too many paralells as there were codes observed more in the breach than in action. (Launcelot being the capitol champion of good and the most heinous offender of the code, I believe it was Gawain that masqueraded as a servant, thus gaining access to the kings court through subterfuge. Even Gawain was willing to slay a man in cold blood though when his code called for it though...) |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2005 : 17:36:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Forge
So basically what that version of the code says if the Paladin acts in a way he/she feels is right and good then they should retain their abilities even if proven wrong. I have to assume that much of their personal feelings on a thing would be dictated by their doctrination and the dogma of their diety, hence the difference in the responses I have espoused.
I am not sure where a Paladin thinks acted right when doing wrong i.e. killing an inocent. What the WotC code says is that if a Paladin is tricked into killing an inocent they might believe they need to atone (as per the spell) while all they are required to do is try to fix the error the best way posible to minimise the killing of an inocent. The Paladin does not lose dive power because s/he was tricked. A Paladin that believes action was correct that goes against LG and deities dogma can believe it all they want , the belief will not allow them to retain divine powers.
quote:
However, even that commentary on the Paladin's code is a far cry from a codified set of tenets for them to live by. (Which we are not going to agree upon as a community of respected minds.)
The WotC code is fairly clear on the killing of inocents. While words can convey difference shades of meaning by the reader. Defining what an inocent is perhaps being one of them. It appears fairly clear, to me, that the female and the later example of critically wounded companion were not evil creatures, nor working to achieve evil purposes. This should indeed make them inocents in my opinion and thus can not be killed even if asked to by a Paladin.
Yes the WotC moral code is not a detailed list of does and do nots. It provides a brief overview.
If females are considered evil creatures and a DM permits that as a home rule the Paladin can kill the female, if critically injuried companions are considered an evil burden as a home rule, the Paladin can kill him. However if either of this home rules were implimented the whole deffinition of what LG means would also have to be changed as a home rule. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Forge
Learned Scribe
USA
218 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2005 : 17:51:57
|
quote:
If females are considered evil creatures
Whatdya mean IF???? 
quote:
Intent is not always easy to judge, but as long as a paladin's heart was in the right place and she took reasonable precautions, she cannot be blamed for a poor result.
It is this clause that I look at when I judge my answers. Weigh the outcome here where a Paladin knows that by killing someone who WANTS to die (not murder because murder is by definition involves an unwilling participant) he can prevent in the best judgement he has, a rape/torture/murder of the same person.
Now we have used magic to further muddy the waters on one side, but there is another thing here... By dying in a manner she has chosen, by a willing champion, the soul of the woman is free to proceed on or return in peace if raised. HOWEVER, if she is denied escape, she may well return as a haunted soul, a victim of atrocities.
Also... even IF they were resurrected, does that mean that the Paladin taking the action he did is wrong if it saved her the additional burdon of horror, rape and sundry other trials by dying by his hand rather than the hordes'?
I would say, without worrying about possibles and eventualities, in a situation wherein a Paladin had to look at an oncoming horde and make a decision as to what would do the most good and the least harm, it is not outside the realm of possibility for him to perform the requested service. (Albeit with a heavy heart and a good storm of rage for his Blaze O' Glory ) |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2005 : 17:57:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Forge
quote:
A female that took a male role would no longer have right or expectation to be treated as a female.
The problem is, this is NOT how the Realms works. In the Realms, women and men are equal for the vast majority of the societies. You are basing so much of the reasoning for your stance on tenets that don't apply to the Realms that it becomes suspect for those reasons.
You asked a sepific question about how a Paladin would react to a female warror or assasian acting outside the society norms of a chivalry code (at least the question was about that code). In FR realms the answer is still the same acting evil would remove protection because the character was no longer being an inocent, that a role that removed other protections because of actions of the female.
quote:
If you stop and re-write it based on what you would want a female paladin to swear to, these holes might become more evident.
RW did not have female Paladins, .. err some might consider Joan od Arc one, however she got burned for pertending to be a male. Clearly a FR code would have to be changed to will not harm an inocent (replacing the word female) it is not nearly such an issue that you appear to want it to be. It is not a major rewrite to take the 10 rules and adpt them to the realms.
quote:
Now I acknowledge that chivalry and the Aurthorian legend are prime examples of the ideal that Paladins should aspire to, but even there I don't think we should draw too many paralells as there were codes observed more in the breach than in action. (Launcelot being the capitol champion of good and the most heinous offender of the code, I believe it was Gawain that masqueraded as a servant, thus gaining access to the kings court through subterfuge. Even Gawain was willing to slay a man in cold blood though when his code called for it though...)
Launcelot was a French addition to the History of Briton and really does not belong there (he was also invented some where between 500 to 800 years after the first Aurther legends).
As for Gawain I do not recall that story and would need to look into its origins before I comment on its contribution to the archtype model.
Oh as far as it goes the Launcelot contribution to the Padadin archtype did and does not include having an wife with the wife of the king that loyality was pledged to.
|
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2005 : 17:58:35
|
But as long as we are playing metaphysical what if here . . . what if her deity knows that she is going to die at the hands of such and such and will die horribly, but die a martyr. Her deity also has a suitable reward planned for her after death.
But wait, she is killed on the battlefield by a friend. No bards speak of her suffering and bravery, and the faithful are not called to greater deeds. She dies, and although she is faithful, she ends up doing some kind of penance in the afterlife because she messed with her gods plan.
Which goes back to my point, which is that the further we get into hypotheticals the less likely we are to reach one overreaching answer that manages to fix the whole issue. In general paladins should not kill innocents, and while I can see that some might be able to perform the debated action, it doesn't seem like the usual person for the job.
Although it does now remind me . . . what do you suppose a paladin of Kelemvor would do, eh? |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2005 : 18:11:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Forge
I would say, without worrying about possibles and eventualities, in a situation wherein a Paladin had to look at an oncoming horde and make a decision as to what would do the most good and the least harm, it is not outside the realm of possibility for him to perform the requested service. (Albeit with a heavy heart and a good storm of rage for his Blaze O' Glory )
Unless the Paladin knows the future s/he has not justification to act.
Nor does a Paladin get given a wavier on killing an inocent that will become evil if the Paladin fails to protect the inocent. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2005 : 18:20:57
|
"DOGMA: Recognize that death is part of life. It is not an ending but a beginning, not a punishment but a necessity. Death is an orderly process without deceit, concealment, and randomness. Help others die with dignity at their appointed time and no sooner. Speak against those that would artificially prolong their life beyond natural limits, such as the undead. Do honor to the dead, for their strivings in life brought Faerun to where it is now. Forgetting them is to forget where we are now, and why. Let no human in all Faerun die a natural death without one of Kelemvor's clerics at her side."
It would appear such a Paladin can not shorten a life "Help others die with dignity at their appointed time and no sooner."
And of course would result in killing an inocent *wink* before her time it the Paladin acted. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Forge
Learned Scribe
USA
218 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2005 : 18:21:06
|
quote:
Unless the Paladin knows the future s/he has not justification to act.
Nor does a Paladin get given a wavier on killing an inocent that will become evil if the Paladin fails to protect the inocent.
I would say rather that a Paladin MUST act as they don't know the future. If the woman has a grand destiny then it's going to happen whether the Paladin acts or not. He can't be responsible for knowledge he doesn't have, nor does the action or inaction of another become his burden.
As for the Paladin failing to protect the innocent, I'm not operating under the assumption that the Paladin was at fault for their predicament, but that he is acting to limit the evil generated in the situation and the limit the impact upon innocents who will otherwise suffer after he is gone. |
|
|
|
Forge
Learned Scribe
USA
218 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2005 : 18:25:33
|
quote:
Help others die with dignity at their appointed time and no sooner."
I would interpert this as "It's her time now, we're not getting out alive, lets give her the dignity of dying with her virtue intact rather than being defiled and otherwise dishonored before she dies."
It is being presumptive that they are both going to die, but then that is precisely the assumption I think the original poster was trying to infer. |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2005 : 18:41:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Forge
quote:
Unless the Paladin knows the future s/he has not justification to act.
Nor does a Paladin get given a wavier on killing an inocent that will become evil if the Paladin fails to protect the inocent.
I would say rather that a Paladin MUST act as they don't know the future. If the woman has a grand destiny then it's going to happen whether the Paladin acts or not. He can't be responsible for knowledge he doesn't have, nor does the action or inaction of another become his burden.
The Paladin is resoseible for the knowledge a/he has. He might think he can not protect the female or save the fortress. He knows the female (at least is infered) that she is not evil. Thus we are in a position of what is feared by the female might happen to her and asking for death because of fear. If the Paladin does not know the future and wants to protect every woman he every meets from being raped, it follows that he should kill every female he meets. Yes the situation looks bad and the Paladin might die, this however, in my view, give the Paladin a right to kill a friend/compainion/etc. unless they are evil.
quote:
As for the Paladin failing to protect the innocent, I'm not operating under the assumption that the Paladin was at fault for their predicament, but that he is acting to limit the evil generated in the situation and the limit the impact upon innocents who will otherwise suffer after he is gone.
Well the duty is not to harm inocents and protect as best as he can. It certainly could be consided the Paladin's fault for allowing the female to be in danger in the first place. The hero should have killed those evil baddies before they became powerful enough to attack in such force *wink*
The soul will not suffer if the Paladin loses, just the body. Killing good to prevent evil creatures from doing more evil does not serve the greater good. It is not like the Paladin appears to be in a postion (at leastt right now) to win converts amoung the attackers. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Sir Luther Cromwell
Learned Scribe
Canada
158 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2005 : 21:03:51
|
quote:
A female that took a male role would no longer have right or expectation to be treated as a female.
I'm not totally convinced that being a mercenary or assasin is a job only for men. In fact, I'd wager that 2/3 of the world's best assasins are women, which is probably also why we never here of them. My reasoning, you might ask? Let's just face it, women can get most men (not all, to be politically correct) into a compromising position that no male ever could.
The world of Forgotten Realms is by far LESS sexist than the historical medieval world. And so this role of 'helpless, mindless sex lamb' that woman were given in previous centuries isn't totally the case in Faerun. And thus, females are fair game in combat for Paladins, provided they attack unprovoked, and perferably if they are evil.
Now on the note of mercy killing. As if the woman needs a Paladin to do it. Not to mention, what happened to the whole 'fight to the bitter end' mentality? Paladin's, by their code, MUST keep on fighting, even if in the very pits of hell. To give into dispair is to give up hope. Hope itself is the apex of everything good amoung mortals, and to give it up would be a violation of the Paladin way. Besides, when the Paladin drops, the woman now has a nice sized sword on the ground to shishkaboob herself with.
|
"At what temperature does a Goblin boil?"
"Any Rakshasa should eat a healthy diet that is high in wood elf, and low in shield Dwarf. One must always watch those cholesterol levels."
"If a Svirfneblin falls in the underdark, does anybody care?" |
|
|
|
Mkhaiwati
Learned Scribe
USA
252 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2005 : 23:59:12
|
Well, there isn't anything I can add that hasn't already been said by someone else... except throw something else into the fire (heh hehehe)
What if, instead of rape or torture, the paladin and friend are confronted by fiends who are intent on taking their souls for loud crunchings and munchings, or a blackguard has a special sword that steals souls for snackings and smackings, or something along those lines... 
Would the paladin be obligated to kill the other person if asked by the other person, so the soul is free, to be possibly resurrected later? Or allow the person's to become a tasty after dinner mint for the above mentioned fiends? Now, instead of rape or anything, we are talking the person's (let us not be sexist, it could be a man ), very soul.
Mkhai Wati |
"Behold the work of the old... let your heritage not be lost but bequeath it as a memory, treasure and blessing... Gather the lost and the hidden and preserve it for thy children."
"not nale. not-nale. thog help nail not-nale, not nale. and thog knot not-nale while nale nail not-nale. nale, not not-nale, now nail not-nale by leaving not-nale, not nale, in jail." OotS #367 |
|
|
|
Fletcher
Learned Scribe
USA
299 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jul 2005 : 00:15:16
|
Let me be the first to ask the paladin to pleas do me first. No demons shall be using my soul for crunchings and munchings. No cauldron born shall I be.
A paladin should do what must be done to further the cause of his diety. Since when does it do any diety of good to allow demons to gain the power over yet another soul?
I think not.
"By my hand shall I send thee to a place of rest, where I soon shall be joining you." says the weeping paladin to his faithful squire of 15 years.
"My lord I thank thee. And may Tyr bless your combat and grant you a just rest." Replies the sqire. |
Run faster! The Kobolds are catching up! |
|
|
|
Mkhaiwati
Learned Scribe
USA
252 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jul 2005 : 00:39:04
|
quote:
Let me be the first to ask the paladin to pleas do me first. No demons shall be using my soul for crunchings and munchings. No cauldron born shall I be.
goody.. I was hoping someone would notice one of my favorite .. well... creatures lines.
Mkhai Wati |
"Behold the work of the old... let your heritage not be lost but bequeath it as a memory, treasure and blessing... Gather the lost and the hidden and preserve it for thy children."
"not nale. not-nale. thog help nail not-nale, not nale. and thog knot not-nale while nale nail not-nale. nale, not not-nale, now nail not-nale by leaving not-nale, not nale, in jail." OotS #367 |
|
|
|
Never
Acolyte
USA
24 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jul 2005 : 08:00:23
|
WWPD? (What would a Paladin do?)
Pali of Tymora: I'll flip a coin. Tails you live and head you lose yours.
Pali of Sune: I won't kill you but if you'd like one last *wink*nod*wink* then stand at the back of the line.
Pali of Cyric: It would be my honor. *kill* *raises as undead*
Pali of Torm: You DARE to abandon your post? Torm strike you down coward! *kill*
Pali of Lovia: Hold that thought; here are some nice Orc gentlemen I wanted you to meet.
|
I'm so, so very guilty for no reason or rhyme;
Infinite victims, infinitesimal time. |
|
|
|
Forge
Learned Scribe
USA
218 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jul 2005 : 13:54:30
|
Pali of Waukeen: What's it worth to ya?
Pali of Mask: Well I dunno.. LOOK OVER THERE! *Backstab, rifle through coinpurse*
Pali of Oghma: *First recites a summation of this thread, complete with cross-indexed references and legal precedences from 3 planes, citing various previous Paladins and dieties and the various and sundry means by which such an act could be accomplished and justified then stops as the orc horde falls over from boredom and blinks owlishly* "I'm sorry, what was the question again?" |
|
|
|
Alaundo
Head Moderator
United Kingdom
5695 Posts |
|
|
Lord Rad
Great Reader
United Kingdom
2080 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jul 2005 : 15:30:24
|
 Keep 'em coming! Haven't laughted at RPG humor like this in a LONG time |
Lord Rad
"What? No, I wasn't reading your module. I was just looking at the pictures"
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Paladins and mercy killing
