Was I in the wrong here?

>banditry
>getting a prison sentence in the first place

Find a GM who at least looked at a few wikipedia articles on medieval justice.

Not even in the dumber official interpretations of Good would executing murderous, repeat offender bandits be considered wrong.

Being put to work in the mines is a pretty apt sentence.

Anyway, context is important. Are these people who turned to banditry because it seemed easy and they had little regard for their fellow man? Are they people who turned to it due to a lack of options, being outcast, etc?

Everyone has a story, and there is rarely a clear good or evil in any realistic scenario. I'd say your character did what he felt was right and, unless he knew these people to have been fucked over somehow into banditry, that's enough.

>Also offer them all forgiveness of sins, if they desire to confess.
>None of them do, so I execute them one by one.
These are some dumb ass bandits. You have a servant of the settings god offering you absolution before death and not one of them take it? Your captured and about to be executed for repeat crimes. They should all be crying and begging for it. Now they're all in hell, right where they belong.

>Be paladin
Yes

If a hell exists in his setting.

And this assumes that the bandits follow the same faith as him.

If it didn't exist why confess sins? He's a vassal of the Realm's duke. I would assume there is a shared religion unless they were filthy heathens.

Lawful and good.

Gary Gygax himself would have applauded you. Unfortunately I have not my screencap of his quote, so I'll hope that some other user has posted it.

hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2013/06/on-alignment-by-gygax.html

Played perfectly, honestly. Not sure what else to even say.

Shouldn't have accepted their surrender.
If you will go full Dredd and execute as the law, you should not create the impression that they might be spared by surrendering.
Not saying you were wrong to kill them. Just wrong to have accepted their surrender.
Upon accepting surrender, you may want to transport them to another, equally sane (get rid of the repeat murder pillage monsters) agent of the local justice.

Mind you, the DMs setting seems a bit odd.
As noted, labour for banditry seems out of place in a medieval culture. Is there something else up?

Short version, Medieval Europe is actually a sorta shit setting for D&D and Paladin falls stories are usually shit anyway.

You did nothing wrong

Those people broke the law once escaped and broke it again doing the same thing as before

all you did was save time and effort taking them to be hung or beheaded for repeated crimes

>they killed women and children
Cleave and repeat

Bandits were pretty anachronistic, as in the DM borrowed heavily from russian prison culture. So, the bandits, even if religious, would not kneel before a poli... paladin or act like they did anything wrong.

Gigax paladin would have been one of the women rapist children murderer in fact

>quick death after they killed women and children
You were too kind.

Bloody and cruel vengeance is not really the paladin way, user.

The important thing is
>did you fill out the required paperwork for judgment and execution (afterwards)?
If not you deserve to fall

It is neither rape nor murder if it is done to someone with an evil component in their alignment or from a race that usually has an evil component to their alignment.

He's basically saying it's okay to torture to death a violent criminal if they really were guilty and their crime was really bad. It basically makes the stereotypical Inquisition actually lawful "good" because they were obeying laws that were supposedly good. It makes the concept of lawful good completely meaningless by saying the ends justify the means and it's okay to do evil things as long as it's for a good purpose.

Depends on the Paladin.
Oath of Vengeance is not love and hugs.
In fact, very few areas outside of the 3.5 Book of Exalted Deeds expects much other than obedience to a law or higher authority coupled with a desire to oppose evil and protect the innocent.

G.G. also is a firm proponent of genocide.
No wonder he is so popular with the grimderp edgelords here.
It's like he's a prophet of the Emprah or something.

Lawful good really is the worst alignment. Lawful neutral is retarded but at least it's not contradictory.

>Brigands burn down a village and slaughter the villagers, women and children included

They deserved the same mercy they showed the villagers. None.

Lawful Good is fine, in concept.
The best way to protect the most people is with a stable and just society.
The problem is when the Laws aren't Good.
When the system exist to protect itself or to benefit a small cabal at the expense of the innocent, then we get nasty.
In the Lawful Good mind, unjust laws are no more lawful than personal benefit is good.
Then again, alignment is gonna be a sticky wicket for several reasons, high collateral damage planet destroying to hunt a small group of racial enemies being deemed Chaotic Good being only one of them.

>That very textbook disposal of criminals

What exactly was their problem with that scenario?

Stop projecting your personal viewpoints on alignment. The way lawful good is classically played so mercy and fairness for everyone, even criminals. Although apparently GG didn't get the memo and made them the exact opposite.
Except according to GG it only matters if the laws are good and not the punishments. If the law says if you rape someone you get drawn and quartered, then apparently a lawful good character would have no problem with that because it's da laah, after all.

>GG didn't get the memo about the alignment system that he personally created and defined.
>Lawful good is "classically" played as the modern cliche stemming from people who've never played older ttrpgs.
Please go and stay go.

The alignment system has always been ridiculously oversimplified schlock, but it was usually self-consistent. Saying that a lawful good character would have no problem with barbaric and cruel punishments simply because it's part of the law contradicts the part where a lawful good character is supposed to care more about good than the law.

Being put to work in the mines = protracted death sentence; execution is kinder.

Look up Roman Salt Mines.

A paladin is a member of a MILITANT holy order.

This isn't your village pastor.

This is an individual tasked to dispense divine justice.

Why the fuck do you think they give them weapons?

Weapons are for killing; a Paladin who cannot kill the wicked cannot do his job.

Anybody who says different is running MLP-Quest.

Apparently there are enough jails in this setting that could rehabilitate these poor lose souls?

Not sure what to say sir Fortesque, but perhaps this was an exceptionally light hearted game and nobody thought about what would come after they played hero.

> Be paladin
What the fuck were you thinking!? Oh, right, paladin.

> Be paladin
> Have no idea how to play it
Bravo.You are the reason why I usually don't let people play Paladins at my table.
At least have the curtesy to read the Book of Heroic Deeds. Then swap to fighter.

One of two things have happened here:
1) Your group is shit
2) You're playing in a cheery noblebright setting and broke the tone.

Fuck alignment.

If he was playing in a cheerful, upbeat setting he probably wouldn't have encountered a band of murderous bandits.

pls stop being baiting faggots

dont forget the children

A lot of people have a very comic book perception of right and wrong. If someone surrenders, no matter what horrible things they've done, you never hurt them, because then you're the bad guy. It is a wholly unrealistic way of looking at the world, but a lot of people, especially young people, cannot get past it. Sounds like you have a group of such players.

So, what you did was logical, and given the circumstances, the ethical choice. But your fellow players clearly don't see it that way. They will get more and more upset with you if you repeat such things, and it will poison the relationship. I've had this happen to me before in a super hero game. Ultimately, not only did it ruin the game, the players and GM came to legitimately think I was some kind of psychopath in real life, because I tried to kill super villains who were repeatedly escaping custody and murdering innocent people. The GM even threatened to have my character hunted down and killed by a team of NPC Avengers stand ins when I tried to kill the villain who had murdered my wife.

Either play lawful stupid characters, or find another group. Otherwise, you're just going to make yourself and everyone else unhappy.

>If someone surrenders, no matter what horrible things they've done, you never hurt them, because then you're the bad guy. It is a wholly unrealistic way of looking at the world, but a lot of people, especially young people, cannot get past it.
Apparently the Geneva Convention was written by unrealistic young people.

What I always do is to go "Surrender, or by God I will give you no quarter!" when the fight starts.

This is because the bad guys NEVER surrender. Now you're justified in killing them.

Guess all those Nazi war criminals were let off with a slap on the wrists after they surrendered then.

Oh wait, they were executed for their crimes by the proper authority. Just like in this situation.

A thought, what if next time this happens the paladin offers the rest of the party the option to take custody of the prisoners instead.

No, really. Go on, show me what you would do instead to a gang of killers of women and children. I'll just follow what the rest of you decide, back here. Sharpening my sword for when you make the rational decision.

Regardless of the Nuremberg Trails being a kangaroo court, the point is you don't kill people in the field after they've surrendered. OP went wrong by being judge, jury, and executioner.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_execution#Exceptions_to_prisoners_of_war_status

Don't see the problem with killing women in DnD, apparently they're just as strong as men, which would suggest they are capable of taking care of themselves.

If you continued to read you'd see that those exceptions rarely apply anymore. And now only apply to illegal combatants committing a war crime by wearing an enemy uniform while fighting.

> the point is you don't kill people in the field after they've surrendered.

I'd say it depends on what they did. Wanton murder (and what one can assume, excessive rape) of women and children just for kicks is something most people would consider to be execution-level actions. Not to mention the logistics of it.

>illegal combatants

Hey, these guys are having a war without permission, what the fuck!

Which still refutes your claim that you don't kill people in the field, even in the 21st century, let alone a medieval Europe analogue.

kek
Almost all circumstances you don't kill people who surrendered. Which refutes the original post I was quoting which says that it's an unrealistic viewpoint.

In actual practice, enemy combatants who surrender but have been found to have committed acts deemed in poor taste by the victors are often killed and simply added to the tally of battle-dead post-facto without much fuss.

Yes, even in Western militaries.

Applying rules to war has always been a rather futile thing.

Your original claim was that you don't execute people who surrender. Being obviously wrong this was quickly refuted. Then you claimed that you don't execute people then and there. This was also refuted. Far less common today true, but it's still legal in some circumstances.

The only real argument against OP's actions is whether or not he actually has the authority to pass judgement and execute criminals. Given his status as the agent of the ruler's will and the fact that these people were outlaws (literally outside the law) he had the authority and the justification.

they escaped from prison for banditry and slaughtered an entire village for banditry. PLUS you're a paladin that's also a knight of the Duke that they were prisoners to and that the village that they slaughtered were subjects to. you even gave them a chance to confess and be forgiven. you have every right to execute them

>MLP
uh, not that I've really paid attention to it, but don't they literally turn a fucker to stone, with him still aware of the outside world?

>an entire village for banditry

i need some more coffee

Ya, you're right. I was wrong on both accounts. But still, under most circumstances you're not supposed to execute prisoners.

To bring up a historical example, Henry V had several hundred French knights and men-at-arms summarily killed in the aftermath of the Battle of Agincourt, though the extenuating circumstance was that he believed that the French rearguard was preparing for another attack. Apparently, he was not criticized by his contemporaries for it. However, the source cited for this claim (Agincourt: Henry V and the Battle that Made England) is very much pro-Henry V, so take that with a grain of salt.

In the 21st century, in a western country, sure.

The Battle of Agincourt took place in 1415, very much in the Late Middle Ages, so take that into account as well.

>you're not supposed to
says who?

Indeed they do; I'll own up, I've watched two seasons of that shit.

Of course, you can't expect Sugarshit; the setting to really have the moral nuance to really compare the suffering of eternal imprisonment with the instant oblivion of death.

Nor can you expect a GM with the tonal inconsistency to have rapacious murderbandits who butcher women and children in the same setting as huggable Pillowdins to understand that part of being a good Paladin is bearing the burden of judgement over evildoers; OP already pointed out that these bandits escaped from a PRISON MINE, which is a hellish condition to live in; a condition which few escape alive, and none escape without some sort of long-term mining related disorder like black-lung or rickets that will eventually kill or cripple those unlucky enough to not be killed quickly in a cave-in after being sent into an unstable section by uncaring overseers.

In fact, instant field-execution would probably be preferable to many people who had just escaped such a dreadful place; in addition nobody would be profiting from the forced labour of convicts; which is still slavery, and nobody's suffering would be dragged out longer than needed.

In this case Field Execution = Instant Justice.

There's also the famous "Kill them. For the Lord knows those that are His own." quote said by an abbot during the Albigensian Crusade which gives you an idea of the typical treatment of non-noble PoWs in the Middle Ages.

Modern law and morality, which we are supposed to think is objectively true. So if you're playing a paladin you should be playing by supposed "objective" morality and not the outdated "morality" of ancient times.

Arnaud Amalric - before the massacre at Béziers; the Albigensian crusade was an extermination by the catholics who were trying to root out Catharism in Southern France.

In response to a soldier who was concerned that he would be killing "Good Catholics" as well as heretics.

Supposed by whom?

Some ones who suppose that they are the authority I suppose.

Ah, I know that by the modern variant, "Kill them, and let God sort it out." Not quite a paragon of Christian mercy, that fellow.

Nah that's dumb.

That's pretty retarded though, ye olde fantasy kingdom doesn't have norwegian pleasure prisons where you meet with a therapist every week and spend all your days weaving baskets which would be expected by a kingdom using modern law and morality.

Fuck I don't know.
So is the entire fucking alignment system. Who decides what's good or evil? What if two good gods have contradicting moral codes and their paladins get into fights about who's good? How the fuck can someone be true neutral? How the fuck do you fit all imaginable behaviors into a 3x3 selection?

There's also the lovely treatment that Charlemagne, Holy Roman Emperor and official Saint of the Roman Catholic Church, gave to captured Saxon prisoners at Verden.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Verden

The Geneva Convention assumes a state of war, in which two sovereign powers use standing military forces to overcome the enemy by force of arms. It only protects Soldiers, and it also assumes that any Soldier of either army hasn't committed any warcrimes, because most Soldiers are either pressed into service as part of a draft, or are fighting for their country, which is generally seen as a positive thing.

A band of murderers aren't protected under a set of laws meant to protect people who were following the orders of a sovereign government.

It depends.

In most places in England, capital punishment was in the hands of the lord of the land (usually the King, but not always). Even if you're a vassal knight of someone who has the right to put someone to death, you do not have that right.

The campaign setting is likely not modeled off of medieval England however, and Paladins are knights of holy orders whose first duty is justice, so it's possible they do have the right to dispense summary execution for capital crimes.

I don't feel you did anything wrong, and the escaped murderers who went back to murdering got what they deserved.

>Or act like they did anything wrong

So they thought its ok to slaughter innocent people and steal stuff and did not think its a big deal? You group knew that and still were uncomfortable? Damn if people think they are in the right, nothing will stop them from repeating it and they have shown that already after their escape. They were beyond redemption and you just saved the next village or even just prison guard from those bandits, nothing to feel bad about. Had any of those confessed their crimes and begged for mercy you could have brought them back to prison, even then it would have been a risk.

Remind your group that they thought what they did was alright and with that mindset would have killed again and again. Had they gone to prison again the blood of others would be on the parties hand and even if it would just be the prison guard holding the key for the next escape.

I don't think it matters if they have the right to dispense justice as much as they THINK they have the right.

>beheading bandits who escaped their prison sentence, who are also arsonists and murderers is cruel
Yeah, I mean they should have just been given a slap on the wrist. It's not like they did anything deplorable.

Uh, no.

They slaughtered innocent men, women, and children. They could have just escaped and tried to start over, but no, they went right back to killing.

If I was your DM, I'd have had you fall or at least seek penance if you were stupid enough to let them off the hook.

Isn't that the essence of justice, really?

And the only thing that differentiates it from spite I suppose.

Who thinks you had the right to do what you did.

Subjectivity between observers notwithstanding.

I will note that, however, the person of authority here was the literal highest authority of the land. That is also the case in , and even then I understand he got some flak for it.

The relevant exceprt for the Agincourt scenario is here:

>
"In humanitarian terms, Henry's decision was indefensible: to order the killing of wounded and unarmed prisoners....violated every principle of decency and Christian morality. In chivalric terms, it was also reprehensible...The law of arms stated that a man who surrendered should be treated with mercy...On this reading, not only the king but the men to whom the prisoners had surrendered were in breach of their chivalric obligations. In military terms, however, Henry's decision was entirely justified..." (Barker, _Agincourt: Henry V and the Battle that Made England_, "Felas, let's go!")

I guess when you've been given a mandate by a god, holy powers and a bitching white steed you don't question if you have the right to dispense out justice or not according to the laws of the land, and metaphysical entity has already approved of your sense of judgement.

A paladin could get the authority to smite evil from the god they are worshiping. And the old question who has more authority gods or the local Lord/King/Emperor?

obviously your king.

T. Henry

Cosmic forces.
Paladins of differing entities could certainly come into moral conflict with each other.
True neutral is a bit of a cop out and really should be limited to animals.
The categories are really broad and aren't strict definitions of behaviour.

Depending on the setting you could do what Henry did and invent your own faith. Make yourself a god and the problem is solved.
If the gods are proactive however, you are pretty much fucked

Depends on your sect I guess; some faiths could have proscriptions against breaking the law of the host country - a Paladin of Erathis - the god of Civilisation for instance might hold the strictures of a civilisation's law to be an integral part of the expansion, spread and maintenance of that civilisation.

Conversely a paladin of Bahamut might be compelled to ensure that justice is meted out on his faith's "objective" terms - and kill them all on the spot for bringing death to the innocent.

Paladins have as much wiggle room as any other religious class - it's just a matter of cultic affiliation, which can be far more nuanced a code of conduct than the broad strokes of alignment alone.

And that's why I play Rune Quest.

That was Henry VIII, though.

I was mainly referring to what GG was talking about.
That doesn't explain what the "good" and "evil" in the alignment system even refers to. Selflessness compared to selfishness? Benevolence to malevolence? Do the ends justify the means? Is it good or evil to kill or steal?

Wasn't sure about the VIII. Dude was crazy