be good

Keep hitting

cucklords and betafags won't kill, that is why feminists and jews run the world and SJWs are destroying RPGs

Flex
Then continue in accordance with the setting, situation, tone and character I'm playing.

Kill it like the rest.
Why does he get a pass when the minions I carved a path through to reach him didn't?

Did you execute those minions when they got to 0?

"Uh... she's had to much to drink, I'm just taking her home"

Letting a villain live can be the morally wrong choice.

Consider if they'd cause more harm if they're left alive, if they would, kill them.

Without doubt, the correct option.

Even in Dark Sun there are criminal trials. What the Hell kind of postapocalyptic nightmare does your character come from?

Pic.

Shoot him again. Pretty much put arrows into him until he stops reacting, then it's safe to get close and confirm the kill. Unless it's a vampire. Then hit it with everything.

Even lawful, bounties were often a thing. If there's a bandit group raiding a road to a city or a necromancer doing horrible shit in a cave, their survival isn't priority. Stopping their evil shit is.

The fact that adventurers exist means that the concept of 'monopoly on legitimate violence' doesn't exist, which is wholly necessary for the concept of a legitimate justice system to exist, so feel free to kill him if he's done something actually worth it.

Summary execution isn't Evil, it's unlawful.

Depends on context.

If they're Joker-tier "I WILL GAS TEH CITY!" every other week then they're getting dead. Capital punishment is a bitch, but when your death toll starts going up into the hundreds and you're not and AC-130 gunner then you'll need to answer for it.

If they're some schmuck bank robbers or bandits then tie 'em up and let the fuzz take care of 'em.

there is nothing to gain from a dead person, you can get info from it and in the best case bring it to your side, not to mention criminal justice should always prevail no matter the culprit

I'm even willing to bet on meta that the GM would be impressed enough to play along and eventually reward not having just killed the villain

Crotch chop, climb the top rope, and give him a flying elbow.

I don't know who you are, but I love you.

If he is a warrior, I remove his hands.

If he is a wizard, I remove his hands, eyes, and tongue.

Then I deliver them to authorities for the deliverence of justice. If he is somehow above the laws of men, I throw him into the sea and let the gods decide his fate.

>t. weenies

Setting and character play a huge part here. If this is a typical fantasy adventure RPG where we're playing, you know, adventurers, rigid adherence to 21st Century norms on due process and use of force is naive and obnoxious. I hate murderhobos but "FAIR TRIAL NO EXCEPTIONS" Lawful Stupid busybodies are honestly far more disruptive. Batman doesn't work in Greyhawk.

When you stand over a defeated bandit king who's been raping and murdering his away across the countryside, binding him and carting him off to face a "trial" is just a waste of everyone's time. We're past "true Good is standing up for what you believe in" territory. Now you're just turning a simple issue into a moral argument because you're a holier-than-though twerp who lacks the backbone to actually do what's necessary.

I have no problem with characters who refuse to kill a beaten opponent out of anger or hatred. That was what made Luke Skywalker's arc so satisfying at the end. What I have a problem with is people who try emulating this without actually understanding the context or reason for it and then try forcing others to agree with them.

What are the circumstances?

frequent paladin player here

My go-to strategy as a paladin is to knock people out, bind them securely, move them in and out of a zone of truth (or whatever truth spell I have available) until they fail the save, and then interrogate them.

I do, however, usually promise (while in the truth zone myself) to free them if they cooperate.

Now, if it's the BBEG, it depends on what type of threat they are. Some BBEGs should just be killed/banished/destroyed/etc the very moment you have an opportunity. Others, like a powerful duke plotting against the king, can usually be dealt with within the law.

Implant my eggsss into his skull and leave him.

Living meat growsss the bessstessst childrensss.

>Others, like a powerful duke plotting against the king, can usually be dealt with within the law

But as a Paladin you usually /are/ the law. My general understanding of Paladins--and most people I play with share this--is they're ordained by god, king, or both to enforce laws and pass judgement by virtue of the fact everyone recognizes them as Lawful and Good.

If someone commits a crime against Law and Good, and the Lawful and Good punishment for that crime is death, then if you try dumping that guy onto someone else to handle his execution aren't you basically just washing your hands of your own judgement?

Whatever you say man, whatever you say.

>defeated bandit king
While I agree with you most of the time, I think in that sort of scenario you should bring in the guy to stand trial.
A trial which will of course followed by a very painful, public execution, to deter others from banditry and to affirm the power of the government.

That's true on some levels, and keep in mind the mandate of a paladin is something that varies largely between settings.

But typically, a Paladin's job isn't to muddle around in the basic politics. He shouldn't overlook villainy, but his purpose is put down Evil with a capital E and he operates outside of, but heavily respected by, basic authority. Spending time with court intrigue isn't the best use of his time unless he's worried about demonic cults or the like.

Besides, it's better for the kingdom's social health if they own up to their failures by carrying out judgment, rather than being so weak that despite serving them up on a silver platter I have to do the butcher's work too.

But if you were in a setting where Paladin was more like an inquisitorial arm of the state, I'd say absolutely you should kill the Duke.

>But if you were in a setting where Paladin was more like an inquisitorial arm of the state

What if you as a paladin are also a sworn lord or even knight of the realm and a lower citizen of that realm commits a crime?

I feel like this is an untapped arena for paladins. They're always either independent of the political structure or are a formal law enforcement organization. I'd love to run or play in a setting where Paladins actually take on a roll as knights.

I think that would be a pretty interesting setting.

Then the whole "paladin's code" could be the rules and conduct of chivalry and service to your lord.

I think in general games shy away from that because it takes away a lot of player agency, but I agree it would pretty cool if you were signing up for it.

Man, this was really awkward last week. We cornered a female villain, and after she was incapacitated, I finished her off with my axe.

It played out EXACTLY like that, down to another PC going like "Dude!" while I was like "What?"

The thing about Paladins is that they get their powers from God. God wants his holy super-warriors to fight equally dangerous threats, not muck around with politics.

Like, a Knight is a Fighter, or a martial class with no divine backing. He's slightly more grounded in reality. A Paladin is the kind of impossible Knight who goes on Round Table-ish adventures, because he's literally on a mission from God.

An ordinary Knight isn't likely to fight demons or dragons. But a Paladin is expected to do that and win.

>because it takes away a lot of player agency

I think this is mitigated by the fact you don't have to actually play a paladin. And if you want to, it's implicitly because you enjoy characters with some kind of structure and authority.

Paladins have always been a problem class for me, largely because everyone has such wildly different opinions. A setting which sets hard rules in what they are can mitigate a lot of that.

I thought the whole point of a Paladin is that he's a questing knight instead of a political knight. As in, he goes out on all kinds of quests while most actual knights stay to guard hearth and home.

I think it can work either way. Plus one won't automatically negate the other. A good GM should play with different ways to work it in the setting.

You just need to make it explicit from the outset what Paladins ARE in the setting, and if someone chooses that it's all good.

Of course, keeping in mind what game you're playing, you'll want to give them an out for adventuring with the party.

Read off his crimes and ask if he has any last wishes, which I will execute to the best of my ability.

Are you out of your fucking mind? In d&d? They would fucking cut off his hands and feed them to the dogs.

How do you not understand that the medieval ages were BAD. They were a BAD, BAD time filled with awful, awful things.

You could fucking die from crotch rot.

No he doesn't. He'd abuse the fuck out of that, like that one asshole who ruined last meals for everyone. All he gets is a sword in the fucking throat, where he dies fast and clean.

Like your dick, could literally grow so scabbously, pussly and infected, that it would start to rot and bleed, until it fucking FELL OFF!!

Why stab them in the throat?
Why not stab them in the head, you fucking paid merchant town guard shill? I'm sure you're so high on ergot infected rotted bread that you probably think I'm a dragon and not some poor brain damaged drunk who drinks out of lead mugs.

>bind up the heretic psyker and hope he doesn't explode into deamons
Not everyone has the fucking luxury of fighting normal people.

Hexagrammic wards?

Depends, an I playing some pussy system like WoD where killing someone results in thirty minutes debating as my character comes to term with being a bad person? Probably won't.

Am I playing a system that doesn't have mechanical penalties for acting like a real human bean and killing someone who deserves it when there are no in character penalties for doing so? Yeah, they're dead.

I'm not some Lawful Outsider magically bound to do whatever he says. It's not something that can easily be abused.

You stab someone in the throat, he bleeds out. You stab someone in the head, there's a chance it glances off the bone and inflicts a shallow wound, so you have to do it again. Or your sword gets stuck, and you have to haul on it to get it out.

If you're going ot have "Paladins" be an arm of the government I think that'd have to shake up the setting some.

As we have it now in DnD, a Paladin is a holy knift of their god, first and foremost. And in a world where Gods can actually voice their opinions and talk to people, having your elite legion all be sworn to someone else (and someone more powerful than you) seems like a pretty dumb idea.

But if you take away the Divine aspect of being a paladin, you're left with either a knight, or someone with unexplained holy powers.

Ultimately, you'd be taking a term that has years of history as one concept and trading it for another, which is a pretty risky move.

This all goes out the window for a Theocracy, where the ruler of the gub'ment at any one time is either someone who answers to Lawful Good God, or straight up just IS Lawful Good God.

Killing is only right in self defense and that is only if you have neither the skill not the capability to incapacitate instead of kill. Most WoD splats are more than capable of disabling a human with out killing them

Or you could just make the gods' existence ambiguous from a meta standpoint. I find this is usually more interesting than one where Pelor can just tell you what you should do.

>Ultimately, you'd be taking a term that has years of history as one concept and trading it for another, which is a pretty risky move.

I normally agree with this but in my experience the whole "Hotline to God" aspect of Paladins is not something people are particularly attached to. I can and have included Paladins (granted not in D&D) who don't function like this and no one's ever batted an eye. When people here "Paladin" they here "Holy Knight". Most people don't have a particularly rigid belief on how "Holy" or "Knight" manifest in game.

>Even in Dark Sun there are criminal trials.
The fuck?

I'm pretty sure if the remnants of civilization discovered you casting magic missile at a halfling cannabal, there'd be no trial.

If there is, then I have to ask just how apocalyptic is Dark Sun if the survivors still practice law in enough capacity to give criminals trials by default?

I'm glad we can count upon you, Edgelord the Master of Edges, to kill unconscious and helpless foes. Truly you are making the world a safer place, one murder at a time.

It's one thing to kill a man in the heat of combat, but it's an entirely other, thoroughly immoral thing to kill someone who's helpless to resist.

>When you stand over a defeated bandit king who's been raping and murdering his away across the countryside

OP only said "villain". I have no other context to go on, so - funnily enough - my first thought is not going to jump to "murder".

>I'm pretty sure if the remnants of civilization discovered you casting magic missile at a halfling cannabal, there'd be no trial.

Yeah there would. It wouldn't follow modern conceptions of law and order, of course, and the whole thing might just be for show, but there's still be some manner of trial, even if it just amounted to torturing the guy until he confessed.

Plus Dark Sun actually has reasonably large (considering the situation) cities in it. It wouldn't be much of a Mad Max ripoff if there wasn't a Bartertown or Citadel equivalent somewhere. And the first thing to be created in any city is some kind of system of laws, trial, and punishment, even if it's just nothing more than dragging the prisoner before the local chief and having said chief pronounce judgment.

I'm not saying that it would be right, fair, or nice. But it would at the least be present.

>Yeah there would. It wouldn't follow modern conceptions of law and order, of course, and the whole thing might just be for show, but there's still be some manner of trial, even if it just amounted to torturing the guy until he confessed.
So there isn't any actual laws, just kangaroo courts to appease the masses like witch trials or public lynchings.

I was worried man, I generally assume the D&D is full retard but I was worried that they missed the point of what an apocalyptic setting was supposed to be.

What is law in a world without a centralized power or civilization?

It's a fucking complex question.

I think it has to do with adhering a metaphysical concept of good rather than a pragmatic one, the idea that goodness as a concept relies less on the direct outcome of actions and more on the idea that goodness comes about through deeds that somehow affect the very fabric of the universe rather than the world of man.

At least, that's how I perceive an enlightened lawful good.

keep yelling at him to get up

I guess in short, I see lawful as a decoy too belief that believes propagating their will, be it good bad or their unique flavor, through means of a system.

In the case of lawful good this is a system in being with the cosmos that propagates harmony and freedom in the world of man.

System of belief**

>What is law in a world without a centralized power or civilization?

This guy.

Remember that in D&D, Law and Chaos are fundamental, tangible, objective, measurable forces just as Good and Evil are.

Slaadi pls go and stay go.

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

Personally, I agree with Gygax's calling on it.

And I don't. That statement is from a message board and was made in 2003 or something - more than a decade after he left TSR, in any event. He no longer was in any position of authority and was just some DM giving his personal opinion.

Just 'cause I play D&D doesn't mean I worship the ground upon which Gygax trod.

Depends entirely on the villain.

Some two-bit generic purse snatcher? Gently choke him out with a decent sleeper hold and hog tie him for the cops.

Murderer? The same, but not as gently.

Serial rapist or serial killer, with or without a costume or theme (Joker, Vulture)? 'accidentally' maim him in such a way that he will never regain full use of his hands. Fractured Phalanges suck.

Incredibly wealthy villain who would never spend more than a month at a minimum-security 'resort' prison for white-collar business criminals, if the trial even gets heard at all (Lex Luthor, Kingpin, Norman Osborn)? Small insulin syringe full of Brown Recluse venom directly to the femoral artery. Strip him naked, lay him in his bed, clean up any evidence we were ever here. Cops'll rule it an accidental death. Problem solved.

Mass-murdering global-conquest-seeking Neo-Nazi with immense super powers (Vandal Savage, Red Skull)? Execution, quick and clean.

Cosmic warlord with nigh-infinite power who is a threat to all life in the galaxy (Darkseid, Thanos)? Long brutal execution as a message to the rest of the galaxy that I do not tolerate that kind of bullshit.

>The guy who helped come up with D&D paladins doesn't have authority on D&D paladins.

You don't have to agree with him but he was totally in his rights to remind people how his creation is supposed to work.

This. You do it to prove the power and legitimacy of the current regime.

Of course the trial is a waste of time. It's not about proving him guilty it's about proclaiming his litany of sins to the public. And reminding the public of the penalties of those offenses.

Why do you think executions we're public affairs?

The creation he hasn't been in charge of for most of its life. D&D was first published in 1975, Gygax left in 1985. It's now 2017, thirty-two years and four editions later (and his description of Lawful Good, besides which, does not match up well with even 2nd Edition's description, flies in the face of 4th and 5th edition's, and is completely irreconcilable with 3rd edition's).

He is totally in his rights to say how he thinks, in his opinion, Paladins and Lawful Good should work. But it's just that - what he thinks, his singular opinion for his table, that everyone else is free to listen to or ignore, and which is not the stance of the brand itself.

I think sometimes people forget just how old D&D is and just how short a time Gygax was a part of it.

>It's not about proving him guilty it's about proclaiming his litany of sins to the public.

What if that contradicts the Paladin's code as dictated by his religion?

Say the Paladin worships a Lawful Good god of Order and Justice. One of his requirements as a Paladin (as opposed to a layman) is dispensing swift judgement on those who wrong society. This god doesn't care about public spectacle or serving the state, he cares about society's health. Wouldn't it be better to execute the murderer on the spot instead of dragging it out through a show trial?

>he cares about society's health

A society that has empowered one of its citizens to summarily execute a helpless person for the sake of experience, is not a healthy society. So a god who cares about society's health would be absolutely opposed to killing a foe under OP's circumstances.

Absolutely epic post my dude

Nothing wrong with this.

Pretty much this for me as well. although I should mention Vandal savage can't be killed for the most part but you know comics

>A society that has empowered one of its citizens to summarily execute a helpless person for the sake of experience

Then what do you call a court sentencing a criminal to death? It's no different. If anything it's more fair and better all around because the Paladin has been divinely chosen as an objective and responsible judge of character. The court hasn't.

It's not particularly democratic but we're not living in 21st Century America. By all standards of this society the Paladin is a fair and reliable judge of what merits execution and what doesn't.

Rigidly-enforced spinelessness like this is why no one likes playing Paladins. What's the point of playing a divinely-appointed knight meant to dispense justice if "dispensing justice" means turning every single defeated foe into a logistical nightmare and argument with the party, solely because the GM said if I don't put enemies through a kangaroo court I lose my powers? That kind of outlook works fine in your weird hypothetical setting which amounts to little more than a Renaissance Faire where everyone adheres to post-modern beliefs on due process and use of force. But it has no place in the kind of setting D&D is intended for.

hooly shit d&d art has come a long way

Our modern legal system is more a product of enlightenment thinking than of post modernism, but point noted.

Especially in a fantasy setting, the definitions of good and evil, order and chaos are more based around their mythical, heroic, and otherwise traditional meanings.

Indeed I blame shitty DMing for making this even an issue, although this discussion likely more based in philosophy than gameplay.

Do what needs to be done.

It's not immoral at all.
Criminals aren't people.

>Especially in a fantasy setting, the definitions of good and evil, order and chaos are more based around their mythical, heroic, and otherwise traditional meanings.

I would like to specify my points on executing criminals right there don't extend past fantasy settings where all laws, customs, and religions support that kind of behavior. I would absolutely not want to live in that kind of world. But in a game things are different, and I believe in accommodating thematically appropriate behavior even if I find it morally repugnant.

...

I didn't take no Hippocratic oath, let the nigger bleed out.

how do you pronounce mxyzptlk?

> be good
> hit villain
> he falls incapacitated
"There's nothing worth saving here."

I always follow the metric a wise bard told me.

"Killing the orcs by drowning them all at once is heroic. Killing them by drowning them one at a time is an alignment check."

mix-ill-spit-lick

Depends on the setting.

>"DEUS VULT!"

>people going 'but the paladin code!'
Reminder that paladins don't all have to follow the same code.

execute them in accordance with the laws of Krypton

Rape the evil out of them!

>muh paladin of 21st century morals
Boring

Bear in mind that if we go off of medieval justice, unless you're a landed lord, killing someone is murder, even if they've committed a crime. This is because only the nobility has the right to dispense capital punishment. No one is going bat an eye if it's self-defense, but executing helpless opponents or prisoners who have surrendered could get you in trouble with the local nobility.

Ultimately, if a Paladin is divinely mandated to be judge, jury, and executioner, whether or not you get in trouble would be determined by whether or not the laws of the country you're in, and the lord whose subject you're executing actually recognize your authority.

You could be part of some crazy justice cult with a god and everything, but if your religion isn't recognized, and the law says you're wrong, and you're stepping on the rights of the nobility... you're still just a murderhobo in plate at the end of the day.

>Then what do you call a court sentencing a criminal to death?

An investigative and judicial process geared towards trying to determine guilt based on evidence and testimony and which is designed with an eye towards ACCURACY, not expedience. This isn't to say that it always succeeds - hi, OJ Simpson - but it's a Hell of a lot better than some kind of Judge Dredd-esque system.

Basically, it's the difference between doing something fast, and doing something right.

>If anything it's more fair and better all around because the Paladin has been divinely chosen as an objective and responsible judge of character.

Except that Paladin isn't perfect and doesn't have access to perfect information. Using a bandit king for example, say the paladin executes the bandit king on the spot. Except now the paladin has no way of learning that the bandit "king" was just one asset that's part of a larger criminal network - perhaps the Red Chains - who now don't have to worry about killing the bandit king themselves before he can spill all their secrets.

Define "good"

Unrelated note: Hoooooolllllyyyyyy SHIT do I need to organize my image folder. It took me ten minutes to find that. I swear I could single-handedly fill up three greentext threads with JUST my Veeky Forums stuff, nevermind my /co/ or occasional Veeky Forums or /pol/ stuff. But I don't 'cause it's all jumbled together and impossible to sort through...which kind of negates the purpose of saving them...

According to D&D? Easy.

A general reminder, if you post a rhetorical question designed to provoke thought and introspection some jackass will take it literally and shout out an answer as if it is the most simple and obvious thing ever.

>An investigative and judicial process geared towards trying to determine guilt based on evidence and testimony and which is designed with an eye towards ACCURACY, not expedience.

You're arguing from the belief I somehow actually want the modern world to be a police state. I don't.

But D&D isn't the modern world and in the time periods analogous to a typical fantasy standard, "investigative and judicial process" means much different things. Plus remember we're implicitly dealing with settings based on time periods where stealing a horse was enough to get you hanged. The social standards are different

The Paladin sees Evil happen. The Paladin then kills that source of Evil because that is his job, appointed to him by a Lawful Good institution worshiping a Lawful Good god. The only real social and legal standard holing him back is he may be stepping on some other guy's toes, as says.

> Except now the paladin has no way of learning that the bandit "king" was just one asset that's part of a larger criminal network

Being shortsighted about a person's potential usefulness doesn't really have anything to do with determining if that person has done something wrong. In your example, the bandit king is still a murderous villain, just a murderous villian put up to it by someone else. Doesn't change the fact what he did was wrong and deserves justice. The Paladin has no automatic reason to assume the bandit king knows something unless the bandit king tells him that.