Who was in the wrong here?

>Be a paladin
>Over the course of the adventure, become a king's champion
>The rest of the party are my retainers, because all of their previous characters died during the event that made us famous
>The king declares that we're gonna accompany him to a diplomatic mission in another land
>A few days into our journey, we see a burning town
>The king orders us to investigate, and then meet up with him later on the road, so we can continue
>Go and investigate
>Turns out, the town is being raided by some very fucking suspicious folks
>They pretend to be bandits, but they are way too well-armed and well-supported to be simple raiders
>Defeat them all, take them alive for interrogation

>They refuse to talk for a long time, despite my repeated reminders that they're only alive because we need to know who they work for
>They still don't talk.
>Tell them that they are bandits in the best case scenario, or foreign troops or traitors in the worst case, but the penalty for their crimes is death regardless, so I am gonna execute them on my authority as the king's champion.
>As a paladin, offer them to confess to their sins - God is merciful to the regretful.
>None of them want to.
>Fine, start executing them.

>Party is looking really uneasy about the whole thing
>"We can't really just kill them, can we?"
>"Yes we can. We are as close to lawful authority as it gets here, and they comitted capital crimes."
>"Yeah, but you're a paladin."
>"Should I have just let them go, despite them burning a whole town down and butchering all those people?"
>"Well, we could have taken them to the king!"
>"How exactly are four of us supposed to escort them? How do we prevent them from escaping? I don't have any manacles, not thirty of them. And besides, the king would just sentence them to death anyway."
>"Yeah, maybe, but it just doesn't feel right."

The DM lets it go, and I don't fall or anything, but I'm still bothered by this thing. Was I right, or was I wrong?

Other urls found in this thread:

wikiwand.com/en/Moses_the_Black
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Of course you were right, for your reasons.

It depends on weather corporal punishment was justified. I would say you were in the right because if morality in your game means a "life for a life" then you've done nothing wrong but exact justice.

By modern standards, or liberal modern standards at least one would have to spare the bandits in accordance to human rights law etc. But like your playing in a medieval world so whatever.

As long as it's just executions against pretty vile people, and you don't start torturing them without reason then whatever.

Same thing happened in the video game fable 1, you get the chance to execute a bandit leader and because the "good option" is to show mercy you get evil points for executing him. But the game ignores the crimes he has committed while leading his men. As long as what you do is proportional then I guess it's alright.

There wasn't really any other option. You offered them redemption, they refused. You had proof they both had and were willing to pillage and murder, because you stopped them in the act. If you had let them go they would just have done it again, and, like you said, four people can't wrangle thirty.

You should probably have identified the leader of the band and had him come along so you could get information out of him later (or, barring that, cut off his head and brought it so you could use Speak With Dead later,) but nobody's perfect.

A Paladin shouldn't become a king's champior or such. His holy mission is too important to be bound by oaths of fealty to a person rather than to a cause

You've found one of many situations in life where there isn't really a solid "wrong". There are pros and cons to multiple options on your list here. There's no "all the good guys win and the bad guys die or sit in jail in acceptable and fair ways".

You're not going to always feel good about what you do and you're not always going to have an easy time figuring out what's good and what's bad. That's stuff we teach teenagers when they're edgy enough to experiment with morality but dumb enough to not understand moral complexity.

Come on, dude.

Your character thought it was the lawful good thing to do. I'm assuming he knew what his god would think of the situation.
He acted in accordance with his beliefs, his god's belief, the laws of the land.

It was bordering the line, but I mean, enemy combatants, costs of war and so on.
You didn't do good, but you did do lawful.
Take pride in your victory and keep doing your duty.

Real world paladins were devoted to a king, specifically Charlemagne.

Real world paladins also didn't directly talk to their god and didn't cast holy magic, what's your point?

>Le paladins are clerics meme

Oath of the fucking Crown.

I agree with your oath and your responsibility to the kingdom will come to blows at some point (at least it will be interesting)
But you were in the right, fuck that "leave your enemies alive to win goodboy points" shit, they would just return to their master or contractor with your face and other information, better to keep the enemy leaders in the dark

i'll take Oath of the Crown for 500

You were in the wrong for making up a story and putting it on Veeky Forums simply because you couldn’t think of anything better to do.

Good is not nice, user. What you did was not good, but from your perspective, it was the best option. Seems reasonable.

Kings are usually anointed with holy oils their bloodline chosen by the gods
Dunno if dnd does this

Sounds like someone understands the LAWFUL part of LAWFUL good.

>Everything is made up, and nobody actually plays games

Basically this. They probably would have been okay with killing them in battle, after all.
Keep in mind, too, that capital punishment was somewhat supported in medieval times because prison wasn't really a thing, at least how we think about it today. There weren't really other options for removing dangerous people from society.

Real world druids were the priestly caste of Celtic society. Real world bards were sedentary keepers of oral history.
The fantasy archetype of the paladin, while originally inspired by the peers of Charlemagne and the Knights of the Round Table, has long since abandoned state sanctioning as necessary or even desirable.

Oh no, a cleric can definitely become a king's champion, especially in societies that believe in royal divinity. A paladin, however, isn't even usually devoted to a particular god as much as to his ideals.

Yes. Welcome to Veeky Forums enjoy your stay.

>retainers talking back to their lord

That's when you start asserting dominance and slapping those fools.

What a great way to make your party love you

This is the exact reason most groups shouldn't have a character that's legally in charge.

No, I’m guessing OP does play.
Just that this particular anecdote is fiction.

So you said that the king would have sentenced them to death anyways.
Two questions to ask yourself:
>1st question: Did I have proof that were the ones who committed the crimes?
>2nd Question: Do I have the explicit legal authority to act on behalf of the king or the judiciary

If you answer yes to both those question then you're fine. If you answer no to either of them, then you exceeded your mandate or authority and the king should chastise you at the very least, if not punish you.

Also keep in mind that being appointed "Champion" of the king does not give you legal authority unless explicitly stated. It means you are his stand-in for sanctioned armed combat and part-time bodyguard, but you do not have the authority to pass judgement or laws on the King's behalf unless explicitly given to you IN ADDITION to your appointment as champion.

For me it depends on the simple question:
What would your god say to that?

If your god says killing bandits, eye for an eye, etc. is fine, then go for it. If, however, your god is a cuck and says "everyone deserves a second chance", the best you can do is repeatedly ask if they want to redeem themselves, and try to hand them to the king somehow. Maybe send one person away as a messenger, having the rest guard them.

But, more to the underlying point here.

You don't fall if you do whatever is considered evil in your game. Your divine powers don't derive from the made-up morality of humans. They come from your god. Your god tells you what's right and what's wrong.

It's called "falling from grace" for a reason. Grace refers to god's grace, aka: being on the good side of your god. "A virtue coming from god".

Therefore, as long as you act in accordance of your gods tenets (or elevents, whatever), you're just fine and dandy.

Everybody was in the wrong.

You, for personally executing people instead of leaving it to the institutions. Bonus negative points for doing it slow and. Zero (neither good or bad) for just following the letter of the law instead of being a shining beacon of hope and mending that converts the bandits to the true faith with your uncommon mercy.

Them, for objecting to the execution of people they wouldn't have minded killing.

You and the others both gent bonus negative points for not realising the responsibilities inherent to taking prisoners. If you can't afford to take prisoners, either let the enemy run or give them no quarter.

>foreign troops or traitors in the worst case
Bonus negative points for also not knowing the criminal code while acting as a representative of the law. Foreign combatants are to be afforded a measure of courtesy and ransomed back. Brigands are to be hanged on the spot.

>just following the letter of the law instead of being a shining beacon of hope and mending that converts the bandits to the true faith with your uncommon mercy.
Oh, you're one of those people

You did right OP.
You acted within the law and prevented more deaths.
They refused to talk and refused to confess.
They were either incredibly stubborn, in which case they would have carried on killing, or they were evil, in which case they would still have killed again and deserve death.

As the closet thing to rightful authority, and seeing as how they refused to talk and were fine murdering villagers yes you are 100% justified.

True lawful good is actually pretty terrifying when it comes down to execution of punishment, because there really is no room for mercy

Honestly the only thing he forgot to be even be more justified is casting Detect Evil first or it's equivalent and confirming they were indeed evil.

D&D doesn’t actually exist. It’s just a meme that has spiraled way out of control

>>but you're a paladin."

Paladins kill evil. No mercy.

>He says as he posts the poster child for Lawful Nuetral

>Lawful Neutral
>not Lawful Lawful

Lying using green text? That's five years in an iso cube.

You clown(s) realize Dredd is not actually supposed to be held up as a moral exemplar, right?

You were given authority as lawful executioner by your king and sovereign. You were absolutely in the right.
The rest of your party probably just doesn't like the death penalty.

>The rest of the party are my retainers
The DM for doing this

This desu
Inb4 "my group did this and it was fine" - good job, you win an internet. Most groups, even those composed of friends. aren't mature enough to handle this situation, or just don't like dealing with its consequences/implications.

Let me guess. 'Muh satire.' Am I right?

>publicly doubting the morality of the law
That's ten years in an iso cube.

No, you were right to do what you did. Your character, as a lord and the King's Champion, would be expected to carry out the King's justice in his absence. This story likely takes place well before post-modern notions of crime and punishment came into being, and I doubt that everyone who commits an execution worthy offense in the kingdom is dragged all the way to the capital to face trial. Even the archtypal figures who inspired the paladin class would've done what you did, it was expected, they were all knights.


The other players applying sensibilities that don't (entirely) belong to the setting they're playing in.

Are you implying that judge Dredd was a serious comic?

The seriousness of Dredd depends on the writer and story arc.

It started out as a joke. Like Dredd's gay robot butler. But it became more serious as it went on.

How would you police a post apocalyptic mega city? answer the question and be specific.

Dredd is a good guy with an unwavering moral code. The world around him is the problem.
In other words, satire does not mean mockery.

God, tier 2 is the sexiest armor.

Is the thread dead enough to revive it as a bait thread?

Depends on the order or the paladin itself. My pal doesn't execute, he isn't the executor, he's just a protector, he'd have picked those bandits and sent them to land's judges.

You also acted more LN (law before everything) than LG, but if i were the GM I wouldn't even tell you anything, it all depends on how you paladin, some are harsh, others are inspiring, etc

>You also acted more LN (law before everything) than LG, but if i were the GM I wouldn't even tell you anything, it all depends on how you paladin, some are harsh, others are inspiring, etc

Like my group's paladin is fond of saying, "Lawful Good doesn't mean Lawful Nice."

>Was I right, or was I wrong?
How should I know? setting? system? you literally told us fucking nothing, we need context.

Is it 5e? are you devotion paladin? yeah, you did wrong, you deserve demotion? not really.

Anima BF? Doesn't really matter, paladins are just knights with magical powers focused more on diplomacy (compared to dark knights who are more focused on intimidation and summoning). Morality has nothing to do with your class but with your character itself.

becoming a kings champion is a bad idea

a paladin must be just at all times and follow their oaths

a king cannot be trusted to be just at all times, power corrupts

so you will get a situation where your duties as a paladin conflict


but in this particular scenario- you did nothing wrong, you offered them due mercy- had due authority, and enacted a fair punishment

You fucked up by not leaving one alive. Just because you're a shit interrogator doesn't mean you can't find a good one.

Is D&D? you did wrong, there're tons of spells that could let you read their minds and know more, you went the fast way instead of the smart way, morality aside.

But I wanna be a ship captain!

At level 1!

>>The rest of the party are my retainers, because all of their previous characters died

If you die, then do you become a new retainer and your senior retainer becomes the new champion?

>Not giving them a sword so they can die while fighting
You're a coward and a disgrace

This.

I think mercy is crucially important to anyone who aspire to be GOOD, but it is something that JUST can't allow to cloud their judgement.

This is LG at its meanest, but its still Lawful Good. Your character was merely the crusader aspect of Lawful Good, the taking the fight to evil. Enacting just punishment upon unredeemable evil is what paladins are built to do, in this case for a bunch of murdering, thieving shits.

The problem isnt you, it's your party that is still stuck thinking about crime and punishment as if it is our world, and not the much more lawless sort-of-medieval world.

Congratulations, you played or bullshitted up a believable paladin.

If anyone's cowardly, it's the fully armed and armored bandits attacking defenseless villagers.

NONE OF THIS SHIT EVER HAPPENED FAGGOT

Meh, I'd settle for 3. By that time, you'd either have enough to hire a skeleton crew for a small boat, or you could have the other PCs sign on for equal shares, like they were pretty much already doing. I know who I'd rather have in my corner.

If you were good, then you would feel sorry for the town they just pillaged. Not their rapists and murderers.

You still have to show mercy, and what's mercy if not letting them have a meaningful death. Treat others like you want to be treated, if I have to die, let it be fighting.

You failed, you just continued the circle of hate, I'd just beat the shit out of them so hard they'll start turning their lives around. Believe it.

>Moses had a rather difficult time adjusting to regular monastic discipline. His flair for adventure remained with him. Attacked by a group of robbers in his desert cell, Moses fought back, overpowered the intruders, and dragged them to the chapel where the other monks were at prayer. He told the brothers that he did not think it is Christian to hurt the robbers and asked what he should do with them. The robbers themselves repented and joined the community as brothers afterwards.

wikiwand.com/en/Moses_the_Black

>circle of hate

Where did you get that? Your soccer mom single mother.

Eh. Kill them and their kids will swear revenge on you, or something along those lines.

How does killing more people help victims, again?

It's all about this macho bullshit about having to punch back or being perceived as a sissy cuck

Killing isn't a crime, princess. Rape and murder are. Killing rapists and murderers prevents them from raping and murdering anyone else.

You did good, you have them their rights and told them the consequences; however you should have kept at least one or three alive for further questioning, but I don’t know why the king sent you to investigate without a force to help you. I think this is the kings fault

>Killing isn't a crime, princess

>OH SHIT TIME TO GO ON A MURDEROUS RAMPAGE BECAUSE KILLING TOTALLY AIN'T A CRIME

that's how stupid you are

No, it’s about justice, eye for an eye and all that
He said murder is a crime you dummy

>Killing isn't a crime
>>OH SHIT TIME TO GO ON A MURDEROUS
>>MURDEROUS

You just completely destroyed your own argument, retard.

fuck off, D&D paladins aren't elite warriors of some kings, they are uber-Parcivals

Raiders and enemy combatants rarely have right to a trial.
Trials require legal fees.
Foreign raiders do not pay taxes nor have confiscateable property.

They also had not legally migrated, making them illegal trespassers on the domain and as such it is already good enough excuse to put them to death for any less scrupulous man in service of the king.

Don't be a retard. Invaders do not get trials. Only denizens and guests of the realm do.

>A true paladin would have given all thirty bandits weapons and would have fought them all, one by one, until they're dead
While this does sound badass, it's also a great way to get killed because you're too retarded to live.

Since Paladins are what they are by the grace of the campaign, you only did wrong if and only if you fall - even if your DM is shit and forced it. Whatever grants your power gave you the stamp of approval.

by modern standards i'd say you were wrong, but by the standards most game I'm in set and by the morality and reasoning of your typical medieval fantasy setting, you were in the right, and I think that's what really matters here.

If they want to act like bandits, they get punished as bandits. Regardless, I would've probably let one live and tie him with rope.

You always take rope with you, right?

>4 men defeat dozens of bandits at the same time
>A single of those men can't defeat a single bandit
Did your paladin got weak after beating them? before you were fighting more than 1 at a time, what happened?

Your version of the difference between killing and murder is arbitrary, though.

Last time I was a player I pretty much hired the rest of the party to work for me, since I was an exiled nobleman but managed to sweet talk the local duke.

Except for the last session they were all rather obedient, so it's all good.

If the authority of King is derived from the same god as you worship, there will never be a conflict of interests until the King falls from grace, in which case the God would surely let the paladin know.

It's not at all unheard of for the monarch to be the head of the religion. Paladin wouldn't refuse to serve the temple in the fears that the clergy migh be corrupt.
To do so would be to doubt your god.

>Is D&D? you did wrong, there're tons of spells that could let you read their minds and know more, you went the fast way instead of the smart way, morality aside.
In D&D, executing prisoners is absolutely a Lawful Good thing to do if the only other choice is to set them free.

>In D&D, executing prisoners is absolutely a Lawful Good thing to do if the only other choice is to set them free.

Paladins: The most terrifying jaywalking deterrent.

>You still have to show mercy
No you don't. Good does not equal merciful.

>difference between killing and murder is arbitrary

Every civilization in the world treats killing and murder differently. The only people that don't are pacifist cowards, and they never survive long enough to create a civilization.

From D&D:
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

A lawful neutral character typically believes strongly in lawful concepts such as honor, order, rules, and tradition, and often follows a personal code. Examples of lawful neutral characters include a soldier who always follows orders, a judge or enforcer that adheres mercilessly to the word of the law, and a disciplined monk

>King falls from grace
at which point your duty to god/your ideals conflicts with your duty to your king

Reading comprehension at its finnest, let me post it again:
>Morality aside
I don't care about your code or your morals, you were stupid for not reading their mind and discovering who sent them and why

It prevents them from returning to the village and finishing the job.

It prevents them from returning home with tons of plunder and show off how much wealth there is to be gained from rape and pillage, thus inspiring more rape and pillage.

It keeps them from hunting the children of the innocents down to last, causing the extinction of their bloodlines.

It prevents the legacy of the victims from being destroyed.

It prevents the innocents being reduced into slavery.

It gives time to rebuild when all raiders are dead as they no longer need to fear raiders at the moment.

Killing of Raiders decreases national spending, thus allowing that money to be put towards more worthy pursuits.

Killing Raiders also lowers the necessity of a militarized police force.

The benefits are endless.

Context, retard. The group clearly would have used such magics had they been available to them.

But user being good means you have to be a slack jawed retard!

...