Signup
Welcome to... Canonfire! World of GreyhawK
Features
Postcards from the Flanaess
Adventures
in Greyhawk
Cities of
Oerth
Deadly
Denizens
Jason Zavoda Presents
The Gord Novels
Greyhawk Wiki
#greytalk
JOIN THE CHAT
ON DISCORD
    Canonfire :: View topic - How to Protect and Serve
    Canonfire Forum Index -> World of Greyhawk Discussion
    How to Protect and Serve
    Author Message
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: May 25, 2012
    Posts: 106
    From: Virginia

    Send private message
    Sun Jul 08, 2012 8:30 pm  
    How to Protect and Serve

    I use the Death's Door method of mortal wounds in my campaign - where upon reaching 0 hit points the character becomes unconscious and loses 1 hit point a round until truly snuffing it a -10 HP. Any actions to bandage the wound will stop the loss until rest or healing restore the character. But my party's paladin has a conflict - if the baddies follow the same mechanic, what should he do with all those half-dead, slowly bleeding foes lying about the battlefield? To ignore them would be a death sentence, but to patch them all up? It opens a can of worms we didn't expect.

    How do you paladins and DMs out there handle helpless, living enemies in a way that sticks to a paladin code? Just as an example - a police officer who shoots a criminal will then immediately call for EMS. Should a paladin try to administer aid to helpless villains, then tie them up and transfer them to some minister of the law?
    _________________
    No place is safe, only safer.
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Sun Jul 08, 2012 8:38 pm  

    Nerdcav, another great post that I am sure will open a flood of debate.

    In my mind, if the paladin struck down the foe with the intent of killing them, then why patch them up and try to save the life of the person you intended to kill? Unless you wanted them alive, of course, for interrogation or trial or whatever. I just don't see it happening otherwise. Paladins protect and serve INNOCENT people, not brigands, monsters, and the like. Now, torturing is one thing to be avoided and reviled (though some could argue the degrees and types of interrogations a paladin may be able to use), but letting someone die of mortal wounds you inflicted (purposefully) is another. Paladins are champions of goodness, but this doesn't mean they are stupid, guileless, easily duped, or foolish. I think many people forget that (not implying that you do, of course!), and that may be the reason why the paladin is oftentimes avoided as a character choice (I will admit I have yet to play one as a PC, but have DMed many NPC paladins).

    Justice is SERVED. (As a Marvel fan, you may know that reference, my friend) Wink

    -Lanthorn
    Black Hand of Oblivion

    Joined: Feb 16, 2003
    Posts: 3835
    From: So. Cal

    Send private message
    Mon Jul 09, 2012 12:41 am  

    Greyhawk is a harsh world, and moral rectitude is a bit different in a medieval-ish world anyways.

    I suspect that a Paladin would be considered very merciful to let an orc bleed out, rather than patch them up and bring them back to the local villagers (who the orcs have been raiding for years), who will likely just lock the orc in the stocks, let the villagers throw rocks and refuse at it until it has nearly starved to death, and then pitchfork it to death. Yes, letting the orc bleed out does sound rather merciful after all. Good Paladin. No moral dilemma for you. Laughing

    Okay, and good paladins should at least offer quarter to most enemies. Basically, "Surrender, or die!". If everyone keeps selecting the "die" option, that is no fault of the Paladin. Where we find a moral issue is when a Paladin doesn't make a forthright effort to give quarter. Foes that are outright and plainly evil won't even be offered quarter usually, they being the antithesis of what the Paladin stands for, and therefore worthy of eradication without question, will not be given quarter.
    _________________
    - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -


    Last edited by Cebrion on Mon Jul 09, 2012 8:25 pm; edited 1 time in total
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Jul 09, 2003
    Posts: 1358
    From: Tennessee, between Ft. Campbell & APSU

    Send private message
    Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:15 am  

    nerdcav wrote:
    ...But my party's paladin has a conflict - if the baddies follow the same mechanic, what should he do with all those half-dead, slowly bleeding foes lying about the battlefield? To ignore them would be a death sentence, but to patch them all up?...


    -I have NPCs (freiendly ad hostile) use this rule, too. What's good for the goose...

    nerdcav wrote:
    I use the Death's Door method of mortal wounds in my campaign - where upon reaching 0 hit points the character becomes unconscious and loses 1 hit point a round until truly snuffing it a -10 HP. Any actions to bandage the wound will stop the loss until rest or healing restore the character...


    -Not exactly discussing your main point, but this is where I like D&D 3.5.

    1) Negative HPs numbers are unconscious (or at least incapable of functioning at all), but "0" HPs is Disabled, which means you move at half rate. It allows a wounded guy to drag himself away. Sort of transitional between doing triple backflips at 1 HP and complete helplessness;

    2) To treat a wounded charachter, you might need to make a "Heal" check just to find the wound and figure out what to do with it. That takes at least a [D&D 3.5] round (6 seconds). Then, you have to pull out a kit for the field dressing/bandage/tourniquet/whatever (which takes time) or improvise one (which takes a lot longer). Then it has to be properly applied (another "Heal" check). All this takes time, and you still might not do it right. And remember, the loss might stop on its own (a 10% per 6-second round in D&D 3.5), but it might not. You have to act fast.

    The upshot is, neither side is likely to be doing this in hand-to-hand combat unless they have someone dedicated to this; essentially, a medic/combat lifesaver type, typically a cleric specialized in healing. A paladin can sort of do that, but he's a fighter first, not a healer. And even then, as a practical matter, it would be hard to get to enemy wounded. Now for the morality...

    nerdcav wrote:
    ...Just as an example - a police officer who shoots a criminal will then immediately call for EMS. Should a paladin try to administer aid to helpless villains, then tie them up and transfer them to some minister of the law?


    -There's a difference between civil situations and combat. The above analogy would be suitable if a paladin (or anyone else) was acting a law enforcement officer (which paladins often do). In that case (as Lanthorn mentions), the need for justice is a concern as well as morality. But I think you're thinking more of a combat situation...

    Cebrion wrote:
    Greyhawk is a harsh world, and moral rectitude is a bit different in a medieval-ish world anyways...


    -In many things, Greyhawk isn't really medieval (as you touch on by calling it medieval-ish), but quasi-medieval or pseudo-medieval. I don't think it's neccessarily wrong to apply modern standards to WOG morality and ethics. If we do so, what do we get?

    The codification of modern morality would be the Hague and Geneva conventions. Their only real requirement is that wounded or captured enemies be given the same treatment as your own if they are in your custody (obviously). In combat, you can pull your own wounded guys out of the line and help them, as was sometimes done in actual ancient and medieval battles. But, as a practical matter, you aren't too likley to get an unconscious enemy combatant under your control until the fight is over, or at least until some time has passed (e.g., your line has advanced and you can now get to them). The law of land warfare does not require you (not even paladins Razz ) to jump into the midst of an enemy formation in order to save their own wounded. Nor does it require you to stop in the middle of a fight and begin treating an enemy. So, as a practical matter, by the time your guys push the enemy back, or they run away, or they surrender, either their own guys have already dragged their own wounded back and treated them (in which case, the first aid is already done, and there is no moral dilema), or they've left them behind without being treated. In that case, they either (1) bled to death or they (2) didn't. In case #1, that's not your fault. Moral dilema forestalled. In case #2, why not treat him? We do it all the time in our "real" world, including guys that aren't paladins, and it happens in my campaign all the time, without any serious drawbacks to the characters who do so. Besides the moral issue (which I think is valid), Lanthorn mentions the possibility for interrogation or justice. Prisoners can also be put to work under the Geneva Convention, and they can (and are)put to work in my version of the WOG. There also the possibility of prisoner exchanges and the (quasi-medieval) issue of ran$om. Even an orc might be worth a few gold pieces, so even someone of CE alignment might see value in that. Kaching! Evil Grin
    GreySage

    Joined: Jul 26, 2010
    Posts: 2695
    From: LG Dyvers

    Send private message
    Mon Jul 09, 2012 11:10 am  

    Wow! I agree with everything that's been written so far. Razz I will add a bit, though.

    First, I alleviate most of these issues in my own campaign by declaring that certain monsters do not deviate from their stated alignments. 3.5e makes this clear by saying exactly that in the Monster Manual. My campaign background goes something like this:

    Each race/pantheon of gods created their own minions when they discovered that worship gave them power. Some pantheons (such as those of the humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, and gnomes) couldn't agree upon an innate alignment to give their collective minions, but could agree to give them all agency. Thus, humanity and its demi-human allies have the capacity to choose between law and chaos, good and evil and may be of any alignment. Other pantheons either couldn't agree at all or consisted of gods of only one alignment who had no disagreement. Humanoids like the orcs, goblinoids, gnolls, etc. had no good gods (or such were few and without influence in the pantheon) so they created their minions without agency. Some other pantheons (like the Dragon gods Bahamut and Tiamat) couldn't agree on anything, so ended up creating their own, separate, minions again without giving them agency.

    An odd example is the elven pantheon. After creating their elven minions, many of them went off and secretly created their own, personal, minions (nixies, pixies, sprites, redcaps, quicklings, dryads, etc.). Most of these were not afforded agency.

    Thus, in my campaign, creatures like humanoids, beholders, chromatic dragons, minotaurs, all demons, devils, yugoloths, and almost all undead, may be slain outright as they can't possibly be redeemed. Their souls were created by evil gods as evil entities without the capacity for good morals. It is possible to raise such a creature to be good, but only for as long as it is subject to its foster parent's authority. In other words, as soon as the creature returns to the wild, or is off on its own, it will revert to its evil nature. So, for most monsters the PCs fight, there is no question of whether to grant mercy or not. Evil creatures must be destroyed. There is no chance for redemption for them. Except for rare circumstances, it is only with humans and demi-humans that such a question arises.

    SirXaris
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Jul 09, 2003
    Posts: 1358
    From: Tennessee, between Ft. Campbell & APSU

    Send private message
    Mon Jul 09, 2012 11:22 am  

    SirXaris wrote:
    Wow! I agree with everything that's been written so far. Razz I will add a bit, though.

    First, I alleviate most of these issues in my own campaign by declaring that certain monsters do not deviate from their stated alignments. 3.5e makes this clear by saying exactly that in the Monster Manual. My campaign background goes something like this:

    Each race/pantheon of gods created their own minions when they discovered that worship gave them power. Some pantheons (such as those of the humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, and gnomes) couldn't agree upon an innate alignment to give their collective minions, but could agree to give them all agency. Thus, humanity and its demi-human allies have the capacity to choose between law and chaos, good and evil and may be of any alignment. Other pantheons either couldn't agree at all or consisted of gods of only one alignment who had no disagreement. Humanoids like the orcs, goblinoids, gnolls, etc. had no good gods (or such were few and without influence in the pantheon) so they created their minions without agency. Some other pantheons (like the Dragon gods Bahamut and Tiamat) couldn't agree on anything, so ended up creating their own, separate, minions again without giving them agency.

    An odd example is the elven pantheon. After creating their elven minions, many of them went off and secretly created their own, personal, minions (nixies, pixies, sprites, redcaps, quicklings, dryads, etc.). Most of these were not afforded agency.

    Thus, in my campaign, creatures like humanoids, beholders, chromatic dragons, minotaurs, all demons, devils, yugoloths, and almost all undead, may be slain outright as they can't possibly be redeemed. Their souls were created by evil gods as evil entities without the capacity for good morals. It is possible to raise such a creature to be good, but only for as long as it is subject to its foster parent's authority. In other words, as soon as the creature returns to the wild, or is off on its own, it will revert to its evil nature. So, for most monsters the PCs fight, there is no question of whether to grant mercy or not. Evil creatures must be destroyed. There is no chance for redemption for them. Except for rare circumstances, it is only with humans and demi-humans that such a question arises.

    SirXaris


    Hey! What about the Ogres of the Blinding Light! Razz
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Mon Jul 09, 2012 12:46 pm  

    Let us also consider the fact that paladins themselves, being mortals, have their own idiosyncracies and personalities. I think many people automatically assume that a paladin will be a "nice guy" or some "goody goody two shoes (admittedly, earlier in my DMing and role-playing career, I made the same assumption)." I somehow recall reading a thread where someone made the suggestion that LG is not "Lawful Stupid" (DLG, was that you?) Wink and I agree with that statement. Why couldn't a paladin be a brooding, mirthless, serious type? After all, consider the weight of responsibility and duty on his/her shoulders. I believe the archetypes for paladins, and thus their personalities, should not be confined to a single one alone, a la Captain America or Superman.

    Furthermore, the paladin's choice of ethos and the Power he/she serves will also have a huge influence on that character's moral, ethical, and religious philosophy. Although cross-over perspectives will occur, a Pelorian paladin will likely look at a dilemma or situation in quite starkly different terms than a paladin of St Cuthbert, Heironeous, or Pholtus, even though all are holy warriors of LG alignment. Paladins are not produced by a cookie cutter model and, in my opinion, should not be played thusly.

    -Lanthorn
    CF Admin

    Joined: Jul 28, 2001
    Posts: 630
    From: on the way to Bellport

    Send private message
    Mon Jul 09, 2012 1:17 pm  

    Nice question nerdcav. I've enjoyed the responses so far and especially appreciate that jamesdglick referenced the Geneva Conventions, as I think the idea of treaties may prove very helpful to your campaign development of what a paladin's lawful good alignment requires.

    What is the law to which the character has sworn service? If s/he's from Furyondy in the time of the Greyhawk Wars (or thereafter), then it's highly unlikely that s/he would ever give quarter (or expect it) from soldiers of the Horned Society or Iuz.

    What's a soldier? Well the paladin will interpret based on uniforms, armor and armaments, race, numbers encountered, etc.

    In a combat with armed orogs and euroz flying the colors of Iuz, there should be no general legal prohibition restraining the paladin from slaying these enemies (quite the opposite). Of course, there might be a countervailing specific order, e.g., capture their leader alive, if possible, and bring it back to base camp for interrogation.

    Beyond any legal restraints, of course, the paladin will have a set of ethical, moral and/or religious prescriptions and proscriptions. Hence, it may or may not be illegal to torture an orc, but it is very likely that an act of torture is immoral, unethical and/or against a paladin's religious precepts. Hence, even if it were legal (lawful), to commit torture would likely result in a paladin's fall from grace, as it would not be "good." (The protagonist of 24 was no paladin.)

    I think that's enough for now. Others have well detailed the practical difficulties of binding enemies' wounds and taking them into custody. I'll end by distinguishing between a situation where a Furyondian paladin fights Iuzian euroz, and another where said paladin fights against Ketite mercenaries (before Ket is revealed as an ally of Iuz). In the former case, likely the paladin's law will allow for different actions in contrast with the latter case, where quarter might well be required (when sincerely requested).

    E.g., after killing a child, an euroz sees the paladin slay its leader; the euroz then drops its weapon and begs mercy in broken Common; contra after being struck mightily by the paladin, the Ketite mercenary drops his pole arm and begs mercy. In the former case, I would most likely rule (as DM) that the paladin was entitled to slay the euroz outright (though I'd be pleased if the paladin struck for subdual with the flat of the blade and introduced a situation of custody and expedited trial to the session). In the latter, I would prefer the paladin to scrutinize whether the Ketite was readying a dagger, etc. before deciding whether to commit further violence, or accept the surrender, etc.

    As a final point, I imagine there are many easily available sources for basic definitions of torture, atrocities of war, etc. It's less important to lawyer or philosophize about them and more important to regard them sincerely in the effort to collaboratively tell a meaningful story.
    GreySage

    Joined: Jul 26, 2010
    Posts: 2695
    From: LG Dyvers

    Send private message
    Mon Jul 09, 2012 2:06 pm  

    jamesdglick wrote:
    Hey! What about the Ogres of the Blinding Light! Razz


    I remember that adventure short from the City of Greyhawk boxed set fondly. It was very different from any situation my players had encountered before. Though they were pleasantly surprised at the result and all thought it a great chance to reflect on real life, we all eventually agreed that it caused too many in-game problems when the players had to wonder if every single orc, goblin, hobgoblin, gnoll, bugbear, ogre, evil giant and dragon, etc. should be spared because they could potentially be redeemed. This was just not practical when adventuring through Deep Oerth, battling drow, mind flayers, wererats, troglodytes, kuo toa, and other such denizens of the dark. They couldn't possibly take them all captive and return them to the surface for trial and imprisonment, so forcing the players to choose to simply slay intelligent beings of possible conscience was not fun for anyone. Thus, we collectively came up with the general solution I posted above to alleviate such concerns of guilt for slaying such creatures.

    Of course, in my campaign, drow are fallen elves and possess agency. It's just that in such a society, few can be expected to grow up with their conscience intact. (No Drizzt Dourdens in Greyhawk. Razz ) On rare ocassions, the party will attempt to rehabilitate an individual captive, but usually, they are without compuction when slaying groups of evil individuals. After all, it would be a greater evil to allow them to live and continue to victimize other innocents.

    SirXaris


    Last edited by SirXaris on Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:42 am; edited 1 time in total
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Jul 10, 2003
    Posts: 1234
    From: New Jersey

    Send private message
    Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:39 pm  

    I like a lot of what has been discussed so far, though I disagree with my friend Sir Xaris. The thought that ones race makes them unredeemable is in and of itself an evil of its own. While I agree to a trial by combat as in one on one a paladin can always give quarter if his opponent sincerely requests it. In mass battle it is not feasible to save ones enemy.

    Now any surviving units that where captured might receive aid especially ranking officers for many reasons as previously discussed. Mercifully slaying an enemy might be possible as well. I can save an ally or my enemy the other will surely die. The paladin would save his ally and perhaps offer a quick and less painful death. Each scenario garners its own response. Like Lanthorn said no cookie cutter class, different types of paladins exist.

    Later

    Argon
    Black Hand of Oblivion

    Joined: Feb 16, 2003
    Posts: 3835
    From: So. Cal

    Send private message
    Mon Jul 09, 2012 11:52 pm  

    jamesdglick wrote:
    Hey! What about the Ogres of the Blinding Light! Razz

    Yeah, how did that work out? Laughing

    Anyways, as to modern ethics, I don't use them in playing Greyhawk (well, not that much at least). Factions contest, often mortally, and that goes for the "good guys" as well as the rest. At the end of a battle, where there are disabled and dying enemies crawling about, they are usually going to get speared and put out of their misery by the enemy. Evil buggers might just take their time with it, but that is really the only difference between what moral and immoral enemies will do. This assumes that a disabled foe is not valuable for ransom of course. Otherwise, life is cheap, and reward (or punishment) awaits in the life beyond. Fly you faster to hell on the wings of this spear to the heart, so to speak. Wink

    The game mechanics ruin things like warriors being gut-stabbed and dieing over many hours, and clerics being able to heal literally anything to the point of survivability with but a cure light wound spell. I solve that by adding that in, "tweaking" some things in the interest of adding some realism. There is not always the option for an "I need a cure light wounds spell here, stat!" Laughing You can't heal them all, the damage is too extensive, etc., and this usually will apply to almost anyone (thing) that has been chopped down in battle. How many adventures are there that features the dieing NPC who lives just long enough to pass on some sort of request of clue with their dying breath...and invariably the person playing the cleric blurts out "I CAST CURE LIGHT WOUNDS FAST!!!" Well too bad, Skippy. The dude dies...over two rounds, and you can't save him, so shut your trap! Laughing

    I am off on a bit of a tangent here, but the above fits into things. A Paladin's mortal foes are not wild animals (which have no personal reason for attacking) that they are killing, but orcs who like to eat elves most of the time because they scream very pleasingly when they vivisect them or eat them alive, or bandits who have no compunction about killing literally anyone they find along the road that is weaker then them and has something they want. Or similar things. When something identifies itself as morally bankrupt through its actions, and does not surrender when quarter is offered, a Paladin should have no compunctions about putting it down and leaving it there should it threaten him or his companions.

    Most normal authorities are just going to kill certain things, like orcs and bandits, on sight anyways, and those are people in rightful authority. A Paladin should not be losing any sleep over such enemies bleeding out. In fact, the Paladin would be showing mercy in walking around the battlefield and administering the coup de grace to them.

    Perhaps the best way to say it would be like this: in a quasi-medieval world where the medical tech is pretty simple, a cleric can't cast dozens of cure spells every day, and the enemies are rather blatantly darker instead of varying shades of gray, decision making is a lot simpler for a Paladin as the moral quandaries are far fewer.

    Oh, and thread title should be "How to Detect and Purge", not "How to Protect and Serve". Laughing
    _________________
    - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -


    Last edited by Cebrion on Wed Jul 11, 2012 2:31 am; edited 1 time in total
    GreySage

    Joined: Sep 09, 2009
    Posts: 2470
    From: SW WA state (Highvale)

    Send private message
    Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:04 am  

    Ceb, once again your reasoning and examples are, to me, dead on target and very well explained. You should be a follower of Delleb or Rao. Smile

    In two different campaigns I found myself, as DM, placed in situations as described by Cebrion. Both parties contained paladins, one of Heironeous (a PC), and one of Pelor (NPC):

    1) In the former circumstance, the party had run afoul of some gnolls serving their arch-nemesis, a lycanthropic high priest of Incabulos. The party succeeded in thwarting the attack, but found themselves with some gnoll prisoners. What were they supposed to do? Turn them loose, or slay them? Those were the only two reasonable choices.

    As the majority of the characters in this party were servants of Heironeous (priests and the paladin included), my player and I 'took 5' to discuss the ethos and dictates of the Archpaladin's creed. We both concluded and concurred that the gnolls were 'prisoners of war' and would be treated thusly. It was decided that they were too dangerous to release to their own devices, whether that meant re-allying with their dreaded enemy or not. In the end, the surviving gnolls were grimly but swiftly dispatched by the stroke of a battleaxe.

    2) In the second situation, a similar dilemma presented itself in a very recent campaign (last month). This was a mixed party with a variety of different alignments (all Good, though) and religious philosophies, but the 'leader' was a priestess of Pelor whose 'right hand man' was a paladin of the Sun Father, too.

    Marching along the DwarfWalk, the party survived a particularly dangerous war party of lizard men from the Mistmarsh. They fought them off successfully (only one person died), but had themselves a prisoner (Hold Person). A furious debate ensued after the lizard man was mentally interrogated (ESP since nobody spoke its language) as what to do with it. Of course, nearly everyone wanted it dead since lizard men had continually plagued the party and had demonstrated their 'blood-thirsty' ways every time.

    Only the Pelorians balked, thinking it merciful to return the lizard man prisoner back into the swamp because its troop had been dispatched. The storm of protest waged (interestingly, a priest of Fharlanghn was one of the more outspoken critics, demanding its death b/c the lizard men were a threat to any and all travelers along the DwarfWalk...I was very impressed with that line of reasoning). In the end, the two Pelorians, the paladin included, were persuaded that allowing the lizard man to survive was potentially more dangerous to further human (and dwarven) life on the premise that they'd proven to be human (and dwarven)-hunting, flesh-eaters.

    The paladin did not like the decision, but considered it the lesser of two evils. He prayed for the sub-human creature's soul, and his own for making that decision. Someone else in the party, a veteran warrior (who lost his friend), swiftly dispatched the reptile with a spear-thrust to the back of the head...

    -Lanthorn
    Display posts from previous:   
       Canonfire Forum Index -> World of Greyhawk Discussion All times are GMT - 8 Hours
    Page 1 of 1

    Jump to:  

    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot vote in polls in this forum




    Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises

    Contact the Webmaster.  Long Live Spidasa!


    Greyhawk Gothic Font by Darlene Pekul is used under the Creative Commons License.

    PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.
    Page Generation: 0.22 Seconds