I need to ask you guys a question, but first I need to tell you a tale
>Running a campaign with a group online
>Party includes a Paladin, a Fighter, a Bard, and a Rogue
>They corner a villain in a brothel
>Paladin tells the others he will interrogate her alone, since he actually has higher charisma than the bard
>Sends others outside to keep watch
>Locks the door to the room
>Pal: "I want to roll intimidate"
>Me: "Okay, what do you say?"
>Pal: "I want to tell her if she doesn't talk, I'll rape her
>Nobody says a word, and I'm just staring
>Me: "No, fuck you, that's evil you can't rape someone."
>Pal: "I'm not going to rape her, I'm just going to threaten to rape her so she'll talk."
>Me: "No! You're lawful good, you can't rape someone!"
>Pal: "I'm not! I'm just bluffing!"
>I ask the Bard his opinion
>Bard: "Well, I mean that is a bluff check."
>Me: "No, you can't threaten to rape her. That's still evil."
>Pal: "Fine. Then I change my roll, I want to grapple."
>Me: "You can't rape her!"
>Pal: "I'm not! Does it succeed or not?"
>Me: "Yeah, she's pretty weak."
>Pal: "Okay, I'm gonna rip her clothes and tell her to talk or else."
>Me: "You cannot fucking threaten to rape a person!"
>Pal: "What, because she's a woman? If it was a man you'd think it was funny."
>Me: "No I wouldn't, and you can't do this, stop being an ass!"
>Pal: "Guys, is this more evil than threatening someone with execution? Or prison? I'm not going to do it, so it's not evil."
>They legitimately can't decide who's right
>I put my foot down and tell him none of it is happening
Am I crazy? Was it me? I have to know
So if I imply that I'm going to donate a lot of money to charity and not do it is it still morally right? If anything the act of threatening rape is not nearly as bad as rape itself. I'd say why the fuck not.
It's an evil act, straight up.
They're intimidating someone, trying to invoke fear in them through threatening them with a horrible act. Whether they would actually go through with it is irrelevant, what they're trying to do is make the other person believe they would actually do it.
It's worse than threatening someone with execution or prison, because those are both just punishments for crimes that the villain may have enacted.
It's not quite torture, but it's still pretty fucked up.
Cause Fear is a spell that if not evil in and of itself, is a spell that is granted from various evil cleric domains. To manipulate someone is vaguely evil, but to manipulate someone via fear is without a doubt evil.
>implying evil is an equal force to good and not the absence of good.
If you imply goodness and do not follow through with goodness, it is evil.
If you imply evilness and do not follow through with evilness, it is evil.
Goodness cannot exist if it is not carried out. In a vacuum, only evil can reign.
Ok well that's fair then, sorry I called you a faggot.
That said, he was just threatening to rape her so there wouldn't have been a need to listen to him describe it unless you let him.
"If you don't do X, I will rape you." is not describing a rape.
1) The Paladin player is an asshole who doesn't know how to play his class. Threatening to rape someone is an Evil act, at least in terms of the Alignment metaphysics. Just because he won't actually do it doesn't mean that woman won't be put in a position where she thinks she's in danger of being raped. In fact that was entirely his point.
2) You should never flat out tell a player "no you can't do that". Instead you should have let him, then make him fall. Or at least have the woman report his shitty behavior to Paladin Internal Affairs or whatever. If this guy wants to play such a shitty Paladin, then remind him there are consequences to his actions.
He would have described it. This was an isolated incident, and up until then he was a pretty good roleplayer, or at least he tried to give lots of info. That's part of what made the whole thing so nuts to me
Depends on the god he's linked to. If CG then fuck it, why not?
I don't see how threatening rape is at all more evil than threatening murder and I'm damn sure Paladins can do that in some circumstances
>Have no proof he was going to describe rape
>Says OOC he's not going to rape her, repeatedly
>IC he wouldn't rape her since you just said he was RPing a Paladin correctly
>"He was going to describe rape!"
Are you trolling or is this that "Tumblr" person I keep hearing about?
I dunno man, maybe you're right. Maybe I was being overly sensitive, that's why I started this thread, because people at the table were seriously divided and it made me think I was going too far
I mean personally I'd have the same reaction.
I think after a point you have to draw the line and say "no, this won't happen in my game".
Like other people can have that happen in their games, and that's chill, but this type of shit isn't the shit I chose to be around. Especially not in my free time.
While not a nice move, he didn't actually do anything and if he said he wasn't going to really do it I can't see an issue here. I can understand why you wouldn't want that in your game, but it sounds like you jumped the gun.
It was clearly something the DM did not want in the adventure he is running.
If my DM was like, dude, this isn't what I'm trying to run, I'd back off out of respect.
As for OP, there are a hundred ways to be ruthlessly threatening. The paladin was stupid, and would be on the receiving end of a short 1v1 session with a messenger from a higher power.
Personally I'd never say to a player "No you don't" unless they're trying to do something completely OOC based on OOC-knowledge. I'd also never have a Paladin fall over such an insignificant offence.
I'd let the Paladin try his intimidate/bluff, and later make it clear his god was not pleased.
Give him nightmares the next week. You can either be obvious about it and have the god flat out appear in them, or let the paladin dream about himself being tied down and threathened with rape.
Divine visions of an angry god.
Detect Evil isn't working.
He can't cast Lay on Hands on himself.
Other members of his order sense something really off about him.
And if he keeps up that kind of bullshit just keep compounding it until he oversteps, then make him fall. That's the kind of scenario the fall mechanic is meant for.
Even if he never planned on raping the woman he still tried to victimize her in a particularly cruel way, and your standard gid of Lawful Good is not going to be happy about that. Especially if she didn't even ping Evil
Hearing everybody in this thread, I can see it from his point of view at least. Maybe you're right, and I should have let him threaten her, and just roleplayed it. Honestly, some of these ideas would have been pretty interesting, but I guess at the time I was too busy being upset that someone would think of that as a course of action to really look at it from a different angle. In hindsight, part of me regrets not doing something cool like turning his tongue forked or something.
Can I at the very least say I would never let a player rape someone in game? I know it's pretend, but I still think that's too far.
Not only was it the first thing he went for, he then proceeded to attempt justify his morally dubious (at best) choice, going so far as to literally tear the woman's clothes off. He's definitely in the wrong.
>why is threatening rape any different than threatening prison or execution
You're still wrong for threatening someone with execution or prison if those things aren't justified; the difference is that rape isn't a just punishment.
>Good doesn't always equal nice
But it still equals holding yourself to a certain standard of morals. It's even harder for Paladins, as they're supposed to hold themselves to an even stricter moral standard. The question comes down to whether or not a Lawful Good (I assume) Paladin should threaten a captive with something as morally reprehensible as rape.
To put this another way; If a cop threatens to rape a suspect, do we allow it, or do we punish him/her? No. Even if they maintain that the threat was hollow, it still represents a breach of conduct. That's with a fallible legal system run entirely by human beings. A Paladin is expected to adhere to an even stricter moral code.
Then again, my love affair with Paladins may be coloring my outlook.
I real paladin would never deliberately intimidate. That's terrorizing someone which is an evil move right out of the gate.
A paladin would have asked her nicely to yield, taken her captive, and shown her all due regard.
Also, a paladin who thinks first of rape is no paladin in my lands and would be banished from the order forthwith.
Sure, the point was just to explain why our intuitions are triggered by threats of rape against a bad guy and not usually threats of prison or execution.
But the exception proves the rule; I think people that don't believe the death penalty is justified would also agree that it's not okay to use it as a threat.
While your reaction was a little heavy handed it's totally understandable. Despite what some people in this thread will no doubt say rape is a particularly vile act and it totally makes sense to be shocked by this situation.
I don't hold that the rape is the issue. It's that a paladin would resort to base bullying tactics in the first instance. At worst its evil, at best its out of character.
The fact that this is even debated is a mark of how far the paladin class has fallen in the last decade or more.
This was definitely Magical Realm, I don't blame you for stopping it.
"I'm not ACTUALLY raping her, I'm just sexually intimidating her and ripping her clothes off!" Yeah, no, find somewhere else to get your rocks off. This isn't even taking into account the fact that he's supposed to be a god damned Paladin.
>I real paladin would never deliberately intimidate
Average people fall victim to their own weaknesses, and sometimes the best way to help them is two fold: aid them in maintaining fortitude, and remind them that yes, there is consequences for doing so.
It is not evil to say, if you commit to evil, I will be the one waiting for you, so let's not go down that route.
Guess what? That statement, if you were trying to get someone to do something, would be intimidate.
I think it's more an acceptance of the routes taken to promote good, and the fact that you seem to look at it as something without nuance or subtlety.
>all these defending the "paladin"
Is this typical 4chan edginess or a sign of what the typical TTRPG player is like these days?
No. Taking action to prevent evil is not, in and of itself, inherently evil
Threatening a captive who cannot defend him/herself with violence is malevolent coercion, which is completely unacceptable for a goddamn paladin. I don't give two shits if he didn't intend to follow through with that threat.
Not if the smite is justified, like if it would prevent a real danger to other people (preventing the summoning of a demon, saving a human sacrifice, on the field of battle, facing a cornered but still dangerous foe). But if the Paladin's code commands that in this situation they turn the person over to the legitimate local authorities for trial and imprisonment (because capturing him would be relatively easy and justice is important) he should suffer some sort of consequence for threatening summary execution.
OP here, if I remember right she actually had decent wisdom, so she might have. If I had let him bluff, and if she had called it, I probably would have just had her be smart enough to figure a paladin wouldn't rape her.
>That statement, if you were trying to get someone to do something, would be intimidate.
That's fair. But a paladin should never be a bully. 'harm that man and I will strike you down' is as much a statement of purpose. The scenario in the OP post is beneath a paladin, at least as I knew them, and makes me sad that this is how they are being played.
>makes me sad that this is how they are being played.
To be fair, they have always been played... oddly, I guess. This is fr from the first time I've seen paladins not being played up to the built in expectations of the class.
The funny thing is, I've always threatened people 'by the book'. As in, "The Order has established I can torture you with thumbscrews, with waterboarding, and hot irons. I'm not allowed to use the crushing press or the rack, which requires a priest to sign off on."
I mean, something like:
> "If you will not talk, I will cut off your hands, as prescribed by St. Thomas in 'The Scourging of Heretics.' And I tell you now: I never lie."
Man, that reminds me of Exalted, where Social Charms can melt someone's mind. I had a PC (Eclipse Caste Diplomancer) torture prisoners by having them fall in love with him, then telling them how much they had disappointed him. One actually hung herself afterwards.
>Being that guy
You should've just rolled with it and let it be dealt with in character rather than being overreactive and vetoing player actions. What's next, you gonna tell the Bard it's not okay to perform certain songs because it might offend the audience through "implied" themes? Besides, if you think a player is doing things that can result in alignment change then fucking just let em do it and then hamper them down with the alignment change. You're job as a DM is to challenge the players based on their actions, not dictate them.
If this was a true story then OP's group wouldn't be split between who was right, there would be clear consensus but either way it's still wrong for a DM to put a halt on action unless it's outside of that character's ability to do so (like using spells they don't know or without prepping).
>Taking action to prevent evil is not, in and of itself, inherently evil
I admit I am mot familiar with the circumstances of OPs situation but getting the infirmations from her might as well prevent further evil.
What did she do anyway?
Who said you had to be comfortable with it? If a DM didn't allow anything and everything they weren't comfortable with then they would just end up railroading the PC's every step of the way.
That story sounds cool, but at the end of the day it's a shitty explanation of being a Paladin. Compare Paladins to Warlocks--one takes an oath purely as a path to power, the other takes the oath because they believe in it and thereby gain power.
You're completely right. Part of my "contract" for D&D games is that I only do alignment shenanigans if the players involved are interested in that kind of story, or for really gross violations of alignment guidelines. And it's the same for "potential fall" stories for Paladins. But I probably would've made the paladin go straight to neutral neutral and fall for that.
I think >>45023794 is pretty much as /thread as the absurd morality of a threat somehow not being a malicious act in and of itself.
>Just because he won't actually do it doesn't mean that woman won't be put in a position where she thinks she's in danger of being raped. In fact that was entirely his point.
You're dumb as fuck, that's dumb as fuck, this entire thread is dumb as fuck.
Saying you'll do something with no intention to actually follow through HAS NO FUCKING ALIGNMENT.
Otherwise I could say I'm conquering the world to donate it all to charity, going to make everything good for free afterwards, and I'm also saving the world because if -I- specifically am not the one to do it the world ends, that would make my alignment somehow good or neutral because *said* good things to rationalize my actions?
Hell this thread is a step beyond. I'm talking about rationalizing an actual action.
You fuckers are all assigning morality to literally empty threats. Just because he can actually do it doesn't mean it's not empty.
tumblr really needs to fuck out of /tg/
Have you considered that people (those that aren't on the Spectrum at least) are comfortable with more than one exact set of circumstances?
There's a big spread of possibilities in between "allow literally everything" and "railroad literally everything".
>"Somebody is disagreeing with me!"
>"This means I get to shitpost!"
>What did she do anyway?
OP didn't say.
>but getting the infirmations from her might as well prevent further evil.
Information that could very well have been gained in a way that doesn't involve threatening a captive with a degrading and violent sexual act against her will
What bizzaro world are you from that threats aren't bad? This isn't some sort of crazy weird liberal position, this is the sort of thing that was illegal back before Marx was born.
The ends justify the means.
The paladin is trying to achieve a good ending, by destroying evil.
The problem is that he is using evil ways to achieve this, although this is not inherently evil act it self.
I would say that is definitely not lawful good, but instead chaotic good/neutral, but definitely against the paladin code.
Threatening someone with rape is a pretty shitty thing to do. It's certainly not suitable conduct for a paladin. That being said, you should have let him to do it and suffer the consequences. He may fall, he may not, but his God should be pissed. Ultimately you shouldn't tell him how to play his character.
If the Paladin was threatening to torture her and slicing at her fingernails (but not actually cutting her) that'd be the same kind of thing- seeing as he wanted to rip her clothes to make it 'convincing'
It just doesn't fit. Beyond the terrible idea of bringing rape into it, that doesn't fit a Paladin. I wouldn't make him FALL for it, but it's pretty terrible.
When you say you're conquering the world to donate it to a charity, what effect does it have on anyone? None.
When you say you're going to rape a defenseless woman, what effect does it have on her? She's horrified and traumatized.
It's not about the intent to follow through, it's about the impact of the threat itself.
>What bizzaro world are you from that threats aren't bad?
Threats are amoral.
Threats are illegal in the real world because unlike a game ( OP even admitted the player OOC had no intention to actually rape ), you can't know if the one threatening will actually follow through with the threat and therefore you must act as if they will to preserve your own safety.
But in a FANTASY, where the actions, motivations, and outcomes can be DICTATED, threats mean literally nothing OOC, and IC if your deity granting you power is powerful enough to see every bit of action you take and assign a moral score to it, they can also see that you didn't actually fucking rape anyone and won't ping you for rape just because you threatened to.
This is basic morality, I'm pretty sure even in the Bible the Christian God only really fucked people over for their actions, not what they said.
This is why the alignment system is a shitty idea. No, intimidating someone by promising to do something terrible isn't Evil, you fucking tards. In fact, DOING terrible things for the right reason isn't Evil, either.
Or do you faggots make the Paladin fall for slaying Goblins, too? No, let me guess, you're also the idiots who say that it's proper and good paladining to slay anyone who pings as Evil on your gaydar?
The world should respond to the players' acts, instead of them being punished through DM metagaming fuckery. Does this guy make a habit of threatening to rape people? That's now his reputation. Maybe the church even kicks him out. Does he keep his powers? Well, does he deserve them? Does he use them to do good and to make people's lives better and is he just a misunderstood individual, or does he use them to make his life -and just HIS life- easier?
I've only had to put my foot down on alignment system bullshit ONCE, while DMing, and it was to deal with a guy who was actively fucking with the game for his own amusement and to the party's detriment. He killed an NPC that he promised NOT to kill if he surrendered, and that was being interrogated by another party, AND was about to spill the beans. He did it because he wasn't in the spotlight for ten seconds. So yes, for him I did do the whole "you either change alignment to Evil, or you atone" thing.
In the end, it's a slippery slope. A Paladin doing something questionable in the name of Good once doesn't make him Evil. That's arguably what being a Paladin is all about. But if he starts slipping up, if he starts doing it more often because it's easy, or because he enjoys it on some personal level, THAT is when he is moving down the path of Evil.
Paladin should be treated as an extra content class, honestly. Half the time people don't know how to play them, and half the time DM's don't know how to deal with them.
>I'm pretty sure even in the Bible the Christian God only really fucked people over for their actions, not what they said.
Let him do it
Then God comes down and rapes him
Make him roll to avoid becoming addicted to gods magical divine jizz
God continues to rape the Paladin off and on turning him into a trappy buttslut.
Good end for everyone.
I dunno man, I mean, thats out of character and all, but it doesn't strike me as that big a deal, at least until he tried ripping her clothes off.
Chances are the guy was just being an ass and pretty much intended to derail the campaign from the start.
>this is what sjws actually believe
Wow so threatening to rape is evil, but actual rape is totally fine.
Going by your own morality, just joking about rape is pretty evil in itself.
Wisest post in the thread.
The paladin class today is sadly the result of whiny players harping for years and years that they want all the advantages of being a paladin with none of the responsibilities - or as least as few as they can get away with.
In one hand you have an intimidate check for rape.
On the other hand you have bluff check for rape.
You could have simply point out that if he is gonna intimidate her he will have to use strength mod instead of charisma.
For bluff check he would obviously use charisma.
And for the morality part, does your paladin pray to the gods? If yes, make this a side quest for him. Let him know that god was not happy with his intimidation and make him amend.
Anyway he would be lying, so he would have to make atonement anyway.
One way or the other your friend should rethink his idea of intimidation and diplomacy. Lie is a Lie. Paladins "should not" lie.
On the other hand he might have implied he will make sure she will get what she deserves (vague as fuck but not a lie) and point out his friends are waiting for the results of this little talk and if she will not cooperate in full, he would not protect her.
>Fuck off, Lawful good =/= Lawful nice
For fuck's sake, the problem is that he's playing a PALADIN. A character class that's built around the idea of the 'Knight in shining armor', dedicated to chivalry, light, and justice. In that respect, yes, threatening a prisoner with fucking rape is NOT SOMETHING A PALADIN DOES
See, the problem with comparing modern day cops and Paladins is that they're two completely different types of law enforcers. A cop has hundreds of specific rules and procedures they must follow when handling a criminal due to our legal system being a bunch of bureaucratic bullshit. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, it's just the nature of our modern society. Paladins on the other hand are more akin to frontier sheriffs, having the power to dispense justice at their own discretion as long as it follows their alignment and their deity approves. The law for them is a low more nebulous, as long as what they do is considered 'good' and 'lawful' they're pretty much in the green. Morality is a lot more subjective than concrete written laws so it allows a lot more leeway. Now this is a situation that the paladin by simply threatening with a deplorable act can commit an act of good and even if the threat wasn't successful they still wouldn't be going against their alignment since they're not actually doing anything. I think a god cares more about what a Paladin actually does rather than what they say. In that way, you can have a paladin that's a foul mouthed grump and an overall asshole with whoever they talk to but as long as they go out of their way to preform lawful good acts they should be good.
What a true unbeliever you are, insulting the one and true god like that.
Mocking god, Disobeying god, Calling upon gods name and or taunting god to show his presence.
…35"The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil. 36"But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. 37"For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."
It may be your story, but it's their character. Honestly, I would have let it happen and then screwed him over in some way for going against his beliefs.
As dungeon master, you are God. When a character does something wrong (that goes against the essence of the story) you gently (or not so gently) push them in the right direction once again.
A simple cry for help from the woman could have alerted the guard and the church authorities hear of it and threaten excommunication unless some form of repentance is done.
Out of game argumentation should be kept to a minimum. It breaks the feel of the session and it is no fun for anyone. Surprises make the game fun.
I guess it really depends on the god, but I think the problem here is that she was "defenseless." any thing that is defenseless should be left alone, for honor and justice and right and all that. They really should only be able to act harshly to threats.
>A character class that's built around the idea of the 'Knight in shining armor', dedicated to chivalry, light, and justice.
Funny, because chivalry, light, and justice all are subjective and all depend on cultural context.
People can do whatever they want with their own property. Someone decides that they want to destroy their property for no reason, no one else has a right to say anything about it. People can be property in this hypothetical culture. Someone wants to kill a person they own for no reason.
Is this action evil?
You would say it is, because it's killing a person.
Other cultures ( many in real human history, included ) would say it's not because the person is property and one can do with their property as they wish, and you're the evil one for being tyrannical and dictating what others may do with their own property.
I'm not that familiar with Christianity other than cultural memes. I was wrong and shouldn't have written that then.
That said, make the PCs worried about making the wrong choices. Crazy behavior is a sure sign that they are not immersed in the world and don't really care what happens to their character.
Batman is honestly True Neutral at best, and at worst Chaotic Evil for ignoring the law and beating the shit out of people to do deal with his daddy issues with the thin veineer that he does it to protect the city from criminals. And criminals have no rights, of course, to not be beaten within an inch of their life by some cosplaying faggot. All of it attracts the worst villains to him like weeaboos to underage girls, too.
Batman has always irritated me. He's an edgy, black-clad Mary Sue, but somehow he gets a pass on that where no-one else does.
Except that our laws and punishments are still based around our own sense of morals, i.e. we decide what is legal and illegal based primarily off of our sense of right and wrong. The problem with our system in the real world is that it's still based off the subjective preferences of fallible humans. A Paladin, on the other hand, is held to a higher standard than that, the standard of an actual God. A being that has a very specific code for you, as their representative, to follow. And considering that the archetypal Paladin is a chivalrous knight following an almost arthurian code of honor, threatening a helpless prisoner with rape is absolutely going against the code of a Lawful Good Paladin.
I'm sorry to butt in, but are you really that riled up because he made a sarcastic post about contemporary political views?
Considering how badly they've been restricted in the past, I can't blame people for wanting to bend the rules a little. Not that not lying is a rule - that depends on your oath in 5e, and I don't remember anything about that in 3e.
Either way, it was an immoral act. The paladin could've tried using that huge charisma of his to seduce her, but nooo.
>Except that our laws and punishments are still based around our own sense of morals, i.e. we decide what is legal and illegal based primarily off of our sense of right and wrong.
>laws are based on morality
You know what, you can see for yourslef how wrong you are just by googling "bizarre laws in the usa"
Don't ever make the mistake of assuming anything involving bureaucracy has any meaning other than perpetuation it's own existence and securing it's own paycheck.
>Being completely level-headed about all of this and replying in earnest and rationally instead of shitposting and pretending to act like tumblr users like the rest of the thread
Nigga you don't belong in this thread, go find a better one that's more deserving of your time.
Batman is a character that despite being a hero in every way encompasses the whole of morality and has different viewpoints at different points. That's being a human character, being a good character, and having 80 years to explore every facet the character could encompass, along with the fact that the morality table has never been a great system to begin with.
The paladin had the woman completely at his mercy, psychological torment is evil. It doesn't matter if she is the only one who knows the nuclear launch shut down codes, a paladin should never try to threaten someone for information.
That being said, the player should have been allowed to do it, and his God's dissatisfaction should have been made abundantly clear, to the point where the paladin must immediately atone or suffer formal punishment from his god. Not necessarily falling, but he should find himself having a hard time healing himself, casting spells, detecting evil etc, should he refuse to atone properly.
The interrogation goes as normal, but if this act conflicts with the ethos of his god, he receives visions of purgatory in his sleep, and a slight malus on every roll pulling from his god's power until he does something to make up for it.
If he backslides he falls, and I'll offer him the option to convert his Paladin levels into Blackguard ones
>all this derailment
Golden rule, do unto others. Human empathy verbalized in its most succinct form. That is the definition of goodness. No amount of societal values can change that. You would not want to have your clothes torn off and be threatened with Paladin cock when you are in a defenseless position with no other choice but to cooperate. It doesn't matter how evil they are, they are defenseless, and the Paladin had complete power over them. Threatening rape was flagrantly excessive at BEST.
This is ignoring the fact that you're playing with REAL, ACTUAL PEOPLE, who probably don't want to be around that kind of shit. I mean, sure, if your group likes rape that's fine, but generally speaking that's not the kind of shit you just wanna arbitrarily bring to the table.
The player is kind of a dick for pushing it but still, it doesn't seem any more evil than killing bad guys.
As long as he know that the target of his interrogation is actually involved in nefarious acts it seems reasonable. Despite being very unnerving it's a better than torture and if it results in decent information it could prevent unnecessary violence. As a general thing, negotiation is a much better in the long run when time allows. But if the party was fighting the clock a paladin could do a lot worse in terms of desperate measures.
Of course this is all assuming we are looking at LG as a morality and not an ascetic. As morality, LG should encourage principled but effective application of justice while respecting life and dignity. A paladin should not break oaths or promises but above all he should not let unnecessary harm come to innocents. If looking like a villain is enough to keep lesser villains from ruining society then, oath forbidding, a paladin should be willing to make that sacrifice.
Hell, despite his "no killing" rule, Batman's whole shtick is scaring the living shit out of his enemies.
But still the player does sound like a bit of creep who's way to eager to jump on the "being a dick for the greater good" bandwagon. Being that fixed on a rape based strategy is just weird.
Do you consider slavery wrong? I do, so do quite a few people.
Huh, that's weird, there are laws in place to prevent the ownership of another human being.
Do you think theft is wrong? So do I. OH SHIT, THERE'S A LAW AGAINST THAT TOO.
My point was that our basic codes of law are based around our morals. Yes, there are insane laws that still exist (And nobody follows, repealing a law is a right pain in the dick, so most people just find it easier to ignore them), but their existence doesn't invalidate anything I said.
Try harder next time.
>Except that our laws and punishments are still based around our own sense of morals
Maybe some of the more basic ones, but there are a shitload of them that are purely there for "follow this and they can't sue you" bullshit. Paladins need not worry of lawyers so most of their edicts are based on them being the arbiters of the law while their god granting them authority right up until they do something that they don't find kosher. I'm sure the god wouldn't care the paladin made what sounds like a less than savory individual scared in order to gain information that were serve them better in dispensing justice. Threats are not something a Paladin is forbidden to use, nor is similar actions such as lying. It all depends on the situation and how the Paladin uses these actions. There are plenty of specific situations a Paladin may need to commit some moderately unsavory actions but as long as they're nothing extreme and serve a purpose for the Paladin to continue doing good I doubt the god is going to slap their shit or even scold them for something so relatively minor. Now maybe if they actually committed rape or murdered a defenseless non-Evil individual you'd have something but threatening someone is not that big of a deal for all but the most stringent of Paladin orders.
We're talking a lot about the morality of the situation, but what is /tg/'s policy on rape in their games? Do you avoid it out of obligation, or perhaps one of your players has bad experiences with the subject? Is your group gritty, no-holds-barred, "what did you think would happen when your female PC got captured by orcs"? Is it excessive? Or do you only use it to enforce the idea that someone or something is particularly vile?
I also wouldn't want to be killed, but paladins have no problem with that so long as I'm Evil.
Whoops, there goes your so called golden rule.
You can be Evil without actually hurting anyone Or threatening to hurt anyone ( even me having to write that addendum is ridiculous)
If a rapeape murderman is birthed into an isolated cube seperated from the rest of existence, is it no longer evil because it lacks the capacity to rapemurder or threatening anything to rapemurder?
>Do you consider slavery wrong? I do, so do quite a few people.
What I believe have no bearing on what a fantasy civilization with it's own moral values might believe.
>Huh, that's weird, there are laws in place to prevent the ownership of another human being.
Not everywhere, not all the time. Not even close to being objective.
>Do you think theft is wrong? So do I. OH SHIT, THERE'S A LAW AGAINST THAT TOO.
People have different ideas for what constitutes theft. Is taxation theft?
>My point was that our basic codes of law are based around our morals.
You're basic point is wrong.
Laws are amoral, Morality is subjective.
>Not talking about no sexual things/rapes before session
>Playing with retards that do that on sessions
Also, yes, that was bad for paladin, I agree. Still, good DM know when to said "Stop with sick stuff" if he would got into details and then use fade to black. And punish paladin, if he really will rape victim.
3e you are restricted from lying
Go back to 2e and you needed to be a human with Str 12, Con 9, Wis 13, Cha 17 and you can.only ever have 2 magic items
1e its Str 12, Int 9, Wis 13, Dex 6, Con 9, Cha 17
Unearthed Arcana makes it Str 15, Int 10, Wis 13, Dex 15, Con 15, Cha 17
The statistical odds of qualifying to be a paladin in 2e is 0.13 percent. In 1e 0.10 percent. In UA 0.0002 percent
Paladins were not meant to be player classes. The DM guide strongly advised against having more than one paladin appear ever in a campaign, and then as a high level NPC.
I don't want my escapism to involve rape. So i never explicitly include it and the furthest I'll ever go to hint towards the possibility is saying that "women and the defenseless are not safe" when referring to a seedy place or something. I also do my best to steer players away from it and sex in general. I've dm'd a few "fade to black" moments but they always fade before anything raunchy starts.
I dunno. I would let the player make the threat, but be punished with either a secret counter of "if he does bad shit enough times, shift his alignment" or, in the case of a Paladin, have his god of Oathbrothers confront him about it. If it keeps up, alignment shift or power loss.
I would only really put my foot down if he actually went "I rape her." At that point, I ask him "are you sure you want to rape her?", and if he says yes, I tell him "no" and we go on as usual and I don't take input from him for a little while. If it happens again, his character becomes an enemy NPC until the party kills him or he runs away and the player gets kicked from the group.
I don't run evil games.
The paladin is a noble and heroic warrior, the symbol of all that is right and true in the
world. As such, he has high ideals that he must maintain at all times. Throughout legend
and history there are many heroes who could be called paladins: Roland and the 12 Peers
of Charlemagne, Sir Lancelot, Sir Gawain, and Sir Galahad are all examples of the class.
However, many brave and heroic soldiers have tried and failed to live up to the ideals of
the paladin. It is not an easy task!
Only a human may become a paladin. He must have minimum ability scores of
Strength 12, Constitution 9, Wisdom 13, and Charisma 17. Strength and Charisma are the
prime requisites of the paladin. A paladin must be lawful good in alignment and must
always remain lawful good. A paladin who changes alignment, either deliberately or
inadvertently, loses all his special powers -- sometimes only temporarily and sometimes
forever. He can use any weapon and wear any type of armor.
A paladin who has Strength and Charisma scores of 16 or more gains a 10% bonus to
the experience points he earns.
Lawfulness and good deeds are the meat and drink of a paladin. If a paladin ever
knowingly performs a chaotic act, he must seek a high-level (7th or more) cleric of lawful
good alignment, confess his sin, and do penance as prescribed by the cleric. If a paladin
should ever knowingly and willingly perform an evil act, he loses the status of
paladinhood immediately and irrevocably. All benefits are then lost and no deed or magic
can restore the character to paladinhood: He is ever after a fighter. The character's level
remains unchanged when this occurs and experience points are adjusted accordingly.
Thereafter the character is bound by the rules for fighters. He does not gain the benefits
of weapon specialization (if this is used) since he did not select this for his character at
If the paladin commits an evil act while enchanted or controlled by magic, he loses his
paladin status until he can atone for the deed. This loss of status means the character loses
all his special abilities and essentially functions as a fighter (without weapon
specialization) of the same level. Regaining his status undoubtedly requires completion of
some dangerous quest or important mission to once again prove his worth and assuage his
own guilt. He gains no experience prior to or during the course of this mission, and
regains his standing as a paladin only upon completing the quest.
Except none of that is a description of even a lawful good fighter. The character in OP's story is even called out as being, very specifically, a Lawful Good Paladin. Like I said earlier, my opinion and outlook is probably being colored by the fact that the Paladin is, hands down, my favorite class. The Paladin, as it was described to me, and as I read it, is a hard class to play. It requires you to play a character that is supposed to be the epitome of good, saddling your character with one of the strictest moral compasses in the game. In the context of Dungeons and Dragons, can you think of a good aligned god that would EVER condone what OP's paladin did? Because, for the life of me, I can't.
What your describing sounds like a 5th edition Paladin who follows the Oath of Vengeance. And I'm fine with that, but the Oath of Vengeance is very much NOT the archetypal paladin I grew up with. An Oath of Vengeance paladin is what happens when you take away the honor, compassion and mercy that you'd expect from a classic paladin. The Vengeance Batman to the Devotion/Classic Superman, if you will.
>I also wouldn't want to be killed, but paladins have no problem with that so long as I'm Evil.
So long as you aren't actively harming anyone, say, if you're locked in a guarded room, unarmed, against a fucking Paladin.
Also how can you be evil without hurting anyone?
>The Paladin, as it was described to me, and as I read it, is a hard class to play. It requires you to play a character that is supposed to be the epitome of good, saddling your character with one of the strictest moral compasses in the game.
A characters moral compass is only as good as your own.
You speak of "the strictest of moral compass" but are you against a paladin killing?
It's possible to stop evil without killing, just incredibly difficult and not feasible for a mortal at all.
Your "strict moral compass" is incredibly arbitrary.
Shit, now I want to design a class that isn't allowed to kill and has the tools to resolve conflicts without violence.
>Accused of a crime
>Office threatens to ravage my manhole unless I give him the information he wants
>I have no reason to believe he won't do what he's saying he'll do
>He rips of my pants and starts rubbing vaseline on his hands
Not only Evil, but Chaotic as well. Moreso for a paladin, than for your average lawful good character. Just because it's a lesser evil, and for a good (?) cause, doesn't make it anything else. He should fall if you're feeling by the book .
>Also how can you be evil without hurting anyone?
Well apparently threatening to rape without hurting anyone is an evil act according to this thread, so ask the anons on the other side of the argument not me.
A setting has elves or it doesn't.
A setting has dwarves or it doesn't.
A setting has humans or it dooesn't.
A setting has magic or it doesn't.
This argument is dumb, you should stop.
'Even though the paladin's teeth resist bacterial decay, they may still fall out as a result of enamel erosion.' - Complete Paladin's Handbook
Seriously if anyone bothered to read this, this thread would have stopped arguing and turned into a kingly feasting hall in celebration of paladins by now.
I don't personally like rape, and I don't want to give my players an excuse to follow such a magical realm. If they want sex, pay the prostitute. If I include it as part of a story, it's not going to be looked at too closely.
Please, a Vengeance paladin would probably start with outright torture, all the dude said was same some scary things and rough them a bit to sell the intimidation. I usually prefer knight in shining armor Paladins myself but I understand they need wiggle room for stuff in order to not create the same exact character every time. As long as it's an exception to the rule and they're not going around constantly roughing up innocents I don't see an action like this being so far out of line for a paladin under a similar situation.
A threat is harm, psychological harm, but it is harm. It uses force to persuade someone into doing something they don't want to. Even so, harm is not necessaruly evil, of course, paladins straight up chop dudes in half. The difference, however, is that this threat was levied against a completely defenseless person, evil or not, they were no direct threat to the paladin at the time. The paladin could have gone a million other ways with the interrogation, but they went to threats of rape.
Truly depends on his actual deity and if he mostly worships it or some concept like valor or justice. There can be a Lawful Good deity that closes its eyes upon the atrocities commited in its name all the time by its church and in this case - it's avatars. Maybe the guy is more of of a religious guy than the actual physical champion of some god. I'd allow it in such a case, cause Lawful Good is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more complex than people believe it to be.
>You speak of "the strictest of moral compass" but are you against a paladin killing?
Of course not, but a Paladin should always seek peaceful resolution, resorting to violence only when more peaceful means prove insufficient. It also means that you take prisoners, accept a surrender, and always act honorably and compassionately to those who are no longer able to defend themselves. Yes, this includes evil prisoners. So when I said 'Strictest moral compass', I should have specified 'Strictest POSSIBLE moral compass'.
Acting through deception isn't Lawful, and deceiving someone into believing that they'll be raped if they don't give you what you want isn't Good. Both are unbecoming of the chivalric ideal that a paladin models himself after.
>And the fact that you think threatening rape wouldn't cause, say, psychological harm.
Does threatening to torture, maim, or kill cause psychological harm?
>A threat is harm, psychological harm, but it is harm
>Even so, harm is not necessaruly evil
That's all you needed to say
>The difference, however, is that this threat was levied against a completely defenseless person, evil or not, they were no direct threat to the paladin at the time
Literally doesn't matter.
Unless you believe every campaign is an Evil one because you'll inevitable harm something that was defenseless or had no intention to harm you or skirt the issue completely by ignoring the existence of orc babies or somehow the entire population of orcs being made up of savage warriors.
>The paladin could have gone a million other ways with the interrogation, but they went to threats of rape.
Why is it threats of rape are EVIL PALADIN FALLS but not literally ANY other form or threat of torture?
See, I would consider this action relatively peaceful. Intimidation is just as valid as diplomacy when used right. Just because a Paladin is Lawful Good doesn't mean every conceivable action they preform must be Lawful Good 24/7. As long as it isn't anything major (which in this case, no it is not), than it's perfectly acceptable (or at the very least neutral, maybe with some slight reservation but that's the very worst it deserves) action.
>Implying women would suffer psychological harm from a threat of rape coming from a Paladin with a higher CHA than the fucking Bard.
Literally the worst argument ever.
>Of course not,
> resorting to violence only when more peaceful means prove insufficient
Looks like your definition of "strict" is incredibly lax.
>'Strictest POSSIBLE moral compass'.
I hope that 'strictest possible moral compass' includes "just because others are evil does not permit me to be evil" with the consequences including dying because harming people is evil, so you can't even in self defense.
When you add an exception for "self preservation", it's no longer strict because you can rationalize a number of things under "self preservation". Rationalizing under "the greater good" even more so.
Jesus fuck, some of you people are being way too limited in scope with playing your paladins. This is how you play a paladin that's not a shining beacon of humanity but still a lawful good aligned paladin. You can easily justify a paladin preforming some pretty deplorable actions as long as you handle it well enough and still have them be a normal paladin.
I think your player sounds more unreasonable than you do, not because of storyteller bias but because this is a context where the situation is questionable enough that I think any decent player should just roll with the DMs call and leave questions of morality for later.
But that being said, in regards to the "question" here, I'm inclined to agree with the player. There's a lot to be asked about the nature of Paladins in whatever setting you're running here, but in general I think it's more or less universally considered fair game for Paladins to threaten pain or death on route to justice. It's ridiculous to me that rape should be treated as a special form of evil here.
Arbitrary lines to be avoided here. Wherever your Paladins fits between redeem all souls or smite all villains, you don't want to say "Rape is bad but beating someone within an inch of their life is okay" because it brings up too many issues in and out of character.
Where did i say that the paladin should fall?
I said it was unbecoming of a paladin, and I still believe it is. That doesn't mean the paladin falls, it means their god, the one who gives them their holy powers, tells them they fucked up and they gotta repent for it, or suffer the consequences.
>See, I would consider this action relatively peaceful. Intimidation is just as valid as diplomacy when used right.
And I agree completely, the problem with OP's example is that it's a paladin that's not using that intimidation right
> Just because a Paladin is Lawful Good doesn't mean every conceivable action they preform must be Lawful Good 24/7.
I agree, again. That would be unreasonable, since Paladins are chosen from mortal stock. They should, however, STRIVE to be the best, even if they fall short. Those shortcomings are the best part of roleplaying a paladin, in my opinion.
> As long as it isn't anything major (which in this case, no it is not), than it's perfectly acceptable (or at the very least neutral, maybe with some slight reservation but that's the very worst it deserves) action.
And this is where we disagree. I'm not arguing that the DM shouldn't have let him proceed, but I wouldn't call what that player did 'acceptable' for a Paladin.
I'm with the pally. Threatening someone wouldn't be evil. Being good means doing the right thing and that doesn't have shit to do with being nice about it. Besides paladins kill people all the time. As long as it's done for the "greater good" its fair game to them
Real paladins haven't been in the game since second edition and everybody knows it. What we have now are washed out examples of compromise generated for people who complained playing a paladin for real was too hard.
And it was hard, too, living up to that standard; even in roleplay. They were ordinarily more powerful than other characters and you paid for that power by playing as someone who was hard to be. They were rare characters - and well they should be! Not only were they hard to roll up, players who could manage the paladin's lot for any length of time were rare.
Now they aren't overmuch more than magical warriors on the side of good, especially in 5th which offers three variations, none of which actually live up to the paladinhood of old.
You can play those, and like them, but know that they aren't really paladins and that they can't match to the paragons of virtue that used to see play.
so what you're saying is that threatening to kill someone is only okay because the law kills people, and that threatening rape is wrong because it isnt? So if rape was considered to be a fair sentence by a society, rape would totally be okay?
I would agree with you if he had started with other methods and those didn't work.
Going straight to threatening to rape the bitch isn't going to help matters at all. Especially with a DM that is so quick to start arguing out of character instead of trying to punish the player IC after a brief OOC warning.
I disagree. While it's not an action that's in line with the perfect ideal of a paladin it's not an action that requires divine intervention, even if it's just a divine scolding. A paladin's god shouldn't be their scrutinizing their minor actions like that and it should be purely up for the paladin themselves to repent. Unless it's something that truly borders the line only then should the deity take direct action in warning and leading to a fall if necessary.
Not them, but the only absolute thing a Paladin owes a subdued villain like that is to not outright kill them and even that can be permitted as dispensing justice in the right situation (though that in particular requires quite a bit of justification). They shouldn't need to treat a villain nice.
I don't disagree with this, especially in a setting and group as described, but I would make the Paladin repent for the genocide he commited, even if it was the lesser of two evils and the only way for the Paladin to lower the vileness of what was happening.
I mean, yeah, it wasn't as bad as it could have been, and the Paladin was the cause of that. But it was still fuckin' awful. The Paladin should make reparations, if not to his oath and God, to himself.
It depends on the specifics of what you were playing. In 3.P and earlier, then you're technically right, but for the wrong reasons: the Paladin would be in the wrong not because he's Lawful Good, but because he's a Paladin. Threatening to do something evil that you know you're not going to do is not an evil act... but Paladins are held to a much higher standard than just "not evil", they must act with honor in all things, including interrogations, and threatening to rape a prisoner is not in any way honorable.
If you're playing in a later edition of D&D, though, Paladins aren't held to nearly as strict a code, and might not even have a specific code at all, in which case you would be flat-out wrong.
Threatening to do evil is not, in itself, evil. Especially if you're doing it for a good reason. If it's okay to kill someone to stop something bad from happening, then it's certainly okay to scare someone to stop something bad from happening.
Execution is by definition a sentence instituted on a person under law, so is Imprisonment.
If in this fictional society she had been found guilty of evilness and was sentenced to raping, potentially.
>mfw people think rape is 'magical realm'
You guys know that rape is a real thing, right?
I mean, in the context it's fucking retarded. A paladin wouldn't do that shit unless they were just acting under the guise of paladin. But rape is an actual thing. Just like murder. I'm sure plenty of that happens in your games and you probably don't bat an eyelash.
Fucking guantumblrmo bay needs to stop leaking into here.
The paladin didn't do anything evil.
He did something distasteful and perhaps he should have tried harder to find a better, nicer way of getting information, but he didn't do anything actually evil.
I would have let him threaten her, but the woman would have gotten a big bonus to saving throw, since he stated that he won't go through with it, and he is not someone (hopefully) who ever done something like this. She would have gotten an even bigger bonus, if she knows he is a paladin.
Of course if he goest through with it after she calls his bluff, then he falls, no question.
If he goes "yes, you are right, I won't" and walks away after she calls his bluff, then nothing happens to him form his god's perspective, but if others find out what he did, his reputation may still suffer.
But would you be psychologically scarred for life or just disappointed that it was just a threat? Even if she does rape you, all that would happen is your being sad you will never have this kind of a magical moment again, resulting in raiding every nunnery in the area in search of a greater dick challenges...aaaand now I have an idea for a backstory for my character. Thanks /tg/!
Rape occurs in my setting often enough, but it's something people are typically uncomfortable with witnessing (same with most other depictions of sex, consensual or otherwise). I'll imply it, have the party show up right before or right after it had happened, but I definitely don't like having them witness it or, God forbid, doing it.
Probably. It's still rape, after all, and if I don't want her to have sex with me under the conditions I want (one of which, because I'm such a huge fag, is me being in love with her), I imagine I wouldn't be too pleased with it mentally, even if physically I'm hard as hell.
But the aforementioned paladin's threat had no anal inclination. He was raping her in a traditional sense. And we know how totally wet she would be if accepting his large smitestick, just as you would welcome a moist vagoo on yours.
Well an innocent being murdered is pretty much never justified unless it's done in some saw type of fuckery where you're pretty much forced to. Killing a villain who surrenders can easily be justified depending on their actions.
>Looks like your definition of "strict" is incredibly lax.
Welcome to being a mortal in a mortal world, buddy. We can sit here and argue about a "perfect" moral compass, but that's not what I was talking about. And you know that.
>I hope that 'strictest possible moral compass' includes "just because others are evil does not permit me to be evil" with the consequences including dying because harming people is evil, so you can't even in self defense.
Again, striving to be as good as possible in a world that doesn't allow it. I didn't say that paladins were perfect. I didn't say that they don't fall. I said that they have a code to which they should cleave, a standard that, while it may be realistically unattainable, they should at least strive towards.
But I don't even know why I'm arguing with you. You're moving the goalposts so far they're practically in another galaxy.
> me being in love with her
>Having only sex, that stems from courtship, handholding and longing stares and not a quick shag with a girl you met in the bar.
And this is why people think were autists.
Because rape is the forcible entry of the penis in the vagina which frequently results in tearing and bleeding? He threatened to rape her, not tenderly romance her, perform oral sex, then gently fuck her till she came at least three times. He threatened to rape her as a physical punishment which implies violence and cruelty.
Sorry brah, I'm not really into the whole brewskis and bardiving brah. You know, hitting up the chicks, brah.
Obviously because the god would know the Paladin's intention and know they would never preform such an act (like the PC said their character wouldn't). Here, let me easily justify it. Maybe the villain in question is a supreme asshole, maybe they need what information the villain has as soon as possible in order to preform an act of good, maybe they don't think they can preform diplomacy competently and would rather intimidate psychologically rather than physically in order to coerce the information out of her. Boom, just made a situation that was perfectly applicable.
>You're moving the goalposts so far they're practically in another galaxy.
I'm not at all.
My argument is literally your moral standards are bullshit if you think killing acceptable, threatening people is acceptable, even torture is acceptable, but merely -threatening- to rape is suddenly evil somehow
>differing views on the importance of sex as it pertains to the individuals involved is a bad thing
Yes, this is why people think we're autists, but not for the reasons you're thinking
Furthermore, you can't even follow your own reasoning as you're mention strict moral standards than say breaking them is okay because "but human am flaw" and "iz too hard"
Destroying opposition isn't hard at all. There is nothing strict or upright about it at all, you little shit.
Strict is "Even though I may die, I refuse to compromise on moral standards" of which killing is either kosher or not. There's no "too hard, killing is fine now". It's either always wrong or it isn't.
> How is the threat of raping a defenseless villain not an evil act that a good God would want his avatar to stop doing?
"An evil act" and "an act that your god doesn't want you to do" are not always the same thing. Eating peas is not an evil act, but if you worship a deity that thinks peas are disgusting, you probably wouldn't eat peas. Not because eating peas is evil, but because eating peas is against the wishes of your deity.
In the same way, threatening to do something bad to someone is not evil (assuming you're doing it for a good reason and not just because you get off on scaring people), even if your god wouldn't want you to do it.
DMs like you are the reason I'm very hesitant to play anything with an alignment restriction, because you seem the type to tell me that the way my character blows his nose isn't lawful enough.
Not to say I'd play a Paladin who makes threats of rape (but I'd happily play say, a barbarian or sorcerer who would make such threats, make good on such threats, and not consider his behavior at all objectionable, which is truth in fiction as far as Nordic or Germanic inspired characters go) but I also wouldn't bother trying to play a Paladin of Torag (genocide of "evil" races is pragmatic, acceptable, and expected) or Abadar (bitches gotta pay their taxes, brigands must be put to the sword) in one of your games.
It's his character, let him make the choices he wants, and let him face the consequences.
Wait - gods are supposed to just know a paladin's intentions now, and be able to decide beforehand if what's going on is okay? That's fucking bullshit and you know it.
For one, gods in most settings aren't omniscient. They aren't watching everything, and they certainly can't see inside the heads of their worshipers. So a god wouldn't know what a paladin's intentions are - if he's seriously sounding and acting like there's going to be some rape going on, the god is going to assume that the paladin is going to try and rape the woman and make him fall or some shit.
And even if we say, "okay, a god can do that," think about how stupid that is. Now a god could go "Hold on, he can't do that seemingly generous act - I know it's only a cover for an evil action. Fall."
>Welcome to being a mortal in a mortal world, buddy. We can sit here and argue about a "perfect" moral compass, but that's not what I was talking about. And you know that.
Why not? Paladins live up to a night impossible standard, that's what defines them.
>they should at least strive
Striving isnt enough to be a paladin. That's what ordinary good people do; strive. Paladins actually do it. You can;t be a paladin because, gee whiz, I guess you tried real hard to uphold honour, fealty, civility, temperance, valour, and all the rest of it. If you fall short, you aren't a paladin. If a paladin falls short, he atones and does better - not tries to do better - does better. If he willingly does an evil act, regardless of what motivates him, he is no longer a paladin and is just a lobur like you and me.
They have a nigh-impossible standard and if you see a paladin, he's walking the walk and is the real deal. Awe is the response due. One in a million, in any D&D setting. The goalposts belong in another galaxy, man, because that's where paladins are from; places we dream of. That's why we roleplay them.
I disagree with everything you said. And you continue to ignore the fact that the person was defenseless.
Honestly if the paladin jumps straight to rape without even trying a more reasonable solution they have absolutely no business being a paladin.
I seriously still don't understand how you think a literal embodiment of everything good in all of existence would be fine with their chosen champion going around threatening people just because it's more convenient for them.
>My argument is literally your moral standards are bullshit if you think killing acceptable, threatening people is acceptable, even torture is acceptable,
>but merely -threatening- to rape is suddenly evil somehow
>Threatening is acceptable
>merely threatening rape is somehow evil
You're telling me a god wouldn't be able to ascertain the intentions of one of their followers? Like a god couldn't tell if a Paladin was just doing a particular act for material wealth rather than for the act of goodness alone?
They're not jumping straight to rape, they're intimidating a captive they need information with with the threat of rape with the intention of just trying to scare the person in order to get them to spill the beans. A paladin isn't required to treat a captive villain nice.
>One could argue that being so stubborn in your values that you would allow harm to come to others before breaking them is moral weakness.
No, because an individual can't be held accountable for the actions of others.
That leads to all sorts of bullshit that means being a paladin is impossible to begin with.
Threatening torture and threatening rape are considered entirely different things, as evidenced by this entire thread.
You literally never see a thread about a paladin falling for interrogating a villain when rape isn't involved.
Yeah and magical realm is included for the person who introduced its' enjoyment. You're the faggot who brought up magical realm to begin with you mouthbreathing mongoloid. The rest of us are just sperging out about whether threats are evil.
I'd say he's well within his paladin code of conduct to threaten an evil act as long as he has no intentions of carrying it out. It doesn't violate any tenant of his oath, it's simply getting a *convicted* villain to talk. You're telling me that he is well within his paladin moral code to imprison someone (possibly even execute someone) but not to interrogate with the use of fear? Threat without intention of carrying out that threat is CG through and through AT WORST. A single CG act is far from enough to cause a paladin to fall or suffer any ill consequences.
My philosophical opinion aside, don't take it the wrong way and hopefully learn from it, but you sound like you have the marks of a shitty GM. Putting your foot down because of some petty morality dispute in a fantasy roleplaying game and throwing out the biggest "I'm a shit GM, fuck you" maneuver in the book and turning the game into an OoC alignment debate and removing a player's agency is some deplorable shit for a GM to be doing. You may not agree or disagree with something but you *never* tell your player no.
Bullshit and you know it
>A god is unable to ascertain the intentions of it's paladin, even though a god would have to know the person in order to be willing to make them a paladin in the first place
>But they can also monitor all their servants 24/7 and as soon as they so much as mention rape will smite them with extreme prejudice because it can't know if the follower is actually of the moral character to do such a thing or not despite monitoring the servant 24/7
You're really reaching.
>Yes but eating peas is an arbitrary rule, physical intimidation and violent threats go against the alignment of the god.
You're not to bright.
The fact you posted this and didn't think it through is incredibly shocking.
While I agree with you, the layman average anon clearly doesn't because otherwise this thread wouldn't even exist.
No one ordinarily has a problem with paladins interrogating or threatening.
>A single CG act is far from enough to cause a paladin to fall or suffer any ill consequences.
People get stuck on evil and forget that chaotic acts are violations too.
The handbook has it that such things include 'a moment of panic', 'arrogance', and 'telling a white lie or couching the truth'.
Atonement must follow to assuage the paladin's guilt, and if he does not then that itself is considered evil in and of itself.
Paladining be hard, man.
Says who? A god may or may not have specific tenets about threats of violence or intimidation, but that doesn't mean threats are evil, or even that threatening someone can never be a good act.
Like I said elsewhere, if killing a villain to prevent something bad from happening is okay, then threatening a villain to prevent something bad from happening is definitely okay.
I believe they are required to show them the respect a harmless person is afforded. And, yes, it IS jumping straight to rape. The paladin could have said tried to appeal to their empathy, or try to bribe them, or anything other than just saying "I'm going to rape you if you don't tell me"
> I'd say he's well within his paladin code of conduct to threaten an evil act as long as he has no intentions of carrying it out.
Then you'd be flat-out, 100% wrong. Being honorable is most definitely a major part of the (pre-4e) Paladin's code, and threatening a prisoner - especially a threat that you know you're not going to go through with - is not an honorable act.
> It doesn't violate any tenant of his oath, it's simply getting a *convicted* villain to talk.
We've already covered the part where it actually does violate a tenet (tenants are the people that live in your building, tenets are closely-held beliefs or rules you follow) of his oath... so I'll just point out that nowhere in the triggering story, or any of the assumptions that followed, was anybody convicted of anything. Nobody's mentioned any trials or courts here.
Nice, didn't even notice that.
If your players are doing something that doesn't really fit the game that you're wanting to run (and the other players all agreed to play), you should tell them no. In this situation, telling him no for threatening to torture someone is a little bit too strict and unreasonable in my opinion, but rape might be a touchy subject for the DM. As evidenced by this thread, some people place special exceptions upon rape and view it as much worse than other people do.
Good is not nice, especially to those that would be considered a villain. A Paladin owes nothing to the guilty other than to make sure they are served justice and mercy if applicable.
So, OP... Lying isn't necessarily evil. She was never in any danger of rape. And the GM should never say 'no' when a player tries to take an action that they are capable of performing, arseplomancers notwithstanding.
That said, he should have been wracked with guilt that night, had horrible dreams about actually having committed the rape, and feel the disapproving eyes of his deity on him, waking with a fevered sweat. He should have then felt compelled to perform some act of penance (the powers that be just laid a Quest of atonement on his ass, for which he gets no XP). He should at the very least feel compelled to go to the nearest priest of his deity and confess his sins.
A paladin is a holy knight, after all. Murder, rape, torture... These are anathema to him.
The difference is that a paladin is expected to look for an alternative to commiting evil to prevent it. If they have a prisoner they shouldn't treat them like shit, if someone surrenders they should be reasonably neutralized and taken prisoner, if they catch a criminal they should be handed over to proper authorities for lawful justic to be dispensed to them. The player did none of those things.
You didn't phrase it as threatening torture, you put this
>>My argument is literally your moral standards are bullshit if you think killing acceptable, threatening people is acceptable, even torture is acceptable,
Threatening and torture are separate in that sentence, implying that they're seperate issues, not linked. And besides, how is threatening rape not equivalent to threatening torture?
Then you'd have to get into an argument on whether wanting money is necessarily greedy enough to be evil. A god should be watching for their actual actions and the consequences thereof, not the intentions behind them, because those can be ultimately flawed or misguided. A paladin might not even realize he's doing evil things, because he legitimately thinks that half-orcs are subhuman scum and there's no problems with burning entire villages of them because they're not real people.
You're trying to make the argument that, instead of observing a paladin and getting a sense of what kind of person they are through their deeds and the reactions of their peers, that all gods need to be mind-readers. In your mind, they're always going to be able to tell what their servants intend. Somehow. You're acting like being a paladin is a really personal relationship and not the distant one that's required between a god and an untold number of worshipers and followers.
And you're taking my example out of proportion and skewing what it means - what I was trying to say that if a God saw something walking like a duck, quacking like a duck, and behaving like a duck, they'd know it's a duck. If a paladin is saying evil things and talking about doing evil deeds, then obviously he's going to do something evil, and the God isn't going to be able to tell "nah, he's got a good reason behind this." Because if he could do that, a paladin would never fall, because there's always some way to justify any evil act.
Personally, I think Paladins should be disallowed threats and torture entirely.
I like the firm as fuck all good doing paladin, and I think there's a lot of character to be found in their personality outside their oaths and their individual struggles to keep them.
Boozing womanizing gambling paladins are okay in my book as long as they're never hurting someone physically or mentally.
That's not the point I'm arguing. I actually agree that the Paladin in the OP was in the wrong... but they weren't in the wrong because making threats is evil (it isn't), they were in the wrong because they were going against the Paladin's code of conduct.
My argument isn't that the Paladin was right, it's that the DM was technically right... but for the wrong reason.
What specific acts are inherently good and bad do vary based on setting, sure, but whatever is ultimately decided becomes inherently good/evil with no exception.
The thing here that I think needs to be understood is that paladins are allowed to bend the rules a little, sure, the paladin should absolutely be allowed to kill that one baron who is going to get off scott free because he has money and just go right back to raping babies or whatever, this is reasonable and I'd be perfectly fine with it. That doesn't mean their god won't tell them it wasn't cool.
Your first sentence is wrong, though your second sentence is correct. Paladins should treat everybody with respect... but that doesn't mean they have to be nice. Killing someone is not nice, even if you do so respectfully, but Paladins are still expected to occasionally kill people for the greater good.
I disagree. Now a Paladin should treat a random stranger with respect and civility but an outright villains is owed no such respect. Not only that, but such a thing is superficial at best. I'd rather have a paladin that's abrasive and rude but is selfless and heroic in their actions than the kindest soul out there that doesn't really do much beyond talk. It's certainly not something that's a major gripe against a paladin.
>If a paladin is saying evil things and talking about doing evil deeds, then obviously he's going to do something evil
Well it's a good thing the paladin in OP didn't actually do anything evil ( other than the forced stripping, but that's more of a violation of dignity than an evil act. )
> What specific acts are inherently good and bad do vary based on setting, sure, but whatever is ultimately decided becomes inherently good/evil with no exception.
This is technically true, but you're forgetting that you don't have to stop with top-level acts. You don't have to say "Threatening someone is evil.", you can say "Threatening someone in order to stop an evil act from occurring is good, but threatening someone because you think it's fun is evil."
From the handbook under courtesy:
>Speak tactfully and kindly. A paladin never knowingly insults or slanders another
person, even his greatest enemy. If others engage in insults or slander, the paladin walks
That's true, and I figure a god is going to wait until the evil act itself is committed before actually doing anything. Falling never happens for thinking about doing evil, after all.
>The thing here that I think needs to be understood is that paladins are allowed to bend the rules a little
If the rules can be bent, then they aren't Objective Standards of Good and Evil and gives way to rationalizing, leading to all sorts of bullshit.
>sure, the paladin should absolutely be allowed to kill that one baron who is going to get off scott free
>because he has money and just go right back to raping babies or whatever, this is reasonable and I'd be perfectly fine with it
So you're rationale is "for the greater good"?
Then that means threatening of rape ( or even actual rape as a means of torture and interrogation ) to prevent a greater evil is perfectly fine as well.
I'm honestly disgusted at some of the people in this thread. No problem with killing and violence, unless that violence happens to be of sexual nature. Then violence is bad.
>No problem with killing and violence, unless that violence happens to be of sexual nature. Then violence is bad
This is because there's a small (but undeniably real) sjw presence on /tg/.
Like I'm not fan of /pol/ by any means, but at least they're up front with their bullshit about jews/blacks etc instead of this underhanded sneaky crap in this thread
>In fact, DOING terrible things for the right reason isn't Evil, either.
>A baron is able to manipulate the law to escape justice
>A true Paladin would enforce the objective ideal of the law rather than the corrupted institution that let this obviously guilty man get off scott free
>Thus a Paladin is actually required to take action in order to see this person is served justice
You are completely ignoring the part of my post where the paladin gets shit from his god for not acting like a paladin.
My point is that paladins should act however they want, but when they break the rules they receive the consequences.
Paladin's don't do violence. That is the realm of the thug. A paladin does battle. Yea the virtue of Valor:
A paladin demonstrates unyielding courage in the face of adversity. No danger is too
great to prevent him from fulfilling a promise or completing a mission. His commitment
is stronger than his fear of pain, hardship, or even death.
A paladin's valor is particularly evident on the battlefield. He regards war as a noble
enterprise, and combat as an opportunity to glorify the institution he represents. A paladin attacks an enemy without hesitation, continuing to fight until the enemy withdraws or is
defeated. Whenever possible, a paladin chooses the most formidable enemy a powerful monster, a giant, a dragon, or the leader of an army as his primary opponent. In general,
a paladin prefers melee to missile combat, so he can engage his opponent face to face.
No, literally a shallow rationalization for a society that isn't able to or willing to avoid battle.
What would be valorous would being able to not have to fight at all. Anything less is just being a flawed mortal.
There is no honor in war. Afterlife doesn't exist. Fedoras are tipped.
This has got to be the most fucking retarded story I have ever read. The paladin decided to commit genocide to "save" those people from the PCs raping and torturing them rather than stop the PCs from raping and torturing.
0/10 instant fall no re
Someone didn't read the end of the story.
Honestly, it doesn't not make sense. After all, the Paladin knows that the others outnumber him, and all he'll accomplish by taking them on is getting himself killed and even worse atrocities occurring to the townspeople. In this situation, the best course of action is to give all of them a quick death.
I mean, you're right. The Paladin falls. Definitely. But his God should recognize that he's making the best of a fucked up situation and granting those a guaranteed, horrible death over a period of several weeks a relatively quick and painless one. I would give the Paladin a redemption quest, a 1-on-1 session or sessions between the main game where he has no powers and must, say, ascend a great mountain and fight the physical manifestations of his temptations, possibly even taunting him that he enjoyed the slaughter (basically just rip off FF4).
There are always alternatives to threats. As a paladin it's your duty to find the peaceful alternatives. If you're a lawful good fighter or whatever go ahead, but a paladin doesn't do that shit.
This assumes that the paladin has to fight them alone or even all at the same time. There are ways to single them out for fair fights. And besides, death standing for what you believe in is pretty much the ideal end for a paladin anyway.
This is all besides the point though because it was all an illusion anyway.
The paladin told his illusionist "kill them all, no prisoners."
The illusionist did so using his craft.
No-one was actually killed in the city.
HE WAS ONLY PRETENDING TO BE RETARDED.
Of course it's not evil. It's antihero edgelord, but it's not evil. Paladin is well within his right.
But let's be honest. Alignment as a concept is immeasurably shit. And actions should guide character, not the other way around.
If you threaten to rape someone simply to get information that could save lives, is it really evil? I mean if he doesn't threaten to rape this woman, how many people could die because of him? Isn't being a good person, a hero, the willingness to sacrifice everything, even your morals, for the greater good?
There's a few trains of thought about that.
One is that any consequence that requires evil to enact will be tainted by evil, as evil in general begets evil and by doing evil shit you're going to fuck up more in the future.
Another is that the ends justify the means.
I can think of a few ways one might threaten rape for the wellbeing of a person, but they're all very, very convoluted.
"Oh no, this woman has been drugged and getting sleepier and sleepier, and her heart will stop and she'll die if she doesn't have adrenaline in her bloodstream for the next three hours! Quick, think of threatening things to keep her awake!"
>threaten with physical pain
>threaten with rape
the act is not evil in itself, but it's indicative of a moral slide that paladins should watch for. if a fighter or something did it, it would be a dick move, yes, but not evil, but as a paladin, he should face some blowback from his Higher Power, whatever that is.
But you could use the threat of rape to interrogate someone, and interrogation can lead to getting good information, so though it's pretty convoluted, it's wider than your example.
I do however agree with the idea that there are many trains of thought, which is why a morality system is so flawed. The whole system is based off of complete idealists's ideas who were only going by LOTR type stories, where entire races were considered evil.
>For a threat to work, you need to be able to get your target to believe it
Fixed that for you.
"I know where your family live." is perfectly valid threat, if the guy doesn't know you're a paladin and wouldn't stoop to killing innocents.
"Lot of loyalty for a hired spy."
"Or perhaps he's wondering why someone would pay respect to a man, before throwing him out of life?"
"Doing them dishonour would be very painful..."
"You're a big hero..."
"Was getting spat on part of your plan?"
"Of course... Dr. chaotic neutral refused my offer in favor of yours, we had to find out what he wants to do."
"Well, congratulations! You got yourself spat on! Now what's the next step in your master plan?"
"Crashing this war - with no survivors!"
>This entire thread
OP, I praise you for your baiting skills.
These are good.
From my point of view Good is aspirational and by that I mean it's something you work to be and stay.
For all the Mass Effect Paragon and Renegade do right you can't full your Good and Evil meters and claim to be both, you're evil (or neutral) even if you do more good acts.
>you could use the threat of rape to interrogate someone, and interrogation can lead to getting good information, so though it's pretty convoluted, it's wider than your example
By that logic you can actually rape people if it's to save lives.
The logic is "you can do bad things if good things happen because of it."
It's problematic because often you're the one deciding what's good, and what's bad. "It's ok to rape the orcs women and cut out their wombs, because then there'll be less orc males around in five years time so human lives are saved. Why rape? Because it will increase morale to the men, so they can kill the orcs better, which saves human lives." To put it in an extreme example.
Depending on the campaign you are running, a paladin would have to follow a code, telling the truth is part of this code. So lying about raping someone is not cool,aaaaaaand kinda evil I'd strip him of his pally powers until he repents.
The alignment system also makes it hard to play as any sort of evil that has real long term pragmatism.
"Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right."
Laudable by whom? I would respect someone who was willing to be hated if it meant doing more good in the end.
It is problamatic, I'm not saying it is the right choice, but the other end is also problematic, take for instance Batman, how many people have died because he won't kill a few people?
>"Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right."
It's just a pithy line reflecting the thought that rigid rules of what is right and wrong do not necessarily represent what is actually right and wrong.
...Although that raises the point that there are in fact two meanings of the word morals, which probably means I mistook one for the other.
>laudable by whom?
Literally anyone. Including yourself. See? There's no objective hero.
>take for instance Batman, how many people have died because he won't kill a few people?
By that logic if Superman were to with super predictive powers kill anyone who would accidentally cause the death of more than two people it would be perfectly right and just because he's saving more lives than he's ending.
Sure, at a certain point that is where that logic would go, just at the same end of the extreame is not shooting someone if you know they'll kill thousands. That's why a simple good/evil system doesn't come close to getting near the nuance of ethics and morality
The reverse is true, too. Reality is too complex to calculate ethically on a day to day basis when no-one has complete omnipotent knowledge.
Being too flexible has its downsides as well.
> There are always alternatives to threats
So? That doesn't mean that threatening someone is evil. I never said that there weren't any alternatives to threats, I just said that making a threat is not, in itself, evil.
> If you're a lawful good fighter or whatever go ahead, but a paladin doesn't do that shit.
This has nothing to do with the comment I was replying to. This is, in fact, the argument I've been putting forth this entire time. My entire argument has been that the Paladin in the OP is wrong not because threatening someone is evil (again, it's not), but only because they're a Paladin and Paladins have a strict code.
>Your morals determine what the greater good is, you retard.
In the real world, maybe. But D&D is based on a world where Good and Evil are concrete, objective concepts, actual tangible forces in the world, so your character's personal view has nothing to do with it.