From: ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Bastard DM from Hell &a matter of Honour
Date: 15 Dec 92 18:41:31 ACST
Organization: Economics, University of Adelaide
NNTP-Posting-Host: eco.economics.adelaide.edu.au

A few questions regarding honour and the inevitable Paladin 

What part does honour play in the world of ADND?  Is it a code which affects
only those who subscribe to it (certain knights of the church, honourable
warriors etc.)  or does it apply to the whole world?  Is it similar to the
honour system of medieval Europe? Feudal Japan? or what.

Is trial by combat a recognised form of settling disputes?  Or does this lead
to a "my stick is bigger than your stick, might is right" syndrome (as it 
usually did in medieval times) which is unjustifiable in ADnD?

Anyway back to our Paladin.  We were in a situation where the party were
ambushed in a hotel by the local thieves guild.  They fought with no honour by
employing backstabbing, sneaking and being generally thieflike (I have no
problems with this).  We eventually won and captured one of our opponents, and
needed information from him in a hurry.  We tried every way to coax it out of
him but he refused (to my mind he was too damn arrogant after we had wipd out
his whole party but anyway...) to come to the party.  So we had a problem.  My
paladin couldn't walk out of the room with a casual "you aren't really going to
torture him are  you"  line, yet we needed the info in a hurry to catch the
perpetrators before they could get accurate reports back from the encounter. 
In a situation like this I felt that having exhausted every other avenue of
interrogation we should start threatening him with all manner of diabolical
things.  However my DM ruled that my paladinly training prevented me  from
applying the rack (even though our opponent was below honour) and I couldn't
challenge him to a duel to decide the issue.  In a situation like this where
does a paladin go?  If they are to be effective they will need information yet
if an opponent refuses to give it they are effectively hamstrung.  So where do
they go?

Secondly, who deserves to be treated with honour.  In a medieval society only
those who deserved honour were treated with honour.  So a knight was treated
differently to a peasant etc.  Animals did not qualify either so they were
trated as we treat cattle.  Which brings me back to the paladin - does he treat
a contemptible thief with disdain and refuse to apply the code to him (after
all if he backstabs rather than fights like a man how honourable can he be?)
and thus break him as a lowly curr deserves to be broken, or does he allow the
thief to simply say "I'm sorry" and let him go?  With our captive he said the
church was corrupt and my DM ruled that I am wise enough to accept that
corruption exists, yet when the thief refused to give me information and said
"I truly repent of my evil ways" I had to accept his word.  Hardly seems wise
to me.  Personally I would have applied red hot irons but that was ruled as
going beyond the pale.  Note that this applies only in this situation, had he
been a standup noble sort of opponent I would not even contemplate harming him
once he had surrendered, but I felt that he had shown himself to be beneath
contempt and deserving of whatever we did to him.  What other options do I have,
if any? Again I must emphasise that I see this as acceptable only in this
unusual situation.  Against an opponent who fought with honour I would accept
his word without a moments hesitation.  In medieval chivalry I would be
entitled to his belongings, but would spare his life as a valiant opponent,
whats the story in ADnD?

And what about creatures such as orcs etc?  Do I treat them as humans or equal
or as animals who are generally evil and below contempt?  This has no
historical counterpart so I am unsure.  Personally I would slay them as
representations of evil and darkness, but you may disagree.

Finally, with our captured thief it has been ruled that I must accept it if he
says he repents.  However I cannot demand that he give me any information about
his supposed former masters as that would make him even more contemtible as a 
turncoat!!  It seems to me that the Bastard DM from Hell is going all out to
make it impossible for us to get information quickly - and as everyone knows
speed is of the essence when small groups are involved.  His argument is that
there must be some significant drawback to playing a paladin, my counter
argument is that allocating my best stat to Charisma and the huge exp
requirements are penalty enough, provided the paladin explores every option
before resorting to torture etc.  Note again that torture would be a last
option against dishonourable opponents, as an honourable opponent would have his
word accepted.  If a paladin cannot force information from captured opponents
then how are they to function as a class?  If they go on a quest for the
church, or for their steed etc. and they meet ONE lousy opponent who says "I'm
not telling you jack sh*t" then they are stuffed!  There must be some way for
them to get the info they need but what is it?

Thoughts would be appreciated

regs

Rob

P.S. To those who answered me before that Sparhawk and co. were paladins, I
would tend to disagree.  Ideas on this would also be appreciated.







--

Rob Bruce  | The Pope will be around for a while so I can interview him later
           | but the chances of Murphy ever having sex again made this a more
           | important event......
           | Katie Couric, Murphy Brown
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd