From: maillet@tls-cs.cert.fr (Luc Maillet)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bastard DM from Hell &a matter of Honour
Date: 16 Dec 92 11:39:44 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: CERT, CS Dpt. Toulouse, France

In article <1992Dec16.194712.1@economics.adelaide.edu.au>, ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au writes:
|> In article <1gm3qoINN2f2@huon.itd.adelaide.edu.au>, phil@iagu.itd.adelaide.edu.au (Phil Kernick) writes:
|> 
|> Everyone knows what honour is.  You may choose not to follow it but you still
|> know what it is.

  Not at all. Different societies have different opinions on what honour is.
That's why oriental society is at times so difficult to understand... Honour
is not absolute. Rather, it is a local convenience.

|>   
|> > so applying foreign concepts
|> > to them is unreasonable.
|> 
|> Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

  What law ? cross the border - the law changes, the rules change, the sense of
honour changes. 

|> Honour is exactly that - wave big knives at each other...

  Not always. It all depends on the setting. Elves certainly have another opi-
-nion on that, without speaking of some aliens like those in "Ender's Games"...

|> > Trial by combat may well have existed in the medieval times, but in
|> > AD&D terms it could not be considered a good act.  It does lead
|> > directly to the "might is right" syndrome.  Consider, the young
|> > upstart noble decides to challenge the wise old sage on a point of
|> > history.  The noble will win (assuming the sage has no special powers)
|> > and hence the noble is correct?  I don't think so.  In a situation
|> > where a duel is offered and accepted then I feel that this is the only
|> > time that trial by combat is fair.

  Trial by combat can be a good act even in AD&D - given an appropriate justice.
I suggest you have a look at the "League of the Minotaurs" sourcebook for Dragon-
-lance, which has just such a justice, and which works surprisingly well.
|> > 
|> > Think lawful good.

  The concept of Law and Good depends so much on local/religious morals that it
is basically useless. These concepts are born of Christian faith and have not
much to do in a polytheist setting. This is mainly why the whole alignment con-
-cept is IMHO utterly flawed. Besides, it can be left out without any trouble.
|> 
|> Orcs are regarded as CE because they are predominantly CE.  As such all
|> reactions to them are based on this sort of thought.  Nor do I assume it is
|> liing, I have said I believe it to be representative of a subhuman race of
|> evilness and as such it should be destroyed.  By your own words the vast
|> majority of orcs we meet will be CE because others will be "confined or killed
|> for their heretical behaviour".  In any DnD  setting Orcs are reviled for their 
|> squalid evil natures, my reactions to them are based on that.

  This is the "knight's vision" of things... but you could also believe that
every one should be judged according to his/her deeds and not to the racial or
social prejudice. And you would still be a paladin...
|> 
|> I don't think so!  If he is truly penitent I expect him to provide information
|> to help the party remove this temptation from the path of others.  He may not
|> want to help eradicate it directly but if he has truly seen the error of his
|> ways he will certainly provide the info the party requested.

  Not necessarily : repenting his old ways does not mean he's ready to sell his
ex-comrades. I'd certainly be more suspicious of someone who claims he has seen
the errors of his ways, then eagerly give info, than of someone who refuses to
give info because it would be a breach of faith and personal honour...
|> > 
|> >> If a paladin cannot force information from captured opponents
|> >> then how are they to function as a class?

  By doing something else more suited to their caste ?
|> > 
|> > It is not their function to extract information from people.  That
|> > would be the job of the Inquisitors. 
|> 
|> It is the function of all PC's to extract info during a campaign.

  Definetly not IMHO. You can CHOOSE to obtain info, but ethics often prevent you
from EXTRACTING it. Let's face it, paladins are ill-suited to info gathering if
they have to force people to give it away. BUT, when people don't have negative
opinion on the party, his high charisma can be of great help. What you seem to
forget is that charisma is what governs all social interactions, caste relations
excluded ( and, as a paladin, you're well-placed in that ). Your GM probably
doesn't use it as intensively as it should be...


|> In all but the extreme circumstance of a cowardly thief attack I would agree. 
|> When my opponent fights with no honour then all bets are off, it's open season
|> on him.

  I think that the moral ethics of a paladin include mercy. So, you could reta-
-liate, but you should accept surrender - and prevent him for doing more harm
without killing him, since he has given up his freedom for his life.
  Yes, paladins eften find conflicts between what they can do and what they must
do. It's part of the challenge, and it's why paladins are so rare. They are NOT
knights, they are far more. The most important thing for a paladin is to follow
both the letter and the spirit of his ethics. Torture, merciless killing, and
such things are not part of it.

  All of the above is just MO, the way I see paladins.

								Redwing

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd