From: dseal@armltd.co.uk (David Seal)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bastard DM from Hell &a matter of Honour
Date: 17 Dec 92 16:46:11 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: A.R.M. Ltd, Swaffham Bulbeck, Cambs, UK

In article <1992Dec15.184131.1@economics.adelaide.edu.au>
ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au writes:

>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.

Sorry, there's no such thing as the "world of ADND". There's no general
answer to these questions: it depends on how the DM has defined *his* world.

>...
>
>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?

Life is hard, isn't it? But that's how life *is*: if you choose to play a
character with a strict code, the DM is quite entitled to insist you stick
to it. What you need to do is thrash out with your DM just what this code
says - and it will probably be better to do so in private than in a public
forum like this group: it makes it easier for either of you to withdraw a
statement which has been shown to be untenable...

A straight answer to your question: if I were DMing a paladin, I would be
very unlikely to allow him to use torture. It's conceivable that I would
design a religious order whose paladins were allowed torture in some
circumstances: such orders would certainly have other restrictions placed on
them. But if I hadn't mentioned it specifically in my design notes, the
standard answer would be "No way", for the simple reason that torture is
completely incompatible with my standard idea of Lawful Good. And I would
*not* be swayed from that opinion by appeals to other DMs' opinions, since I
would be running my world, not theirs.

To get back to something directly useful to you, here are some suggestions
for dealing with this sort of situation:

(1) Ask the DM what stories you have heard during your training about such
    situations. Most religious orders have many salutary tales which
    everyone in the order has heard. This is a much better way of getting an
    idea what the world's culture is like than airing your grievances in
    public.

    Basically, this gives the DM a in-game way to hint the sort of direction
    he will allow you to go. Don't expect a full answer: the standard story
    will probably only say something like "Using the powers of his god, Sir
    Ahmed got the truth out of his prisoner". (I.e. hint: you need to use
    clerical magic of some sort.)

(2) One particular discrepancy I noticed in the above: you said you should
    start *threatening* him with torture, and the DM said you weren't
    allowed to *apply* the rack. Was your technique of threatening him to
    attach him to a rack? If so, try being more subtle about it: e.g.
    allowing the prisoner to overhear a talk between you and another party
    member about the fate of the last prisoner who was this defiant. I'd
    certainly be more lenient about this than about actual torture - largely
    because it's a common trick in the literature - though I should say that
    some DMs would object to the "mental torture" or the "dishonesty"
    involved.

(3) Has the prisoner committed a capital crime? If so, make certain you get
    some fingernail clippings, etc., from him. "Speak With Dead" can be a
    very useful spell, at least under the most common rulings about it I've
    seen. To summarise these: the dead person contacted must answer the
    questions; they must tell the truth; they must answer the *literal*
    meaning of the question fully; otherwise, they are allowed to be as full
    or as brief as they want to be in their answers. So if asked "Did you
    attack the castle?", an uncooperative subject might just say "Yes",
    while a cooperative one might go into full details of who was involved,
    etc. This can produce a good battle of wits between the questioner and
    the dead person - a bit like formulating a good wish, but with less
    hanging on it!

    Warning: your DM is of course free to impose completely different
    rulings about this spell.

David Seal
dseal@armltd.co.uk

All opinions are mine only...
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd