From: scythe@stein.u.washington.edu (The Grim Reaper)
Subject: Re: Bastard DM from Hell &a matter of Honour
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 00:13:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.184131.1@economics.adelaide.edu.au> ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au writes:
>A few questions regarding honour and the inevitable Paladin 
>
Sure.  I like to argue about honor.

>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.
>
Guess what.  It *depends*.  It all depends on your campaign, and
above all what the DM sez.  In my campaign, only certain groups
have honor systems, and they abide by them religiously.  But individuals
may have a code of honor if they choose, and often do.

>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?
Depends.  For swashbucklers and knights, yes.  For some others, no.

>
>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?

It depends (again).  Remember the Paladin is Lawful *Good*.  Good people
do not torture (usually) or threaten.  But if it's absolutely vital,
would support the cause of good and law, I'd let him go ahead.  In this
situation, maybe.  Are you sure there's no other way to get the info?

>
>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?

It all depends on your paladin's order.  Rememeber, paladin's aren't stupid.
Despite what Saramud says, they don't have to be mindless oafs.
They can disbelieve what a crude thief says (and probably would).  If
your teachings show that those without honor are nothing, then kill him.
But snce he's good, I'd keep him around.  Tied woth no items, but alive.


>
>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.
I'd agree.

>
>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.
>
It sounds to be like you and your DM are in complete disagreement over
paladins (wow, such an observation).  If I were you, I'd ask him to clarify
this stuff, and the other details of your order, before your next
adventure.  In any case, remember that paladins are *not* stupid, are
very charismatic, and are both lawful, and good.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
When he goes swimming does he get wet, | The Grim Reaper
Or does the water get him instead?     | scythe@u.washington.edu
-They Might Be Giants, "Particle Man"  |
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Villager: She turned me into a newt!   |Lister, If two people came to you 
Bedevere: A newt?                      |for a job, and one of them was dead,
Villager: I got better.....            |who would you choose? -Rimmer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------