Why is it so often considered acceptable to loot the bodies of evildoers in fantasy settings? Shouldn't your paladin carry that +2 broadsword back to town and hand it to Count von Evilwald's next of kin?
 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
Why is it so often considered acceptable to loot the bodies of evildoers in fantasy settings?
Because it's considered acceptable to play as murderhobos for some reason.
>Killing villains is bring a murder hobo now
What kind of game do you even want to run
No, but looting and disrespecting their bodies isn't how a Paladin should act.
Obviously desecration is unbecoming. Bu refusing to take the opportunity to improve your future ventures and waste time hunting down next of kin is frankly just performative goodness, not actual goodness. The paladin is the sword of God, there are other people to handle beaurocracy.
Do you know how long that bandit's children could eat if they sold their father's sword? He was literally only a highwayman to feed his kids and wife and you killed him and took all his stuff. The least you can do is try to make it so innocents (his children) don't die.
>He was literally only a highwayman to feed his kids and wife
A sob story told a thousand times, and rarely, if ever, true. The fact that being a highwayman could even be considered a visble profession is exactly the problem a paladin is meant to solve. And as far as the children go, the lesson of their father's demise is much more valuble than silver from selling a sword.
>This road is travelled by traders going to the mountains to exchange necessities for furs
>They're well-stocked, and their purses are well-filled, both ways
>Only thing stopping you & your buds from robbing one is like 1d4 loser guards with a cudgel and maybe like 1-2 dudes who actually know how to use a sword
>This isn't a viable profession
go ahead, do us all a favor, and an hero, you absolute fricking imbecile
That is the point of the paladin. Your calculation is ostensibly a safe bet. You could get away with it. Or maybe you are cleaved from stem to stern by a paladin who heard of your missdventures. Do you want to roll that dice? Maybe so, but not everyone would. Some deterence is better than none.
I don't disagree with you about the point of the paladin; however, to suggest that a church or kingdom could field enough of them to make it a non-viable option is fricking absurd lmfao
It's worth pursuing the goal even knowing we'll probably come up short
>however, to suggest that a church or kingdom could field enough of them to make it a non-viable option is fricking absurd lmfao
delusional
paladins work for free
they're equipped either from being nobles and having hoard of money or by their church, which gets money from tithes
there's also a metric frickton of paladins, just like there were thousands of gendarmes in late medieval France - it wouldn't have been "le unrealistic" for a ruler to ask the church for help in making the roads safe, which in turn lets him collect more taxes (and you can bet the saved merchant will give substantial alms to the church)
>it wouldn't have been "le unrealistic" for a ruler to ask the church for help in making the roads safe
Really depends on the relationship between temporal and spiritual powers and the respective personalities of whoever's in charge of said powers.
I wouldn't ask Julius II "The Warrior Pope" for anything that'd require him needing to raise any armed forces. It's just asking for him to get the bright idea of "keeping the roads safe" by invading someone who just so happens to be raising a stink about Papal influence in their courts.
>Banditry is moral because the guards can't stop us doing it
And this is why it's fine to kill and loot bandits. Just playing by their rules.
>might makes right!
>but don't loot the dead!
moronic Black person logic
>viable profession
It isn't. Because if any good-aligned party comes by, you are dead.
Not even good aligned. The moment somebody else comes along who wants his stolen shit comes along and doesn't care about hurting people to get it, he's dead. Being a bandit only ever ends with the bandit dead, either by a noose or by a knife in his guts, usually from one of his "friends".
>Waaaah you're so bad, that murderous bandit had a family!
I know. They're next.
Ok, so you're not a Paladin.
That's funny, says I'm one right on my character sheet.
Ok, you've fallen. Lose all of your class abilities and spell slots.
Nope. Haven't violated my code. Evil begets evil.
I'm the GM, you have. Otherwise you can stop playing and we will just say your god smote you for violating your code.
Guess we'll find a GM who isn't a limp dick neolib.
I'm sure it will be easy for you, you can play with the other trannies on discord and the bluehairs who love you so much.
>b-b-but I'm the GM! I'm in charge!
About that. Me and the guys have been talking, and while we agree it's super nice you volunteered to run the game for us, we think it's started going to your head. I didn't want to bring it up during the game, but you're being a real vindictive butthole about me just wanting to play my character.
We've already started another game, and I think that one will take priority from now on. We'll give you a few weeks to settle down, and then maybe you can join us. If you apologize.
>write an essay about how you are wrong
All of you are zero-motivation losers and have only ever played games because I offered to GM. good luck LOL!
They literally said "We already started another game, that would take priority"
How about you read, this is why your group left you.
Did you know that people lie when they think it can be to their advantage or believe they can hurt someone with a lie?
Hey man, you can think whatever you want if it makes you feel better, but that's some next-level denial. After we get done playing RIFTS we'll help you find a therapist. Okay?
You are the GM of nothing relating to anon, you are a homosexual posting in a thread on a cantonese snake noodling emporium.
>"No!"
how impotent.
And murdering a man's family because he was a bandit is evil. You fall for willfully committing an evil act.
Nope, they're evil. So it's a good act. I should be getting XP for it.
Why are they evil? Because their husband and father was? Then by that logic, slit your wrists in a bath, because I guarantee that if you go far back enough in your family tree you'll find a thief, a murder, or a rapist somewhere. Maybe all three.
If your response to all wrongdoing at all times is to thoughtlessly kill it, you are not just. Justice is due punishment tailored to appropriately punish the crime. If a man steals, force him to work for the man he stole from, that his debt be repaid. If a man kills, let him be killed in turn. In addition, context is important. Why did a man steal? Because he didn't want to work, or because there either was no work or what work there was paid so poorly that he couldn't afford to eat? Why did this man kill? Was it because of jealousy over a woman, or had he been protecting himself?
So you want to keep evil alive.
That is not what I said and you know it, but playing along, yes, if there is reason to believe that the evil in question can be redeemed. A bandit can be offered a real, respectable profession. Maybe he can become a guard for a wealthy merchant, that'd be ironic. Always better to save than to kill, though the latter might be unavoidable.
>if there is reason to believe that the evil in question can be redeemed
If evil wants to repent, then it can repent by throwing itself at my sword.
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
That's me. I'm without sin, I'll happily take an alignment test to prove it.
See? Lawful Good.
>declaring yourself to be morally righteous on the grounds that an easily manipulated test said so
Pride.
It's an objective test, not a subjective one. How I feel about it doesn't enter into it at all, sorry.
That's not what manipulated means in that context.
He said evil not "wrongdoing" evil is a conscious effort to do wrong and to harm others. To slay evil is to cut it away be it literally by sword or via the court. This is why we lock criminals in jail, this is why we kill devils and demons and this is why we stay clear of people who have bad reputations.
There are two things to take into account
One is the mortal limits of what can be done.
For example in a pitched battle unless you overpower you foes so greatly that they can do no harm to you, if they are attacking with harmful intent you have a right to defend yourself. Sometimes people will die when your fighting with dangerous weapons and this needs to be accepted. On this same note you must take into account the limits of what can be done in the setting. If a bandit surrenders after a fight you must then weight what to do with him, you could take him to a town to face justice but if your to far away or have a time limit on where your going. In that case your choices boil down to releasing him or killing him. If killed the issue is done but if released you are implicitly accepting that he may be allowed to harm other again. This also ties into looting if you and your party are fighting evil then using what resources are at your disposal including those from a fallen foe. If their are laws deciding where the slain opponent's belongings go then that's one thing but in the middle of a forest with no civilization for miles then taking a bandits sword is acceptable in carrying out your necessary tasks.
The other is that in the context of DnD things exist that are just evil. These things will by their nature attack and harm others and may even be aware while doing it. In facing these types of monsters it is perfectly acceptable to end them as their continued existence risks innocents coming to harm regardless of if the can for instance reason.
>DnD
pick a better game homosexual
where the frick did i say anything about morality
>protecting himself
Killing evil is not a crime.
>Nope, they're evil
>Let's check the rules
>Hmm, says here the DM decides npc alignment
>Get fricked, you're fallen or you leave the table.
Why are good aligned people robbing merchants that aren't evil and just trying to go through the woods?
The bandits would have to be evil due to them holding up businesses which means that innocents don't get to eat or be paid.
Actually the merchants are evil because they are capitalists.
Of course you think that Mister 60 million
We're talking about the bandits children, who have committed no crimes themselves. Killing them would be evil if the DM asserts that these children are good aligned innocent NPCs.
You're the type to argue that goblin children and orc children are innocent, when as a matter of fact they're not.
That is dependent on setting. If orcs and goblins are, proven empirically to be evil from the moment they're born, they're not properly sapient beings, more like a vaguely humanoid plague of locusts, and should be dealt with as such. If not, then yes it is morally indefensible to murder children.
Goblins are evil by default, and there are no rules to change their alignments naturally, so even if a goblin only did good acts in their life, they would still be evil.
You are by far the most willfully moronic anon I have seen. If the goblin does good and only good acts in their entire life, then they are good aligned by default, not evil! Also, just because there are no rules to change alignment doesn't mean repentance doesn't exist, nor does it mean the Neutral Good can set fires to orphanages and schools without lowering their Alignment.
The idea that a Chaotic Good anyone would perpetuate slavery on any level is the most loony toons shit I have ever read.
You remind me of the starwarsgays who seethe that their super special grey jedi who can use both the light and the dark side in balance while being good can't actually exist since the in universe logic has a full light side force be balance and the dark side is just corruption on a perfect system.
Evil is evil and in DnD some things are just inherently evil and so good has carte blanche to destroy everything under that domain and vice versa. A goblin in DnD has an inherent nature and no amount of raising it to be good can overcome that inherent evil destructive nature.
Ergo killing them all is a greater win for the side of good and all that promotes growth and peace.
There are examples of non-evil beholders in this game. Fricking Beholders! If Beholders can achieve at the very minimum a neutral alignment, Goblins can too. And they do, entirely dependant on setting. If you have goblins as what amounts to a force of nature, that's fine. I personally use Gnolls for that purpose. But don't act like it's universally applicable. Especially since there has never been a rule, even in AD&D that required goblin player characters to be evil. Why would that be different for NPC goblins?
No, I will not base my ttrpg expectations on a manga.
>There are examples of non-evil beholders in this game.
If your talking about Large Luigi he only reached that point due to achieving enlightenment and he only got that far due to being able to traverse many spheres of realty to find those spires.
Unless your setting has an easily accessible source of alignment shift magic or enlightenment leaving a group of children from an evil aligned (it doesn't have to be goblins but if its a creature that is inherently evil this matters) species to grow up on the snowballs chance in hell that they change it just letting more harm come into he world at a later date.
Wasn't even thinking about Large Luigi, he's such a weird one-off case (and also good aligned) that I wasn't going to include him, but you mentioned him yourself. The Beholder building rules in Volo's Guide to Monsters is a recent example of even a typical beholder being true neutral (but perhaps being even more of a paranoid mess than others of his kind) but not evil. Monsters that are not even born, but dreamed into existence from nightmares.
You're the one suggesting that a goblin that does nothing but good acts still needs alignment shift magic to have the "good boy" stamp labeled onto him. That's ridiculous and you know it. There is no fiction that makes sense in where a goblin that does nothing but good acts is evil, or is born with an evil alignment.
We can also look to the Complete Book of Elves for 2ed, which specifically states that non-evil drow get to go to Elf heaven when they die, because it doesn't discriminate against race. The multiverse disagrees with you on the idea that they are always evil. And if you want a canonical example, I hate that I'm citing Drizzit too but he had no need of alignment shifting magic to be chaotic good, did he? He was simply chaotic good from birth.
But you would know this if you played games.
Why are you defending evil against the sword of justice?
>indiscriminate murder, particularly of children, is justice
Ok lets remove the goblin part entirely what if there is an intelligent race that was created by evil gods to pillage, rape, and murder and these tenants were baked into their their very physiology they physically can't help themselves. Then can speak, and have culture however brutal and bloody it is. Frick they can even have a fricked up form of love.
But despite all that on a fundamental level they are driven to commit these acts and like doing so.
Would in that case it be acceptable to attempt to wipe them out because that's the type of thing we are talking about goblins are just a shorthand for intelligent creatures that by their very nature will harm everything around them.
I would say that unless you had a way to change their fundamental nature killing the babies you be morally correct to do.
>unless you had a way to change their fundamental nature
Even if you had a way, it's not like you'd be morally obliged to do so instead of genociding them.
It would just be the neutral (maybe chaotic too) good thing to do.
An intelligent race like that would be called "demons". If you want a D&D example, the only case of any non-demonic intelligent race being so thoroughly programmed like this I can recall at the moment would be gnolls who are actively being fed thoughts of hunger from a demon god so profound, that there was an account of a human trying to mind-read a gnoll (That he removes all the limbs of to make it safe to experiment on) that was then mind-controlled by the hunger demon god through the gnolls own mind, killed the gnoll to eat him and became a cultist.
Obviously, those don't have free will. They're a human-sized locust. They're literally incapable of thought because their personalities have been wiped out completely. There is no redemption outside of breaking that connection between the gnoll and their god, and even then you are dealing with a being who did these horrible things and then is given free will, there is no telling if they'll use it to be good or not. And I use these gnolls without much modification in my own campaigns sometimes, because I find them quite horrifying in all of the right ways.
But if you have orcs, goblins, ogres, gnolls, etc. All following this same formula of being controlled by different gods of their own, that is incredibly uncreative and I'd call you a hack.
>A goblin in DnD has an inherent nature and no amount of raising it to be good can overcome that inherent evil destructive nature.
ITT: anons try and discover what the "usually" in "usually Chaotic Evil" means
Those are called "evil outsiders," and killing them has always been okay.
>If the goblin does good and only good acts in their entire life, then they are good aligned by default, not evil!
You have two options.
Read Goblin Slayer and get educated.
Or spare future generations your moronation and self-castrate yourself.
Goblin Slayer is garbage schlock that attracts the worst kind of fans. It's normally stupid to judge something for the quality of it's fans, but thankfully Goblin Slayer is intrinsically mediocre.
t. goblin.
>goblin slayer bad
You're garbage. No, worse than garbage, you're a scumbag of the highest grade. You're the cancer killing this board.
I swear to God that piece of shit rag is the worst thing to happen to this place since DEUS VULT menes went mainstream
menes?
>Shit eating Goblin Slayer gay calling anyone else cancer
Go get better taste in manga, you're embarassing.
kek, show yours so, goblin. The only good fantasy manga nowadays is Dungeon meshi and Goblin slayer
I'm Reading Kingdom right and it's very good, you should try reading non-fantasy mangas, maybe you'll develope some tastes
Please die.
Obvius troll is obvius
Wow, you're some very ugly people, both morally and physically speaking. Downright repulsive in every sense of the word.
and we make the majority in this board, shitfreak
don't like it? you can always leave
Actually, the majority of people on here think you're a repulsive person who should have no contact with general society. Don't believe me? Well it's not like you can prove otherwise, can you, b***h?
NTA, but Goblin Slayer is schlock, no matter how you want to cut it, and no one on this board uses it as an example of anything save manga deliberately being shocking to make up for mediocrity everywhere else.
Frick you.
You're weak and feminized.
and we also own the board, cry about it
Not an argument homosexual. You have no argument because deep down you know it's true. Goblin Slayer is a shitty manga that banks on shock value to distract you from how utterly mediocre everything is, and it goes about manufacturing that shock value with edgy rape scenes and rolling with a generic JRPG fantasy setting until the goblins show up and it one-eighties into hardcore grimderp where the JRPG protagonists get insta-gibbed for not wearing helmets and for carrying weapons of an impractical size into narrow confines(in spite of said weapon having tons of room for huge arcing swings in a cave with apparently enough space for a 6+ foot tall monster to stand upright in right up until the author declares it's rape time) and making all the other characters apparently moronic because supposedly everyone knows about goblins burning villages down and raping people to death, yet still treating them like nothing but a nuisance in the same way I would call a raccoon getting into my trash a nuisance. It's complete and utter fricking nonsense and I think you gays lining up to suck its dick all know it, but you don't wanna admit it because it makes hoes mad.
You will never get laid. You will always be a kissless virgin.
Still not an argument, I accept your surrender.
Nah b***h, go make a poll if you care about this bullshit, matter of fact is the mojority of /tg/ thinks your japanese comic is shit and no amount of cope will change that
>read goblin slayer
Digits are wasted on trash opinions like this. Goblin Slayer is a shitty manga and anime that relies on shock value, tonal whiplash, and making every other character terminally moronic to make the MC look smart. It is not something you should recommend.
> tonal whiplash
>making every other character terminally moronic
Not him, but anon we know you're using the same buzzwords and falsegayging, because is obvious you didn't read it. Goblin slayer is based, specially lizard bro, why do you think is used as example?. Even if you disliked it, why? are you a goblin (a filtered rapegay/edgygay) or...just trying to bait (for real)?
t. goblin.
It's amazing how good Goblin Slayer is, and how iconic. Pretty much every manga is now using a similar design for goblins.
thanks to kurose design of course. And stop praying goblin slayer, there's a goblin in thread dilating.
>Read Goblin Slayer
have a nice day
>The idea that a Chaotic Good anyone would perpetuate slavery on any level is the most loony toons shit I have ever read.
That's because you don't understand how Lawful Good and Chaotic Good work, and also why they're explicitly worse than Neutral Good. Lawful Good and Chaotic Good are "Good PLUS". They mar the purity of Goodness with their autism and ideologies. This is why Lawful Good characters can easily justify genocide and Chaotic Good characters can enslave entire villages for their own profit. As 3e explicitly states, "Neutral good is the best alignment you can be"
>>As 3e explicitly states, "Neutral good is the best alignment you can be"
"Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion."
"Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order."
"Chaotic good is the best alignment you can be because it combines a good heart with a free spirit."
It says so about all the non-evil alignments while the evil alignments are all "the most dangerous". Tell me, do you work as a fact checker?
Chaotic Good is the alignment of retribution and vigilante justice. This is where the Chaotic part comes from which is more nuanced then "lol random". Denial of fate, denial of any predestination or predetermined outcomes, and having a powerful ego which in turn means you are inherently selfish. That is being Chaotic. Enslaving Evil characters is merely karmic in a CG character's eyes.
>>A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.
Contrasting with CN:
>>A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer).
CN (and probably CE) cares only about his own liberty, while CG also cares for the liberty of others. A CG character shouldn't enslave people, not even the evil ones, because either he sells them to a slaver and supports the system of slavery or he surrounds himself with evil and pissed off slaves.
But that's just my opinion.
Dark Sun would not exist if anyone actually followed your opinion when writing settings back then, where slavery is the society and economy.
Is Dark Sun an overwhelmingly CG setting?
Dark Sun is hard mode for Good characters so a lot of things that Good characters struggle with are explored and if slavery was the implicit Evil you treat it as it would be virtually impossible with the way Dark Sun is written. FYI slavery is treated the same as being taken prisoner which CG characters can do without alignment violation, what matters is how the slave/prisoner is treated so torturing them is generally a no-go.
Shows that Dark Sun is a mature setting that understands that there is nothing evil about slavery.
Yeah if you really wanna talk strange alignment strangeness that feels like it does not fit then in the DM guides for a couple of editions its explained offhandedly that LG societies is recommended that the dungeon should have a torture chamber in it. This is a problem because torture is constantly brought up as an alignment violation for Good alignments. Good for plothooks though.
Actually if the children are established murderers or did evil to further themselves in the community they can be killed without alignment change as seen with Drow child in Dragon Magazine issue number 298
>If the innocent children are provably not innocent that means they aren't innocent
>this is a gotcha
wow, i'm in awe.
You would have to look the community they are a part of, for example if you know this bandit settlement are cannibals, or you know devil worshipers. Basically if they would be ostracized from the community for not doing evil acts
IE: Drow who does all sort of evil shit even as children.
Then yeah. You have not put out any counter to my point which I have used a lore reasoning in D&D and alignments and gave you the source. Do it back or you forfeit.
I'd "do it back" but I can't parse this word salad so I'm not sure what your point is.
I thought you would have to at least have a firm grasp of the English language to play most TTRPGs.
Just because you're a moron doesn't excuse you, do you have any sort of source which counters mine? If not STFU.
>have to look the community they
>this bandit settlement are
>Drow who does all sort of evil shit even as children
>my point which I have used a lore reasoning
>Do it back or you forfeit.
presented without comment.
Bro most of these people aren't using commas or periods, learn to read english. Its not that hard.
>umm actually other ESLs are just as bad at English as me
The rules also say that paladins can't fall anymore.
It's perfectly acceptable for my Chaotic Evil Paladin to rape children in DnD 5E
If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences can be more serious. At the DM's discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master's Guide.
Read the fricking DMG
That's 4e, where their power is imbued in a ritual and cannot be revoked under any circumstance. Paladins can fall in 5e by breaking their oath too much.
That's so homosexual I'm surprised it's not in the OP.
Read the image, straight from Gygax's fingers.
That's the standard for D&D, anything else and you'd have to discuss it beforehand with the players.
Who did the bandit kill though? Didn't he just hold the party up?
What, was it his first day on the job?
Investigating before killing people is on the adventurer's hands, if they just pointed at a villager while shouting "bandit", for no additional reason, and then killed him... Well, they're pretty obviously criminals, chaotic evil, and potentially moronic.
If they followed a trail of blood to the bandit's hideout, found gold and kidnapped village girls, and killed all the armed men in the vicinity, that's just par for the course.
People really need to start posting Gygax's other posts on the topic, like the one where he addresses how various versions of Good would deal with a settlement full of Evil noncombatants.
Lawful Good: Kill em all
Neutral Good: Let them go
Chaotic Good: Enslave them
It sounds psycho, but it's just the logical conclusion of you focus on the game as reflecting the reality of ultra violent societal norms.
lmao, the Anglo-Saxon punishment for rape was either death, exile or a fine.
>t. pic related
You might feel this is insensitive, but chances are he was abusing them.
Just check the statistics for violent criminal irl, it's not pretty.
>Just check the statistics
You get how statistics work don't you? Every other bandit in the world could be abusing their kids and that wouldn't mean that HE does. You're still obligated to assume innocence unless you have direct proof otherwise
As I said, you might find it insensitive, but they were in the wrong subpopulation.
It's a medieval-ish fantasy setting, if they didn't want to die they could just not commit any violent crimes.
>if they didn't want to die they could just not commit any violent crimes.
Oh good, ok. I was talking about the family of the bandit, who did not commit any violent crimes. So I guess we agree killing them would be indefensible for a good-aligned Paladin, even if killing the bandit/father would be appropriate.
Paladins don't have to be good aligned now, it's 2022, not the dark ages.
>"Your character wouldn't do that. Is there anything else you'd like to do?"
Not letting me do what I want is violence against me and you are violating the safety toolkit rules.
Simply a lie. The DM has final day and not shitting up their table is an option that is always available to you, and one I'd encourage you to take.
>t. No players because they refuse to give them agency
>t. 6+ year long campaign because I play with creative, sociable, and intelligent people.
:^)
Its called venting players, and making a cohesive world. Some people don't like playing Calvin ball disguised as D&D.
Your cohesive world sucks because you don't let anybody play with it.
I let people who are willing to be cohesive with it join it. Just because you aren't in it doesn't mean no one is.
>Its called venting
>It's called venting players
>It's called venting
sus
Based. If one of my players busted out some printed up bullshit legalize concerning table conduct I'd make him own and it put his PC on trial.
You're not in charge of my character.
"If you can not follow within my parameters I set forth in this game. I don't believe you are a good fit for my group."
The DM is -literally- the final say of all actions in game. They literally, by the rules, are in charge of what happens.
Yes I am. Your character is cutting its own dick off in a drug-fueled depressive episode in this very moment and there is nothing you can do to stop it.
NOOOOOOOOOO YOU CANT DO THAT
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
>"Who are you, and what you are doing at our table?"
That's not what that anon said. Murdering children is morally indefensible for a good aligned character, so if it is acceptable to your character, then we can only conclude that your character is evil. A good aligned paladin does not murder children.
Only if they're not evil.
And since they're a bandit's children, there's a strong chance they're evil.
>strong chance they're evil
By what logic? Do the kids help him in his banditry? Do they carry bags of grain off the merchant carts while he has a hatchet at their necks? Do you just assume that the children of criminals are universally criminals themselves?
You're making a lot of presumptions to justify child murder anon.
Ah, that.
The easiest thing to do is to detect evil, mil them off evil, send them to a church orphanage if not.
In case of "always evil" races, Gygax used to support killing them all... But it's up to you group of you want to be that kind of psycho.
I think you should discuss it before the campaign begins, because what the creator of the game supported builds expectations in the players and DMs, and punishing a player because he didn't confirm to your non-standard asked never discussed expectations is a dick move.
>mil them off evil
What did I even write?
>Kill them if evil.
>non-standard
Mandating that characters behave within the scopes of their chosen, by the players, alignment is not non-standard and one has to question your motive for lying about that.
When Gygax himself said that killing evil babies is a lawful good action, yes, expecting anything else is non-standard.
The expectations for the game are set by the creator of the game, anything different is house rules and should be discussed beforehand.
Why are you so against discussing the morality expected in the course of the game with your players?
It's such a simple solution.
Gygax can make all the dumb ass hot takes and quote genocidal morons all he wants, he's still fricking wrong.
It's unfortunate that the guy who invented D&D was ethically up his own ass but sometimes that just happens.
Well wait, he can't. Because he's fricking dead.
Fortunately; dead people can still be wrong too.
Someone who takes evil babies to raise them just so they don't technically kill them is one cruel bastard and a sick frick himself. LGs killing evil babies is entirely to curb idiots like you who create strange scenarios that only exist because you are being pedantic.
Raising orphaned children is more evil than murdering them?
Absolutely absurd.
The topic is about Evil babies, the implication here is that you raise them into Evil kids or teenagers so you can kill them.
>don't technically kill them
>Raising orphans(albeit ones you yourself made) is cruel and depraved
Please, explain this utter lunacy to me. I want to understand your rationale.
Evil is evil, you got to slay evil where it exists, no matter what. Letting evil live is suicidal at best.
Then you should kill all babies everywhere at all times. Everyone is born cruel, selfish, demanding, and uncaring for the suffering of others. If this cannot be changed, have a nice day because you were one of those evil babies and grew up into an evil adult.
Chad Buddhist, killing babies while they are free from the taint of carnal wants frees their souls from this prison.
>he's still fricking wrong.
It's not about being right or wrong. Personally I consider it psychotic in most setting, with a maybe in grimdark low fantasy ones, so more for whfb than d&d, BUT it's still what anybody reading the rulebooks and nothing more expects.
It doesn't take much to say "in this campaign we're working with Conan's morality model, so go crazy with combatants, steal and plunder, but don't touch non-coms" or something like that.
It's a something that has to be discussed, that's all.
>he's still fricking wrong
No he's not. And not only is he not wrong in any sense that matters, but on the subject, he arguably *cannot* be wrong by merit of defining judgement.
>quote genocidal morons
The entire point of the "quote" was that this is precisely nothing unique to Chivington, but that the logic was espoused by American indians as well, just as it has been observed by many others throughout history. You'd understand the essence of what he was saying if you weren't a moron.
>ethically up his own ass
He really wasn't, and was by all accounts fricking chill. You not being able to separate between reality and fiction suggests that you're a low-IQ brainlet trying to project your own inadequacies onto others.
>It's a something that has to be discussed, that's all.
It really doesn't. And the idea that Conan has a "morality model" is absurd, as is the idea that a game should abide by it.
In accordance to alignment, those incapable of moral judgement are exempt from being aligned. In this regard, children are little more than animals, and are thus inherently Neutral/Unaligned. This arguably applies to virtually all babies of all kinds, bar supernatural involvement, simply because they lack the cognitive ability to make moral judgements or to understand even basic ethics.
The issue with the children and babies of Usually Evil or Always Evil races is that they are prone to inborn behaviors that leave them aligned with Evil as they grow up, which is why the adage of nits making lice applies as always.
Even the Beholder baby from the Deck of Encounters? He is kind of cute but that whole deck just loves throwing babies at you.
No idea, sounds like some gay 5e garbage. But I'd say that aberrations and some others should likely be considered exempt. Part of being an aberration tends to be wholly alien modes of thought. The majority of outsiders, having been birthed from the physical manifestation of immaterial concepts, would also be exempt, regardless of how child-like or animalistic.
Tangentially related, are there any naturally Good aberrations? It just occurred to me that they're like 99,9% Evil, it seems, which is a bit of a boring bummer because it implies that there's no Elder Good awakening out there.
AD&D
Hilarious.
Flumphs, that's about it.
I think the funniest thing about "Nits will be lice" is that although social justice mongoloids will screech about muh whiyte coloinialism, one of the earliest uses of the term is from a book of Chinese proverbs in 1761, and might have entered western consciousness from the Far East.
>The issue with the children and babies of Usually Evil or Always Evil races is that they are prone to inborn behaviors that leave them aligned with Evil as they grow up, which is why the adage of nits making lice applies as always.
Behavior is learned, not inherited. Calling a race "usually" evil carries the inherent implication that members of the race are not born evil but rather made that way through cultural factors. A drow raised among high elves will not be likely to worship Lolth, and therefore not be evil. Murdering a baby because you think it could be evil when it grows up instead of raising it to be good is morally indefensible.
>Behavior is learned, not inherited.
Wrong. Full stop, no need to read further. Monumentally moronic take with no basis in reality, fictionalized or otherwise.
So, you never cried to get what you wanted as a baby? You never threw a fit? You just instantly knew what you wanted and needed and how to communicate your wants and needs? Nobody had to teach you how to do anything?
t. goblin
All the behaviors you've listed are instinctive survival behaviors a baby does without being taught. What is this, did you not at least bother to look up what actually are learned behaviors? Even the mimicry toddlers do is driven by instinct first.
>Behavior is learned, not inherited.
Please show any evidence of that outside of shit you're regurgitating from an equally uniformed source. Lions and Tigers most certainly inherent man eating behaviors. So would evil monsters by default.
>Behavior is learned, not inherited
Go tell that to a dog breeder, make them laugh.
>the idea that Conan has a "morality model" is absurd
It's just as mental as Gygaxian morality.
I don't remember Conan killing babies just because, or enslaving people for shit and giggles, that's stuff for the villians. Also no stealing from the poor, the nobles are there just to be targets anyway.
It's not a model of goodness, but it's more acceptable, to me, than Gygaxian lawful good behaviour.
There is that time he got sold out by a lady and so killed her male conspirator but to punish her he just grabbed her naked body and tossed her into a sewage river.
I see based Gygax didn't give in to the insane modern trend that likes to paint criminals as the victims at the cost of actual victims and futur victims.
>. You not being able to separate between reality and fiction suggests that you're a low-IQ brainlet trying to project your own inadequacies onto others.
No. I just believe in simple consistency. If a given action in real life is Evil, it's ridiculous and illogical for it to not be Evil for your character in a game.
Why should I care about the opinions of some moron just because he made the early editions of D&D? He's not even the creator of the games I play.
You shouldn't care for them, but you have to accept that they are the standard expectations, just because the was the moron that created d&d. They are kinda psycho, but still the standard.
It you want to do something different, it's s easy:
Talk to your players!
You can't just expect people to know and follow your non-standard preferences.
Jesus fricking Christ, why do you people can't just talk with the other players, is it such a chore?
>The easiest thing to do is to detect evil
It is amazing how few people actually know how Detect Evil works in virtually all of its incarnations. A child would barely have an aura to detect, unless it's somehow supernaturally charged or have some kind of immense soul, which would all be huge red flags.
Yeah, it's basically just purging any half-demon/dragon/devil, everybody else gets shangaied into the church's ranks.
how very modern of you, considering this is a faux medieval setting. guilt is often presumed, obligatorily in fact, and a person of high enough social standing leveling claims or accusations is suitable justification. as an aside, if the bandits have been declared outlaws by the state (local lord) then they don't have any rights, and killing them is just pest control.
>You're still obligated to assume innocence
No I'm not.
By preying on others, he forfeited his life. The lives of his family were his responsibility, and he chose a path that left them bereft. Perhaps the church will provide them charity.
If he can afford weapons and armor he can afford to not be a bandit.
then maybe he should have sold that sword and fed his children, as that was his responsibility. his kids are not my problem. now, you might have an argument for the church being in some way responsible, but not the paladin, nor the others who lawfully hunt down outlaws and and other malignancies upon society,
If selling his sword could support his family he should have sold it when he first got it.
Those children were raised on stolen goods. For the the very act of living is a crime.
Depends on the type of Paladin. The Oath of Conquest Paladin is going to keep the sword as he took it by might so it is his in the eyes of the Lawful Evil gods.
An Oath of Ancients will probably first make sure it was not cursed then give it to the descendent with the highest potential for Good.
5E paladins aren't paladins by definition. It doesn't matter what it says about them.
>aren't paladins by definition
They play the exact same way as 2e and 3e paladins in that they only care about Alignment and are never required to actually worship a god. Go reread your core rulebooks.
I can be a Chaotic Evil paladin in 5E. They are not paladins.
Oh no, you're saying you can be a Blackguard, the 3.5 Paladin Prestige class by default now?
You do know that while the class is called a Paladin your actual title is based on the subclass, right? You did read the book, right?
The Rightousness paladins do get their abilities from deities as well as they are divine spellcasters and divine spellcasters back in 3.5 had to get their spells from deities.
You literally don't have to worship a god in 3.5 to be a paladin, says right in the class section for it.
You do know you can meditate without it being a religious thing right? The whole point of a paladin was they cared about their cause first and foremost and were strengthened because of their conviction to it.
Again, reread the books and don't force things into it that are half-remembered sacred cows passed down based on misinterpretations and memes.
Yeah I said that, I literally said that. You would still have to follow some sort of "Rightousness" which would come from good aligned gods setting the standard just how evil gods setting the evil standard.
Then let's talk about meditation which is a religious thing, that was the origin of doing it. Hell long prayer sessions could be said to be nothing more than meditations. Because if you doing it for let's say to calm yourself then how would that give you any sort of power? Exactly.
And their cause in base flavor is to follow rightousness which is set by the gods, the codes set by the gods and everything else is set up by a higher power. Their cause is to make sure good win the cosmic struggle.
"The nature is either within one or not, and it is not possible to gain the paladin's nature by any act of will." It spells it out for you, you can't get paladin powers by yourself you need deities help.
Old paladins were boring and pidgeonholed you into beeing a goody two-shoes
New paladins allow me to be creative
i'll take new paladins
Actually Paladins did have to be a force of rightousness and good, but a whole lot devote themselves to a single diety. The Rightousness paladins do get their abilities from deities as well as they are divine spellcasters and divine spellcasters back in 3.5 had to get their spells from deities.
"A paladin prepares and casts spells the way a cleric does"
"Clerics meditate or pray for their spells" Both meditating and praying are spiritual in nature. I would say rightousness paladins are like chaos undivided taking in whatever deity they want or just deities seeing this would just give them power. While ones with single deities are like the ones who devote themselves to one of the ruinous powers.
I’m not a paladin homosexual, ow suck my wizard wiener
That's why you do the lost art of role-playing and have the paladin perform a rite of cleansing where they dedicate the weapon to their God, when able.
Paladins are limited by what they can accomplish. They can not bury a body in a dungeon. They also can not leave weapons around for the enemy to use later. The best solution to this conundrum is usually looting and burning the bodies, a completely lawful act.
Try again loser.
literally fricking King Arthur and his knights of the round table all had tons and tons of magic weapons and artifacts and shit and would take them from defeated enemies, you're fricking nuts
If their bodies deserved respect you wouldn't have killed them in the first place, moron
>every villain has to die
idk what smoothbrains like you call going on a 6-man rampage across the face of a content, but it sure as hell isn't heroism, no matter the end goal.
t. goblin
yes
>6-man rampage
As if, we hire scores of hirelings, henchmen, and camp followers.
If your response to evil isn't to slay it, then you're not a hero.
Come again?
Do you think posting a villain proves your point?
>posting a villain
Do it again Uncle Billy!
Do it again, uncle billy!
Do it Again, Uncle Billy
AWAY DOWN SOUTH IN THE LAND OF TRAITORS
>chaotic good
>villain
He didn't enslave evil non combatants, be was more neutral good.
>destroying the capacity of your enemy to make war without killing or raping civilians is evil
Rude dumb Dixie scum
The invasion of the south was already evil in and of itself.
I agree, the Knights of the Golden Circle shouldn't have been fanning the flames and goading the south into attacking those forts.
>without killing or raping civilians
Read up on Sherman's march again dumbass, there was plenty of both.
Still doesn't make him "Evil" or anything like that
Do it again, uncle Billy.
Sherman himself cautioned against getting into the shit he got into. The speech where he does that is the source of the "War is Hell." quote.
His goal was to end the war as swiftly as possible, your characters by simply grabbing shit from enemies and pushibg onwards. How many people would die to the villain directly or indirectly if you tracked down the families of every mook and bandit you slew to return their equipment and possesions? Oh it took us 70 years because we had to keep backtracking to return a 50 cent dagger to someone’s son but the Dark Lord is finally dead.
The Argonauts used to do just that, are you saying they weren't heroes?
shut up goku
>every villain has to die
Yes, of course. What do you think defines them as "villain" and not just "evildoer"?
Of course they have to die. Otherwise they would just be antagonists.
>Killing villains is being a murderhobo
Unironically yes. There is nothing wrong with murderhoboing. It's largely interchangeable with being an adventurer to begin with. All murderhoboing entails is being a transient (hobo) supporting yourself primarily through violence (murder).
A traveling paladin with no permanent home, out in the world destroying orc villages for fun and profit and glory and Good *is* a murderhobo, and that's OK.
I don't think you know what "murder" means
I know exactly what "murder" is, as well as "hobo". The semantic technicalities are irrelevant to the joke that birthed the concept.
Because it's resourceful, and resourcefulness is a virtue. The equipment and loot of our enemies can be sold and used to fund our righteous crusade.
pure casual cope
paladins used to have hard limits on owned items and wealth and had to donate their shit to charity
He only plays dungeons and dragons, and in the new edition paladins don't have to be good or lawful.
>and in the new edition paladins don't have to be good or lawful.
Then what’s even the point of having them?
anime swordsman
Because it's DnD! You HAVE to have Paladins! How can you have epic adventures unless you have a Paladin LOL! Making a player play as lawful good is bad though, because it enforces white male hierarchies. I can't roleplay in a world that doesn't conform to my personal views or envision what a character who doesn't share the exact same opinions as me would do so it's not fair to make me play lawful good. It's not fair to make me play a different class if I can't play it right, I WANT to be a paladin which means you have to let me.
Just because it's "D&D" doesn't mean paladins should be a thing, hell its the same as all classes really the only ones you can't change is 4 which is Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Rogue as it does the DPS/Tank/Healing/Magic trope.
"It enforces white male hierarchies" the frick? Lawful good only enforces fair and just hierarchies you can be a black man (Like me) and be lawful good and it would hold up the society and hell the cosmic balance in the grade sheme of things. Oh yeah forgot you don't know shit about D&D lore.
Just because you want to play a paladin doesn't mean I have to let you, more does it mean that mean I let you at my table. I can tell you never played past 5th level nor know anything about paladin lore because if you read the flavor text in 5e it is lawful good standard flavor and lore.
>if you read the flavor text in 5e it is lawful good standard flavor and lore
>paladin of conquest
>paladin of the crown, which is *this* close to "just following orders"
They're not all lawful good, Anon.
You guys do know that Paladins have tenets they have to follow or risk losing their powers right?
Idiots could not decide if paladins were warriors of the church or warriors of justice.
You can blame Forgotten Realms for that nonsense, by the way.
Also, thread shoould have ended with
Because the mechanics are also used by other forms of holy and unholy warrior (such as the blackguard) and 5e doesn't take the 3.5 approach of having six nigh-identical classes that do the same thing in the Rouge-Ninja-Scout-etc. manner.
The classical paladin's oath, Devotion, doesn't mechanically require you to be LG, as alignment has zero mechanical bearing any more, but the tenets essentially say "act in a LG manner or you're an oathbreaker".
They also had ridiculous stat requirements, so if you were actually following all the rules you never fricking played one.
>t. never even cracked the book open, let alone played the game
and, the stat requirements of 17 charisma, while still having above average scores in str and con was not that easy. i mean the odds of rolling a 17 on 3d6 is only 4 in 216 or 1 in 54. so even with twelve rolls, the chances are not very good. and using 4d6 drop lowest gets up to 84 in 1296 or slightly less than 1 in 15 odds.
so get back to us, when you have cracked the book, played the game, and understand basic dice probability curves.
4d6 drop lowest has 30% chance of generating a score of 17, brainlet
take your own advice and learn basic math
Ah yes, but this is moronic gonard dnd, so it’s 3d6 down the line, eat shit homosexual
lol moron
Suck my fat wiener
>a race or class he or she won't identify with
What?
But listen to this : what if you sold the evildoers's stuff to give even more to charity?
That's purely because of Christian slave morality. Fantasy Paladins would be pagan by our standards and therefore they subscribe to based Master Morality.
To the victor go the spoils.
Early Christendom and actual Christendom is radically different than Jedeo Christian teachings. The bible considered Thall Shall Not Kill only in regards to murder, which is unjustified or evil butchery. Not self defense, defense of the land, or protection of your race.
>or protection of your race.
Go back
It's not exactly wrong. The scripture is very preoccupied with the whole "chosen people" thing.
except there are no equivalents of paladins in “pagan” myth nor examples of the gods interacting with chosen champions in the way they do with paladins
blood guilt is far less generalised than what you’re presenting it as
eg you can kill an intruder at night, but not during the day, the reasoning being that the guy breaking in during the day is there to steal shit while you’re out for your work, while the guy breaking in at night knows the occupants are inside, sleeping and defenceless and enters fully prepared to deal with any encounter with them at the least and more maliciously precisely for that reason
I don't think that's really relevant. Just because the archetype was taken from christianity doesn't mean that in the fantasy universe they have the same morality or even sense of justice, just the same zeal for enforcing it. That's why there's things like antipaladins, paladins of tyranny, slaughter, etc.
homie, we know exactly what their morality is like because alignment is an actual fundamental force of the universe and not a philosophical concept
a paladin that commits any chaotic act must immediately repent and atone or cease being a paladin
>inb4 5etardation
no
Criminals forfeit their property.
to who though? The state or the victim of their crime?
If it's in response to a single high value burglary, yes, I would usually seek to return the items in question. Otherwise, I will retain ownership, unless there is some term of agreement I made in advance compelling me to do so, or some law demanding custody of goods retieved from the body or home of a slain criminal. The latter is uncommon, as the government normally sees incintivising the hunting of outlaws as more important than the financial benefit of claiming any valuble goods from said outlaws.
>The latter is uncommon, as the government normally sees incintivising the hunting
In what world do players get to comment on the state of the world? Shut the frick up and mind your station. The DM will tell you what the laws of the land are and how commonly, and in what way, they're enforced.
The question was, "why is it often considered", you dumb fricking homosexual. Maybe that's not how you run games, but who gives a shit how you run a game?
It all comes from Dave Arneson's Blackmoore, the single largest influence on the tropes of D&D style play.
Laws of Blackmoore and the Free Peoples' Agreed Upon Statutes
Agreed Upon Penalties
Death is an acceptable penalty to those who would instigate crimes of violence against a citizen of Blackmoore or the Free People.
Page of Amendments:
2. On the subject of arms and armor.
1.01: A Lord or Mayer may not limit the carry of weapons in any area without both walls and patrols.
3.On the subject of banditry and other evil activity.
3.03: He that would serve chaos or instigate crimes of violence against a citizen of Blackmoore or the Free People forfeit their treasure to the men they have wronged. Individual concerns of property are to be arbitrated as needed by a judge of the state.
3.04: No matter their individual status, menfolk working alongside the agents of chaos are by all laws and statues no better than a goblin in the night.
Citation: Dave Arneson's Blackmoore (3.5 era) web enhancement "Laws of Blackmoore and the League of Free People"
>mfw your "citystate" isn't BFT
Any collateral slashed for malicious actions is rewarded to the validator as an incentive to keep the system honest.
To the victor.
Looting criminals has been a thing since time immemorial. It was often one of the great motivators of private citizens to turn in or attack those banished for the crimes they committed.
>A pays a hobo to steal something from B
>A kills hobo
>B's property now belongs to A
based system
the state can sod off
Rite of Frick Around and Find Out.
seconded
Looting was normal part of warfare until relatively recently. In some parts of the world is still is even today.
It is morally acceptable to punish evildoers by looting their bodies and leaving them to rot.
If the paladin doesn't want his cut of the loot that's all well and good, but I didn't go through all this bullshit just to walk back to town and give away our spoils.
-t. Fighter.
Finders keepers, and besides it would be difficult to find the original owner of everything
Because most pc groups aren't good people.
>why is it acceptable to loot the bodies of evildoers
Because they don't need their shit anymore, and either by selling or using it, you can generate good from it. Waste not, want not.
>Shouldn't your paladin carry that +2 broadsword back to town and hand it to Count von Evilwald's next of kin?
Depends. Family heirloom, that was great-great grandpa Von Evilwald's sword? Yeah it's a good gesture, and assuming the next of kin is not also evil, what you should probably do. If it was just a really nice sword he bought or found, or that the family is evil? He ain't using it, and they shouldn't have it.
If you would give your players more loot then they wouldn't have to take it from your NPCs, you tightwad.
"Hold back non white human nature" What do you mean by that? Elaborate
>Why is it so often considered acceptable to loot the bodies of evildoers in fantasy settings
Who would even fricking know?
"I found this in a tomb. Unless you have something to say about a villainous relative who tried to murder an entire city?"
>I found it in a tomb
Oh, so you're desecrating the resting place of our families and ancestors.
Prove it.
YOu just admitted it when you said you found it in a tomb.
I demand trial by combat. No champions.
Prove it.
Salvage rights is payment. The town doesn't need to even issue a formal bounty, they just need to say that Count von Frickwit has a +2 sword and the problem is solved, no muss, no fuss, no cost.
Should we even have DMs? It's akin to slavery in a way, they players (powerless minorities) are living at the whims of the DM (white, male power structure)
"I'm just trying to have fun with people, please don't bring politics into my game. I rather using 3-4 hours of my free time with people I like"
A combination of the OSR Mindset of value = xp and the Vidya Mindset of dead boss = loot leading to maximum Murderhobos.
>Why is it so often considered acceptable to loot the bodies of evildoers in fantasy settings?
In my setting any loot you claim while battling evildoers is not taxed.
I honestly find that funny that a Lawful evil person planting evidence on their rivals and taking their stuff claiming that they are evil.
Just a fun way to do tax fraud.
>Shouldn't your paladin carry that +2 broadsword back to town and hand it to Count von Evilwald's next of kin?
Why would he? How would he even know to do so?
Its a resource, no need to leave it on a dead body. If you don't take it, some scavenger may come along and take it themselves. Medieval Europe also practiced looting after a major battle. Almost everyone in the army would take part after a victory. Even the peasants.
Also its fun to find new things. Its fun to get new abilities. It makes your game more fun. You know, the thing we are the table to do. Have fun.
>muh fun
Fun is a buzzword without inherent meaning.
Looting a body is not the same as desecrating a body. Unless you're literally pulling out fillings and/or raping the corpses Soviet Army-style, you're not doing anything wrong. Handbooks on covert operations and on operating without supply lines will even instruct you to search corpses for usable equipment as well as barterable materials.
you're allowed to capture combat materiel and equipment, even in modern wartime
just taking their shit when it's NOT weapons or armour is pretty sketch though
>Giving powerful magic weapon to the next of kin of the guy you just killed, priming them for a revenge arc.
Yeah, that's smart.
Sealing it away would make sense, but honestly depending on how dope this sword is, it might be more responsible for the heroes to keep it so that it doesn't fall into the wrong hands.
Evil in some setting is objective, not subjective. That means you KNOW someone is evil, no second guesses or arguments there.
Therefore it makes perfect sense to kill and destroy such people.
You could make a game where you bother with such "rule of law" where the party of adventurers would turn in the loot of the villain and then get paid by the state for the retrieval of such goods and so on.
But this seems like a lot of extra work to me, unless ofc you want to focus on such details.
Holdover from early editions of D&D when looting dungeons was the whole point and the protagonists were just parties of adventurers out to make their fortune, not action heroes saving the world from evil. Don't give it any more thought than as a simple part of the gameplay loop, which it all it is.
>Burying magic items that the DM meant for the party with the allied npc's that died with them so that they'd be armed in the afterlife.
>One other party member helping me, the others never even knew in character that the items existed.
Feels good being a cleric.
>in fantasy settings
Dude, it is common now in real life.
Looting the fallen was always and will always be a common thing.
It would be weird if it wasn't a option.
Man looting evildoers is fine, my WFRP groups keep looting every corpse they find/make.
Exept the Morr priest, who always try to burn corpses to prevent his party from looting the deads
I'm a Paladin of the LAPD; I can confiscate anything I want to.
Why wouldn’t it be acceptable?
Their weapins have bad fortune in them. They didnt help their owners surviving. they will ill serve me.
because its a game
and if he has next of kin, Im murdering them too
Lawful good could mean finder's keepers on outlaws' personal property if the local government wishes. Since when did good mean you're a teenage Disney Princess with zero clue of the world?
Please look up what Gary Gygax meant by Lawful Good and what a Paladin is you moronic homosexual. LG aren't some modernist homosexuals interpretation of the concept. They're Lawful and Good. IE they have a code of honor they respect and fight on the side of good. That means they murder monsters, hang evil doers, kill goblin babies, and other abominations across the Earth. They're also "knights," meaning professional soldiers.
ITT: Evil motherfrickers get mad when they're informed that the moral and righteous path is to slaughter and butcher evil, all without mercy.
Suck my wiener, you posting that in a dead thread so you can not get shit on and feel good won’t get past me. Now don’t forget the balls.
You're a goblin.
Now suck my goblin dick
>Shouldn't your paladin
This is why the Paladin isn't carrying our bag of holding.
Why would you assume he should do that?
The word Adventurer literally meant for centuries "person who kills for money and loot"
in the Viking era Vikings, raiders, Saracens, etc. were called adventurers, in the high middle ages Swiss mercenaries, landsknechts and caballeros were called adventurers.
looting and taking prizes is part of the job, its traditional.
When Paladins had wealth limits, it involved a ceiling on what they could keep, not a limitation on what they could take. They could have up to ten permanent magic items, gave a significant chunk of their loot to charitable (often religious) organizations (never including PC priests, no loopholes), and could only have a small castle with a modest number of retainers.
IF my character were a Paladin, he might very well return the property of an evil NPC to any non-evil next of kin they have, if he's aware of the gear's provenance. He wouldn't grind the whole session to a halt though trying to do so right away, and he wouldn't have any compunction about using it to further his cause in the moment.
I mean if we're in a fantasy setting without some kind of mass transport system and we have to rely on horses, wagon caravans, etc to move from place to place it may be some time before that sword could be returned, if the quest is pressing and we can't feasibly backtrack without severe consequences to innocents I think if I were playing a Paladin he'd justify keeping the sword if only for the duration of the quest, and if at all possible returning it afterwards.
This of course is very dependent on the kinds of religions the DM has in their setting, and what the nature of my Paladin's vows would be.
Same reason they dont bury the bodies, to make it easier for dogs, birds, and ghouls to eat their bodies. All that armor and gold can really hurt those mangy dog tummies!
Same reason clerics are allowed to draw blood now, because frick you.
It was a stupid rule to begin with. It was never based in any sort of actual logical or historical basis even if we only consider medieval catholic clergy.
I say frick the entire alinment system in D&D. Stop taking it like it is an unbreakable rule this is fantasy for fricks sake.