Savage Wombat
Hero
I'd say that he was within the definition of "Lawful Good" and, for that matter, "paladin" - but if this were Ravenloft, the Dark Powers wouldn't let him off quite so easily.
Prickly moral situation for a Paladin - did I judge it correctly?
MerakSpielman
First Post
The paladin's code in the PHB says nothing of the kind. There is a bit about protecting the innocent, though, and these "children" have definately shown themselves to be harmful to the innocent adults they have encountered. If my paladin was here, he would have to decide whether or not the children have turned evil, as is apparently presumed, or whether they have been possessed by evil demons, in which case it might be possible to banish the demons and salvage the soul of the child.Numion said:
It looks like the party is pretty certain that the story they uncovered is accurate, that these children are immortal, having sold their souls for eternal youth and power (provided the give regular sacrifices, of course). If this is the case, then they are already damned and the best thing the paladin can do is kill them and end their evil works.
Also in favor of killing them is their dominate ability, which they can probably use even if bound and gagged. Depending on the number of children, eventually they'll succeed at dominating the paladin, and his entire party to boot. If there is no way to restrict this power, then demon-possessed or evil child, they need to be destroyed.
Arnwyn
First Post
The paladin did not show mercy when it easy could have been done. And, as you said, the aasimar paladin absolutely should hold himself to a higher standard. (Enforcing the will of the church I wouldn't care so much about. Paladins are above the church, IMO and IMC - good deeds before all else.)
I'm with you on this one.
(Though, as with all paladin alignment arguments that pop up here - only you, the DM, can define morality in your world. It's good that you mentioned that his paladinhood was in trouble - though a brief explanation to the paladin player why would have been helpful, to better allow him to understand how you view paladins in your campaign.)
I'm with you on this one.
(Though, as with all paladin alignment arguments that pop up here - only you, the DM, can define morality in your world. It's good that you mentioned that his paladinhood was in trouble - though a brief explanation to the paladin player why would have been helpful, to better allow him to understand how you view paladins in your campaign.)
The_Universe
First Post
I'm with the paladin, here.
These little monsters were precisely that: monsters. They are not children, they are only small and child-looking; nor had they recently been intitiated into the demonic death cult. In effect, these kids are serial killers, and they had specifically attacked the paladin, endangering himself and others.
They had easily fooled the entire monastary before, enslaved the abott, but were not going to pose a danger to the cardinal? Come on! Furthermore, the paladin is not assoicated with the church--the cardinal has no authority over him or her. Only a non-specific ideal of "good" does. I'm all for higher standards for paladins, but I don't think 40-50 year old killer demon worshipers deserve extra points because they LOOK cute. (Unless the religion in question venerates the beautiful/cute, not matter what it's alignment...this would allow them to do silly things like worship erinyes and succubi....)
In my book, those who willingly enter the service of dark forces for personal gain, predicated on the suffering and destruction of others forfeit mercy for the sake of practicality. The party, and the paladin should have killed them sooner!
These little monsters were precisely that: monsters. They are not children, they are only small and child-looking; nor had they recently been intitiated into the demonic death cult. In effect, these kids are serial killers, and they had specifically attacked the paladin, endangering himself and others.
They had easily fooled the entire monastary before, enslaved the abott, but were not going to pose a danger to the cardinal? Come on! Furthermore, the paladin is not assoicated with the church--the cardinal has no authority over him or her. Only a non-specific ideal of "good" does. I'm all for higher standards for paladins, but I don't think 40-50 year old killer demon worshipers deserve extra points because they LOOK cute. (Unless the religion in question venerates the beautiful/cute, not matter what it's alignment...this would allow them to do silly things like worship erinyes and succubi....)
In my book, those who willingly enter the service of dark forces for personal gain, predicated on the suffering and destruction of others forfeit mercy for the sake of practicality. The party, and the paladin should have killed them sooner!
nimisgod
LEW Judge
Strangely enough, I'm with the GM.
Regardless of whether children or monsters, the GM did warn the paladin first. The paladin better heed that warning instead of slowing down the game with debate.
While the children were indeed monsters, there is little effort spent in dealing subdual damage instead of splattering them all over. If they were monsterous in the physical sense, sure, kill them. But they've just the strength of children. You can spare a mere -4 for subdual, right?
Regardless of whether children or monsters, the GM did warn the paladin first. The paladin better heed that warning instead of slowing down the game with debate.
While the children were indeed monsters, there is little effort spent in dealing subdual damage instead of splattering them all over. If they were monsterous in the physical sense, sure, kill them. But they've just the strength of children. You can spare a mere -4 for subdual, right?
hunter1828
Butte Hole Surfer
I'd have to go with the paladin.
The "children" may have appeared innocent and sweet, and been physically weak, but they were clearly, deeply evil (vile, even) and had strong mental/magical powers.
The paladin was magically/mentally assaulted, showing him the children were a danger and did not intend to stay put in the abbey. While I most likely would have had his deity send him a vision later letting him know what he might have done differently and demanding a vow/sacrifice/quest/whatever as simple, non-magical atonement, I wouldn't have done much more than that. After all, the paladin did not begin the smiting immediatly upon learning about the children...that didn't happen until after he was attacked.
hunter1828
The "children" may have appeared innocent and sweet, and been physically weak, but they were clearly, deeply evil (vile, even) and had strong mental/magical powers.
The paladin was magically/mentally assaulted, showing him the children were a danger and did not intend to stay put in the abbey. While I most likely would have had his deity send him a vision later letting him know what he might have done differently and demanding a vow/sacrifice/quest/whatever as simple, non-magical atonement, I wouldn't have done much more than that. After all, the paladin did not begin the smiting immediatly upon learning about the children...that didn't happen until after he was attacked.
hunter1828
Numion
First Post
arnwyn said:
The code says that the Paladin should punish those who threaten and harm innocents. That the Paladin did.
The code says nothing of showing mercy, BTW. And it couldn't have been done easily. Mental control powers are very difficult notice and they can be used very discreetly. Subduing the child-demons would just ask for trouble, at least when they wake up (which takes some minutes, wasn't it?). So, letting the children live, he would've easily failed to obey the high-level cleric too, since the kids could've escaped.
I still think that punishing evildoers is more important than strictly following the church chain of command. Thus the Paladin did the right thing.
In any case his actions weren't a gross violation of the code, and thus he shouldn't lose his powers.
Flexor the Mighty!
18/100 Strength!
The Paladin was totally right. If Demogorgon was cute and childlike would he be spared too?
Tilla the Hun (work)
First Post
Paladins Code, Paladins Moral Code, Paladins playing Lawful Good.
These discussions pop up ALL the time, in virtually every single gaming group I've had the pleasure or honor of playing with or observing.
Quite simply, YOU as the GM need to sit down with the player and make absolutely sure that you and he are on the same wavelength about the nature of the reasonings behind a paladins actions in your game.
Quite simply put: The Paladin was both RIGHT and WRONG, depending solely on how YOU define Lawful Good and the Code of the Paladin in YOUR game.
If you define a Paladin as a servant of the church, invested with divine powers, but still under the control of the church - then this Paladin is in clear violation - he's willfully disobeyed the orders of a superior in the church (assuming the cardinal would be a superior)
If, in your game, a Paladin is a direct servant of the gods (i.e. an epic paladin is second only to a deities avatar), then this paladin is clearly well within his rights to ignore the cardinal and lay waste to the evils of the false children.
In simpler terms - the Paladin did exactly right in Good vs Evil - the false children were not children, they were evil beings in the guise of children, regardless of how physically harmless they were, they had done heinous things and had attempted to control his mind. So yes - in Good vs Evil, the Paladin is clearly within his right. [edit: assuming of course, he had exhausted the possibility of converting them to good - better to weaken evil and strengthen good than just to weaken evil]
Where it gets sticky is the Lawful vs Chaotic. Was it lawful for him to destroy the children? Was it lawful for him to ignore the request of the cardinal? Was it lawful for him to ignore the request of his fellow party members? (If the wizard had some form of authority over the paladin, then absolutely not on the second kill)
As I said, it depends largely on your intrepretation of a Paladin in your game. The PHB is deliberately vague and open to interpretation. Go find 2 people who do not belong to the same church - they will, by nature, disagree on things like morality and divine law.
That's why you need to sit down with your Paladin player and hammer out what your world expects of Paladins. Some game worlds expect Paladins like Sturm of Krynn, others expect Paladins of a different sort, ones who answer to the church not themselves or a higher power.
This is easily worked out with a player - just sit down and figure out who he thinks he answers to and correct him if necessary. Compromise would undoubtedly be good here, btw.
These discussions pop up ALL the time, in virtually every single gaming group I've had the pleasure or honor of playing with or observing.
Quite simply, YOU as the GM need to sit down with the player and make absolutely sure that you and he are on the same wavelength about the nature of the reasonings behind a paladins actions in your game.
Quite simply put: The Paladin was both RIGHT and WRONG, depending solely on how YOU define Lawful Good and the Code of the Paladin in YOUR game.
If you define a Paladin as a servant of the church, invested with divine powers, but still under the control of the church - then this Paladin is in clear violation - he's willfully disobeyed the orders of a superior in the church (assuming the cardinal would be a superior)
If, in your game, a Paladin is a direct servant of the gods (i.e. an epic paladin is second only to a deities avatar), then this paladin is clearly well within his rights to ignore the cardinal and lay waste to the evils of the false children.
In simpler terms - the Paladin did exactly right in Good vs Evil - the false children were not children, they were evil beings in the guise of children, regardless of how physically harmless they were, they had done heinous things and had attempted to control his mind. So yes - in Good vs Evil, the Paladin is clearly within his right. [edit: assuming of course, he had exhausted the possibility of converting them to good - better to weaken evil and strengthen good than just to weaken evil]
Where it gets sticky is the Lawful vs Chaotic. Was it lawful for him to destroy the children? Was it lawful for him to ignore the request of the cardinal? Was it lawful for him to ignore the request of his fellow party members? (If the wizard had some form of authority over the paladin, then absolutely not on the second kill)
As I said, it depends largely on your intrepretation of a Paladin in your game. The PHB is deliberately vague and open to interpretation. Go find 2 people who do not belong to the same church - they will, by nature, disagree on things like morality and divine law.
That's why you need to sit down with your Paladin player and hammer out what your world expects of Paladins. Some game worlds expect Paladins like Sturm of Krynn, others expect Paladins of a different sort, ones who answer to the church not themselves or a higher power.
This is easily worked out with a player - just sit down and figure out who he thinks he answers to and correct him if necessary. Compromise would undoubtedly be good here, btw.
Last edited:
the Jester
Legend
Ehh... I'd say that the paladin, though on shaky ground, wasn't quite out of line. Almost, but not quite.
After all, as others have pointed out, the 'children' weren't really children at all- they were horrible, murderous monsters that made sacrifices to demons. Ignoring their appearance, what should a paladin do with horrible, murderous monsters that make sacrifices to demons?
After all, as others have pointed out, the 'children' weren't really children at all- they were horrible, murderous monsters that made sacrifices to demons. Ignoring their appearance, what should a paladin do with horrible, murderous monsters that make sacrifices to demons?
Similar Threads
