Prickly moral situation for a Paladin - did I judge it correctly?

[D+1]

I can't believe you are using Gandulf's quote to support the paladin's right to kill. His statement was all about mercy and understanding that even evil creatures may still have apart to play in the shaping of the world. The ending of LOTR would have been so very much diferrent if an evil dectecting holy smiting paladin had meet up with him first.

Whereas, a paladin is expected to make those decisions immediately and with deadly force which is the whole point. Gandalf is not a paladin. Despite being more than human/less than a deity he has both the ability to prophesy to a degree, and the LUXURY of being able to decide to let evil creatures go because of the slim chance that they might somehow make the decision to allow them to live prove out to be beneficial in the long run. A paladin hasn't got it nearly so easy. When he encounters evil his job first and foremost is to eliminate it, not attempt to judge its potential for redemption. Win ultimate victory for Good through attrition.

This is not to say that they can't or won't actually let an petty evil creature like Gollum go in rare circumstances - but they WILL be rare circumstances and for a player it would be a roleplaying choice of saddling the character with doubts or a failure that must be coped with forever.

I'm not talking about altering the ending of LOTR - but since you brought it up, you're damm right that it would be different if there had been a Paladin on scene. Had Aragorn been a paladin he'd have executed the little scum for fratricide on the spot - or been forever held accountable for his FAILURE to do his duty. Mercy is NOT the paladins first option in dealing with Evil in any form. THAT's the point.

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

I'm skipping a few posts here so that you can know what my gut feeling is on this...

What do you think?

Mow them down...

Their not innocent children they gave willing to an evil power and received immortality truth be told they might well be older than the whole party combined.

Evil dressed up in the disguise of innocent children is still evil…

If they where just possessed by an evil being it would be a different story, but sense they gave willing their no less evil than a lich, serial killer and what not.

 

[Elf Witch]

Whereas, a paladin is expected to make those decisions immediately and with deadly force which is the whole point. Gandalf is not a paladin. Despite being more than human/less than a deity he has both the ability to prophesy to a degree, and the LUXURY of being able to decide to let evil creatures go because of the slim chance that they might somehow make the decision to allow them to live prove out to be beneficial in the long run. A paladin hasn't got it nearly so easy. When he encounters evil his job first and foremost is to eliminate it, not attempt to judge its potential for redemption. Win ultimate victory for Good through attrition.

This is not to say that they can't or won't actually let an petty evil creature like Gollum go in rare circumstances - but they WILL be rare circumstances and for a player it would be a roleplaying choice of saddling the character with doubts or a failure that must be coped with forever.

I'm not talking about altering the ending of LOTR - but since you brought it up, you're damm right that it would be different if there had been a Paladin on scene. Had Aragorn been a paladin he'd have executed the little scum for fratricide on the spot - or been forever held accountable for his FAILURE to do his duty. Mercy is NOT the paladins first option in dealing with Evil in any form. THAT's the point.

The book of Exalted Deeds has a way for a paladin or cleric to redeem evil using game mechanics.

I happen to think that there is more to a paladin than just killing evil. Sure there are times when the paladin has to greater good and all that. In this case I don't think the paladin was wrong to kill the children. But if he had tried to subdue them that would not have been wrong either. Paladins are not mindless automatons who everytime they are confronted with evil go into slay mode.

As for the LOTR well good for Aragorn the paladin he was judge jury and executioner Golem pays the price for all his crimes the paladin can rest easy that night. Of course once Sauron is in control of the ring and all hope as fled the world and thousands are dead or enslaved lets hope he has enough smites to fix the mess he created.

Paladins need to make judgements on the best course of action sometimes that is killing sometimes it is mercy. I would think it would be boring to play a paladin who always does the same thing but that's just me.

It has been said before the best way to avoid all this is for the DM and the player to come up with a code as a guideline to help the player make these judgements.

 

[Lodow MoBo]

ForceUser =
I promise you, Blaine, it was every other round. The rounds were flying by, though, because some party members didn't do much at first, and the kids didn't do anything but stand there in the rounds dominate wasn't up.

Bah they were lookin cute and saying things like "we don't like you" and "your mean". Thats what happens When the parents spare the rod. A paladin gotta come along and smite them down after they sell there souls.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

There's been a few suggestions that a part of the paladin's portfolio is the act of redemption. The act of bringing someone evil around to the light by showing them of patience, kindness, loyalty and compassion is an amazing event. Played right, I'd imagine it would be a situation that everyone involved with will talk about for a long time.

So, I don't think it should be cheapened by breaking it into a simple matter of fact.

Pal: "Hello Evil!"
*clang* (evil is subdued)
Pal: "Now do you understand that what you did was wrong?"
Evil: "Yeah. I really shouldn't sacrifice people's souls for power. It's not nice."
Pal: "Glad to hear it. Now, along on your way."
Bard: "Wow. That's 6 this week!"