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

[Flexor the Mighty!]

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?

I like what the Paladin in my group does, he gives them the mercy of Heironeous. Which is the sharp end of a battle axe!

 

[FrankTrollman]

The paladin did absolutely nothing wrong.

Evil is Evil, no matter what it looks like. Do we have to let Mariliths go just because they can look like innocents? Of course not!

If Evil has the ability to look like innocent little children it is doubly important that it be destroyed. Good and Evil isn't about ugly/pretty - it's about morality. Mentally Dominating monstrosities need to be destroyed - if they had looked like Nosferatu would there even be a question here?

-Frank

 

[Arnwyn]

The code says that the Paladin should punish those who threaten and harm innocents. That the Paladin did.

And it doesn't say how. "Punish" for someone in which "lawfulness and good deeds is their meat and drink" sounds like subdual, not slaughter, to me.

The code says nothing of showing mercy, BTW.

*shrug* It says that (I paraphrase) the paladin pretty much revolves around good deeds. Mercy sounds like a good deed to me. Splattering those with the strength of children doesn't. I and my players hold paladins to a higher standard - and it sounds like this particular DM does as well.

And it couldn't have been done easily.

In your opinion.

I still think that punishing evildoers is more important than strictly following the church chain of command.

In that, I totally agree.

My opinions are just that - opinions how I see a paladin and expect them to act IMC. And, like I said and will repeat again - it's the DM who decides morality and how the paladin's code is to be applied in a particular campaign world. (and let the players know beforehand blah blah blah). I certainly can't speak for anyone else's campaign, nor would I be arrogant enough to try.

 

[Angcuru]

According to the details provided, these kids were basically leeching off of the adults in a village until they were husks, and then sacrificing them to dark powers. When one village was done for, they move onto another.

That's some really sickening evil, there.

The paladin was right in slicing them up. Would a paladin hesitate to kill any other creature that was doing the exact same thing? I think not.

 

[Tzarevitch]

As I see it:

1] A heirarch of his church specifically instructed him to keep the abbot and the children at the abbey. The Cardinal did not tell him to slay the children. And no killing them is not the same as keeping them at the abbey. If he wanted the children killed he would have said so. The paladin rather blatantly disregarded the heirarch's orders.

2] From the description, the children had no real combat capability. They were not real and present dangers and the paladin could have just as easily knocked them out and held them as ordered.

I would have the cardinal censure the paladin publicly for failure to follow explicit church orders. Whether or not the deity censures the paladin and strips him of his divine abilities depends on the deity. In any case I would make it temporary and allow him the opportunity to atone.

Tzarevitch

 

[the_mighty_agrippa]

I'm going to side with the DM, but only for the following reasons...


He defines morality in his game. It's his game.

The Paladin was warned once and did it a 2nd time.

However, I don't think it really warrants much more than a dressing down by the Cardinal and maybe some eerie, lingering doubts whenever he sees a child over the next fortnight.

If you really wanted to be vicious, have one of the kids that was subdued be able to be *saved* and have the Cardinal demand that the Paladin raise it as his own son in the ways of the faith.

 

[Saeviomagy]

At that point, gameplay screeched to a halt and an argument ensued regarding whether or not the paladin was violating his code. My sense was that, as the only person in the party who was truly of the faith - and doubly blessed by the gods, being both aasimar and paladin - the onus was on the paladin to ensure that the children were alive to face the cardinal.

You said yourself that he wasn't a member of the church heirarchy. That means he doesn't have to follow edicts from them. Full stop. Especially ones which he disagrees with.

As a paladin, he IS the righteous arm of his god. He doesn't have to wait on the beaurocracy at all.

Also, no matter how you slice it, I believe that a paladin should be undeniably hesitant to hew down children, no matter how old and vile they prrobably are.

Sorry, this is a really silly argument, as others have shown - it basically boils down to "cute is good and ugly is evil".

The paladin's player argued that he had violated nothing, because he knew they were evil, had commited truly heinous acts, and had attempted to dominate him to boot. From his perspective, he was well within his rights to destroy them.

Yup. Couldn't agree more. You, however, seem to be really hung up on the "no, you can't kill them - they're cute!" angle, and forging a moral dilemma where there is none.

I daresay if the perpetrators had been evil adults, or some kind of monster, that you'd have allowed the paladin to smash them with no qualms whatsoever.

 

[ForceUser]

According to the details provided, these kids were basically leeching off of the adults in a village until they were husks, and then sacrificing them to dark powers. When one village was done for, they move onto another.

That's some really sickening evil, there.

Thanks! I try. I truly take that as a compliment.

I absolutely believe that the more vile the villains, the more exalted the heroes must be. Sometimes this means destroying evil, and sometimes it means showing mercy. In the Book of Exalted Deeds sense, he did nothing wrong; according to that tome, a paladin must serve Good before Law, and serving Good means upholding righteousness and giving no quarter to evil unless it is asked for. Of all the classes, I feel that the Paladin is the only one who must be held to BoED standards at all times, regardless of whether or not he has "exalted" powers. Like I said, I let the matter slide at the table, because the bickering wasn't helpful. I won't reverse that decision now, days after the incident.

I will have a talk with my player to make sure we're on the same page in the future. Honestly, I am miffed that, regardless of his opinion on the matter, he chose to disregard my express warning and then argue with me immediately after ignoring it. But that is a different issue.

Thanks for all the input.

 

[RC Hagy]

What they found shocked and disturbed them: the children, under some evil influence, had sacrificed their parents in an infernal rite. In truth, the children had long ago made a deal with a fiend - in exchange for periodic sacrifices, the fiend granted them immortal childhood and certain unholy powers, including the ability to dominate the minds of adults. Using these powers, they would then insinuate themselves into a community, make the adults meet their every demand, and then upon bleeding their benefactors dry, sacrifice them to their dark patron.

From this:

the children, under some evil influence, had sacrificed their parents in an infernal rite.

I side with ForceUser (that and he did warn the paladin...).

They may no longer be children in the normal sense, but they were when they were corrupted... and it is all to easy to corrupt a child. All the dark patron needed to do was to get the child just after Mom or Dad or whomever said NO that one extra time.

'Say Betsy, you really want that doll?'
'yup...'
'Well, here is what you do...'

They were children, till they got hit with a warped Peter Pan complex with a nasty admission price. The target of demon/devil bargin need not have a clue as to what they are agreeing to... they just need to agree.

If the children were contained they may have been saved, I mean what was the range of their mental powers? Subdue, lock up, walk away until the manager arrives...

Paladins, last I knew, were the bane of demons and devils... not the possessed or tricked. Not unless they are a true threat to ones life and not unles the possessed are proven to be irredeemable.

Just let the Paladin know (if one feels the need) if ever he needs redeeming that there are those who will give him just as much leeway as he gave some children under the influence.


Hagy

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

It seems to me that the paladin was entirely justified in attacking the evil cultist-children. Merely because these evil creatures retained the form of children, does not inherently make it an evil act to kill them. In fact, according to Forceuser, the paladin knew that these "children" were evil creatures, filled with unholy power, and whom were guilty of not only worshipping demons, but of slaughtering entire villages of adults in some macabre orgy of blasphemous devotion! Armed with this knowledge, and also the subject of these creature's attempts at attacking himself, the paladin was not only justified, but should be rewarded for striking these evil spawn down. By killing these foul creatures, the paladin was upholding his heroic and solemn duty to not only defend Good, but also to destroy Evil.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK