Another Paladin Thread: Throw Rocks!

[Henry]

In fact, "Cross our paths in battle again, and you die," IS an explicit contract of safety to me, and would be a breach.

 

[Cheiromancer]

I view the paladin as being a party to the contract where the orc's surrender is accepted and release given subsequent to cooperation. If the paladin did not intend to accept the orc's surrender and cooperation, he should have spoken up earlier. To do otherwise is dishonest. It's like ordering a meal in a restaurant, eating it, and then leaving without paying because "I thought the prices were too high, and anyway I never said I was going to pay."

He also made his party member a liar by voiding the promise of safe conduct; that dishonors the party member and destroys the unity of purpose of the party. The paladin's action also diminished the dignity of the orc. Either you treat the orc as not possessing any dignity as a sentient being- in which case you don't treat or negotiate with him at all- or you give him at least the dignity to defend himself. The paladin dishonored himself by his behavior.

I might have an NPC cleric of the paladin's faith scold him (making the points I made above) but I wouldn't strip him of his powers; I try not to be that kind of DM. I would try to arrange the consequences more subtly- like having the paladin rely on the honesty and discretion of a Lawful Good institution, and have his trust be violated. Without any sign of divine disapproval of the institution. I would also try to have (lawful) evil opponents treat him honorably (respecting deals, etc.) - enough so that he recognizes the benefit of this kind of behavior.

But subtly, subtly. It should improve the ability of the player to engage in moral reasoning. Not be some kind of ham-fisted exercise of the DM's arbitrary authority.

 

[Deuce Traveler]

I would agree with Henry there. In a lawless land, with creatures and bandits who seem beyond redemption, the paladin is often the bringer of the law if he or she stays consistent.

 

[Deuce Traveler]

I'm not sure I would define lawful good or being a paladin as always being required to tell the truth, although I would expect them to follow an oath that was not made while under durress.

 

[diaglo]

To be slightly OT: What's the reason nobody tells a thief how to pick locks, but everbody knows how a paladin is played "right"?

Check for all the threads on people who have rogues that steal from party members.

or the threads on clerics as medic
or the threads on wizards/sorc as the magic source or magic item factories
or the threads on druids as tree huggers
or the threads on...

each class has a niche and some people like to put each class in its own box and leave it there.

it isn't wrong or right. just a different way to play each.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Am I wrong to think that our paladin's actions were ethically inappropriate?

Yes you are wrong. As Vegepygmy's quote showed, the PHB is explicitly clear on this. It is quite permissable for a paladin to show no mercy to evil. In my view not all paladins are of this school but some are.

The real issue in the situation you described was the PC conflict over how to deal with the prisoner which I'm guessing led to some player vs player heatedness. That's best dealt with by discussing the issue with the other players.

 

[robertsconley]

Read Oath Of Gold or the Deed of Paksenarrion by Elisabeth Moon. It has what I consider the definitive word on traditional paladins.

Basically it boils down to detect evil. If I was a paladin and I detected evil then eventually I will kill it. The only mercy given will be a clean and swift death.

Now in the Deed of Paksenarrion the paladin Detect Evil isn't like a absolute alignment detector. Most people (and other sentient creatures) read as a mix of good and evil. So you can't just use it to separate people into the good guys who cheer you, and the evil guys who you kill. But it does work when people are working directly for evil, committing evil acts, or about to commit an evil act.

Rob Conley

 

[delericho]

Yes you are wrong. As Vegepygmy's quote showed, the PHB is explicitly clear on this. It is quite permissable for a paladin to show no mercy to evil. In my view not all paladins are of this school but some are.

That's fair enough (possibly - flavour text in an example in the PHB is probably a poor guide to the exact intent of the rules). However, in addition to the issue of mercy dealt with by the PHB quote, there is also the issue of the agreement with the orc, "talk, and we'll let you live".

Having made that agreement, the paladin should have honoured it. By failing to do so, she is not upholding her code.

Or do you not agree?

 

[Halivar]

The paladin's player obviously doesn't understand the paladin concept and how it should be played. I would be the DM she would lose her paladin status. Then, since I am not a harsh DM, I would later let her become a LE paladin (as per Unearthed Arcana variant).

While I disagree with the first sentence, I would, as a player, acknowledge the DM's sovereignty in the matter, and change my character sheet to LE.

But I would still play my own concept of LG regardless, and use whatever tools you give me to advance my own in-game agenda of protecting innocents, and all good and goodly folk, even if I have to cut down a hundred orcs. Little letters on my sheet don't change my character, or his goals.

 

[tzor]

She hesitated for a moment, gave me a dirty look, mounted her horse, and ran down the orc ... killing him in cold blood. He was unarmed.

In my humble opinion this deserves nothing less than a complete fall from grace, a fate worse than death itself. Yes, the horse is guilty!

(Hey she's a celestial animal if she's the paladin's mount, she's should have known better. Shame on the DM for not playing the horse properly.)

Oh and the paladin deserves to be knocked off her high horse as well.