Blood Crazed Paladin Fights The Man

[Kaji]

In response to good points

Thank you all for the input. Here's a few responses:

1. Yes, xp's are awarded for defeating the encounter in my campaign. Surrender counts as defeat. The prisoners are then typically tied up. We have been using a variation on the Coup de Grace rules to allow a subdual coup de grace (or at least I think it's a variation).

2. In my mind, there is a difference between evil and EVIL. A demon or deveil is inherently evil, right? No hope of salvation. A Frost Giant, while normally evil, could be seen to see the error of his ways and convert to the worship of Torm. Not likely, but possible.

3. As far as defing the nature of evil, that's a good point. We have discussed it to some point, but not at length. I'll consider talking about it more. I do use the core rules where evil is a property.

4. I'll post more later, work calls...

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

If you've told him that executing prisoners that have surrendered is not a LG act, and he still does it, say "Fine. You execute the helpless prisoner. You are now a warrior. I warned you. Live with it."

Harsh, and probably not the best course of action but fair. Sounds like he's not really playing a Paladin to me.

 

[Arnwyn]

The DM is well within his/her rights to dictate and define morality in his/her campaign.

Simply put, murder is not a good act (and that's what it would be once the evil creatures surrendered). Why would a paladin stoop to the level of the evil creatures by murdering them? It's disgusting that someone as virtuous as a paladin would always seek to take the easy way out. Sad.

Though some discussion with the paladin's player is always helpful. Ask questions - that's how you can better understand what's going on in the head of the player. And let the player explain himself as much as possible. Question to the player: "why do you think it's a good idea to kill those who have surrendered?" And get as much information as possible - don't settle for a short, simplistic answer.

Armed with that info, you may find it easier and more intuitive to counter each of his points. He may find that he simply doesn't have a leg to stand on, and defeat himself ("uh, because they're evil?" or "uh, because it's easier than taking them to prison?").

Just some ideas that may or may not apply to your campaign or your gaming style...

 

[maddman75]

Re: the code

teh paladin is limited in his actions once he ACCEPTS their surender. how ever you must ask yourself if the paladin says "pick up your sword I do not accept your surrender, if you want to live you must beat me, then the others will allow you to go. he must then tell the others not to enterfere with the outcome and "roll the bones"

I've had a paladin take this route before. It was a Ravenloft game, and she had failed a horror check in responce to the cult's depravities. So she wasn't exactly in the best frame of mind. After some interrogation, she cut his bonds and threw him a dagger. Told him he was free and to defend himself. Even this was pretty close to the edge IMHO.

 

[drnuncheon]

Either murder, rape, slavery, necromancy, etc. are acceptable or they are not. If they are not acceptable then evil beings wouldn't be tolerated. They would be rounded up and executed by the paladin and he would be applauded for a job well done.

If you went around the United States killing murderers and rapists, you would be arrested and put away. There may be those who would applaud you for a job well done, but you would still be arrested and put away. You may have acted for the common good, but you did not do so lawfully.

Remember, paladins are Lawful Good. Usurping power that is not theirs (the power of High Justice in a typical medieval-style campaign) is undermining the authorities. Slaughtering prisoners after their surrender has been accepted is undermining the code of chivalry. Neither of these are lawful acts - in fact, they're pretty darn chaotic...not to mention the fact that slaughtering prisoners without the benefit of law makes you a murderer too, and we've already agreed that that's evil.

Paladins have tough choices. They're supposed to. If a paladin starts choosing the path of expedience rather than virtue, then he is sliding away from paladinhood. Being a paladin is about always doing the right thing, no matter what the cost. Being a paladin is realizing that the end never justifies the means. Being a paladin is being willing to sacrifice yourself for the greater good.

It's not about killing anything. Thinking that is a step away from paladinhood right there.

For more on what it really means to be a paladin, I can only recommend Elizabeth Moon's The Deed of Paksenarrion, which ought to be required reading before playing such a character.

J

 

[Dragonblade]

This is not the United States. This is a fantasy world where the paladin has been imbued with real divine power by his deity. Where evil exists as a cosmic force and the paladin is on a mission to combat it.

It is the paladin's mission to fight evil without mercy. In the paladin's world where gods rule, magic reigns, and foul monsters stalk the land, destroying evil is a virtue.

And by way of his supernatural ability to detect evil he doesn't have to worry about producing evidence to prove the bad guy is really a bad guy. He knows the bad guy is bad.

He does not kill evil beings because it is expedient or easier than "bringing them to justice". A totally meaningless phrase in a world where the paladin's crusade against evil is mandated by his god or the cosmic good. Not any temporal or secular authority.

The paladin slaying evil doers is bringing them to justice. A divine justice according to a divine law. This is why the paladin is LG.

He is not a police officer with powers invested in him by the secular laws of the state or the king. Thus being LG doesn't mean he must follow the laws of the state.

Although most paladins would do so simply by default because most laws are designed to protect the innocent from evil. But a paladin is not beholden to an area's secular legal code" simply because lawful is a component of his alignment.

 

[Artoomis]

What to do? It depends.

Here's my take on it. Once your opponent surrenders, killing him is out of the question if there is any reasonable hope of redemption. If there is no hope of redemption, the prefered alternative is to turn them over to appropriate authorities for trial and execution. If this cannot be done, then the paladin would certainly have the authority to kill his captives in a medieval world - typically a paladin would have such authority.

It is mostly up to you, as DM, to make clear what the limits are on the paladin's authority as granted by whatever church he follows.

In any case, a paladin would certainly prefer to avoid executions, if for no other reason than to avoid a guilt trip if it turns out that who he killed wasn't so evil after all. This would not have to void his powers since he did not knowingly commit an evil act, but still...

 

[Olive]

Although most paladins would do so simply by default because most laws are designed to protect the innocent from evil. But a paladin is not beholden to an area's secular legal code" simply because lawful is a component of his alignment.

regardless of whether laws generally ARE designed to protect the innocent from evil (whether today or in a feudal monarchy), this interpretaion of Lawful is going to vary from campaign to campaign... in my campaign, a paladin WOULD have to follow the secular laws for an area, unless there was a specific reason not to. after all, monarchs, and therefore the law, were often seen as divinely inspired in the middle ages.

ion summation: thats a perfectly good interpretation, but that doesn't mean is the right interpreatation in a given campaign.

 

[RigaMortus]

A paladin who walks into a tavern and detects evil will detect the off-duty city guardsman who enjoys beating up prisoners,

I don't see this as necessarily being evil. Otherwise that child that bullies those smaller then him would also be evil.

the greedy merchant who cheats his customers on a regular basis,

Seems more on the lines of Law/Chaos then Good/Evil. Since when is acquiring wealth an "evil" act? If so, all my characters would be considered evil, even my Paladin. Now HOW they acquired that wealth is what is important (did they kill innocent people for it?).

and the 1st lvl evil cleric of a god of destruction who's enjoying a beer.

Being a Cleric with the Destruction domain does not make a person evil, unless there is more to it that I am missing.

 

[RigaMortus]

I totally disagree with that. Killing evil is what a paladin, and most heroes in general do. Why should it matter whether they are in a dungeon, or drinking at the bar? Unless your PCs always wait in the dungeon until after the lich has slaughtered someone in front of them? I didn't think so. It's a lich, it's evil, it's meat. Period.

I can't find anything in the Paladin description that states "killing evil is what a Paladin does". What gives the Paladin the right to kill ANYTHING that radiates as evil? Is the Paladin above the law? Maybe he is in your campaign, but not in all campaigns. Is there never ever ever any chance for redemption? Wouldn't/Shouldn't the "proper" authorities handle these evil people? Just turn them over to the local law enforcement.

Also, there is a big difference between an evil Lich and say a Half-Orc Barbarian in a civilized setting that just killed some peasant in a fight because that is how he was raised to handle conflicts and doesn't know any better.