Blood Crazed Paladin Fights The Man

[Olive]

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

some fo those kids are pretty evil... not iradeemable tho

 

[Kaji]

As a DM, I'm well aware of the fact that I can Rule 0 the situation. I am attempting to not quite be that heavy handed, if possible I'd rather persuade that dictate. I guess in my campaign, and in my mind, the point of Paladins having hard choices is what I feel is most important. Yes, it's much easier to deal with a looted dead body than it is to deal with a prisoner, but maybe you should carry around some manacles and a lot more rope. Hire a guy who specializes in Use Rope and have him tie everybody up. Cut a deal with the local authorities about prisoners you take. I'm just fishing for ideas. I might copy this whole thread and send it to him and see if it makes a difference.

 

[barsoomcore]

As a DM, I'm well aware of the fact that I can Rule 0 the situation. I am attempting to not quite be that heavy handed, if possible I'd rather persuade that dictate.

The fact is, you MUST decide what "Good" and "Evil" mean in your campaign, and your player has to abide by those definitions. It's not a question of being heavy-handed, and by all means listen to his ideas on the subject. But if you have one interpretation of alignment and he has another, ultimately you're the DM. Your interpretation is the correct one for your campaign.

You see what I'm saying? You don't have to AGREE on moral distinctions. You don't have to have the same world view. What you ACTUALLY think about Good and Evil is beside the point. All that matters in this instance is how YOU choose to define Good and Evil in your campaign.

Every DM has to Rule 0 this issue. There's no objectively right or wrong way to go. It's your campaign so you have to decide.

Once you've decided, I think you should just let the player know -- from now on, killing people who are doing no harm is EVIL -- regardless of their alignment. If he persists, then he is knowingly performing an act which in your campaign is defined as EVIL, and therefore he is not trying to behave like a good guy.

Which is FINE. But you shouldn't allow him to remain a paladin in that case. Or you'll have to Rule 0 paladins as well.

Hey, that's what I did.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

One suggestion: If you do wind up telling the paladin's player that from now on, doing what he's been doing is evil, allow him to replace the paladin with a PC of equal level, if he so desires. This should have all been decided before the paladin PC was ever created. Forcing a player to play a paladin when the very nature of what that means is changed (or drastically "clarified") mid-campaign just isn't fair. Give him an out, at the very least.

 

[Dragonblade]

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.

In the middle ages, generally only Christian monarchs duly approved of by the pope in Rome could claim divine right of kings.

No Christian knight would consider himself in any way beholden to a Muslim or other "heathen" rulers or laws. Similarly, no Muslim warrior would feel compelled to obey Christian laws when in Christian lands.

And especially in a medievalesque fantasy world where gods are very much real, no paladin will ever feel that he has to respect foreign laws in foreign lands. He is a paladin of the true faith and it is for the foreigners to learn of and obey his divinely inspired laws not for he to follow their heathen customs.

After all his code was ordained by the "true" god who chose him and vested him with power. Only those kingdoms whose monarchs, churches and laws were inspired by and put forth by worshippers of the true faith would be truly respected.

 

[Olive]

After all his code was ordained by the "true" god who chose him and vested him with power. Only those kingdoms whose monarchs, churches and laws were inspired by and put forth by worshippers of the true faith would be truly respected.

fair enuff, but that doesn't change most of what i said. it just backs me up in that the whole debate depends ALOT on the nature of the campaign world that the DM creates...

 

[bondetamp]

If I remember correctly, an old platitude that has been going around in alignment debates on this forum for a good while is that Alignment is not a straight jacket. A PC acts the way he does and alignment is retrofitted. An evil person can do good and still be evil. Why can't a good person then do evil and still be considered good? Killing helpless prisoners of evil alignment can clearly be done occationally by good people, even if it is generally considered to be an evil act.

Of course, the Paladin might lose his paladinhood, but only if the rules of his paladinhood include (implisist or explisit) rules of battle, saying that killing prisoners is illegal. If not, the Paladin's God is acting chaotic himself!

I would furthermore argue that refusing to do something, not because you find the act reprehensible but because your paladinhood's rules of conduct generally forbids it, makes you a clockwork soldier, not a champion of light.

A true hero should be ready to sacrifice everything including his paladinhood in the fight against evil and chaos.

 

[Zentermi]

I'm entering into this late, but it's a really good discussion.

I have to admit that I am of the same opinion as Dragonblade on this one.

Paladins are servants of actual Gods(in their respective areas).

As more fuel for the "obeying local laws simply because they are in place" argument... A paladin should not obey local laws which are obviously evil. Correct?

The gaming world is a scenario where there is no doubt that there is an afterlife. A paladin slaying an evil NPC/critter is not even a judgement. Only the gods can do that. He is merely speeding his foe on towards that true judgement.

Paladins shouldn't just go whack people/critters that "detect" as evil unless he is certain that evil actions have actually been committed. Everyone has entertained evil thoughts occasionally. In fact, one's own evil thoughts may be the very reason a person has chooses to become a paladin. To hold the beast inside in check.

See, a paladin never chooses to bring someone down. The badguys choose that. It is their actions which bring down the righteous wrath of the noble paladin. So what, if some evil wizard kidnaps a maiden, totures her a while... fights 'til it seems he's about to lose and says "I surrender!". Is the maiden then un-tortured? The village unburned? The urchin un-murdered?

It's a simple logic problem. If the bad guys had not done what they did... the paladin wouldn't even be there killing their evil-surrendering-a**es.

For myself, I always imagine paladins as perhaps being regretful for the harsh path he must tread, to rid the world of those who would do evil. "For the actions which you have commited, foul Jagas, I have no recourse but to send you to your judgement. I wish, by Pelor, that you had chosen differently" Off with his head.

Lastly, I'm sorry... but this 'example' is just awful:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: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.:endquote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Half-Orc in question is still a murderer. And if any paladin 'worth-his-salt' saw this and accepted his surrender... allowing 'misguided scum like that to kill again... strip him of his paladinhood.

If it bleeds... it can die...
Zentermi

 

[Dragonblade]

An evil person can do good and still be evil. Why can't a good person then do evil and still be considered good? Killing helpless prisoners of evil alignment can clearly be done occationally by good people, even if it is generally considered to be an evil act.

This, believe it or not, I disagree with. Evil can do good and still be evil. But Good can never do evil and still be good. The good path is the narrow path.

Where the argument lies is what acts we consider good and what we consider evil. Acts I consider good, some of you consider evil and vice versa.

Of course, the Paladin might lose his paladinhood, but only if the rules of his paladinhood include (implisist or explisit) rules of battle, saying that killing prisoners is illegal. If not, the Paladin's God is acting chaotic himself!

I would furthermore argue that refusing to do something, not because you find the act reprehensible but because your paladinhood's rules of conduct generally forbids it, makes you a clockwork soldier, not a champion of light.

Quite right! Although...

A true hero should be ready to sacrifice everything including his paladinhood in the fight against evil and chaos.

As long as the paladin is a true hero than his paladinhood can never be sacrificed. I don't believe in the "paladin's dilemma" where a paladin gets put in a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation. Thats simply poor DMing.

The paladin's code is designed to encourage the fight against evil and to uphold morality and defend the right. It is not a straitjacket a paladin follows to the exclusion of everything, even common sense.

The code is a framework, a moral foundation upon which the paladin bases his actions. But ultimately the paladin is a hero and as long as he tries to do the right thing in a tough situation then his paladinhood will never be in question.

 

[Dragonblade]

For myself, I always imagine paladins as perhaps being regretful for the harsh path he must tread, to rid the world of those who would do evil.

"For the actions which you have commited, foul Jagas, I have no recourse but to send you to your judgement. I wish, by Pelor, that you had chosen differently" Off with his head.

Exactly.