Blood Crazed Paladin Fights The Man

[Kaji]

I could use some input. The game I DM currently is a FR campaign where all the PC's are worshippers of Osiris and are LG. One of the Paladins is having trouble because lately, several creatures have surrended in battle as they realized that the cause was lost. The creatures in question are evil. I've advised the party that the correct action is not to execute vanquished foes, and everyone is cool with this but one Paladin, who thinks he should be able to execute them after they surrender because they are evil. I'm ok with saying "It's my gameworld, and that's how LG characters act in my world" but if possible I'd like a more persuasive argument and sources to quote. Any ideas or input?

 

[drnuncheon]

I'm ok with saying "It's my gameworld, and that's how LG characters act in my world" but if possible I'd like a more persuasive argument and sources to quote. Any ideas or input?

Law: is the character in question legally empowered to conduct a trial and execute prisoners of war? If not, then killing people who have surrendered out of hand is definitely not a lawful action - it is overstepping your authority in the name of expedience.

Good: while it is certainly proper to execute irredeemably evil creatures out of hand (demons, devils, etc), are these creatures of that sort? If not, and they are not presenting a danger to others (since they are prisoners), it would be better to show them mercy and teach them the error of their ways.

J

 

[Larry Fitz]

What is the basis for his decision to execute these creatures? Just because they 'detect' as evil? Is being selfish an executable offense? What about being greedy? A person can be evil, but lackthe moral conviction to act on their attitudes, could your paladin kill someone for something they may someday do? It sounds like you have a bloodthirsty Paladin there, or is it because the PC's are not getting xp for defeating these creatures? In that case it is your fault, because they should get xp, they did indeed defeat these creatures. If a DM uses the "You didn't kill them so you don't get xp" line, then he/she is breeding players that kill everything. In many cases it is tougher to defeat an enemy and NOT kill them, sometimes defeating an enemmy without resorting to murder should be rewarded with MORE xp (IMO). Other than that I agree with the Doc, if it is not lawful forthe paladin to exact justice, then he cannot do so and remain a Paladin. the Lawful part of his alignmernt is just as important as the good....

 

[Nail]

The core of this question really is: "What does "Detecting as Evil mean?"

Or: How have you defined Evil in your campaign in the past? What are the players used to? It may be this player is just reflecting some of how you (the DM) have dealt with Evil in past encounters.

In some well-known campaigns in the Story Hour forum, "Detecting as Evil" only comes about when someone is doing or contemplating the completion of some Evil Act.

In the core rules, Evil is a property, like red (a color), or heavy (a weight). If that's true, then the Paladin is certainly within his rights to kill thwe evil-doers. Is that how it is in your world?

 

[shilsen]

The core of this question really is: "What does "Detecting as Evil mean?"

Or: How have you defined Evil in your campaign in the past?

This is a really important question in any such debate, although I disagree with Nail's point that according to the core rules the paladin is "certainly within his rights" to kill evil creatures. IMC, the PCs know that good, evil and neutral people all exist in society. A paladin who walks into a tavern and detects evil will detect the off-duty city guardsman who enjoys beating up prisoners, the greedy merchant who cheats his customers on a regular basis, and the 1st lvl evil cleric of a god of destruction who's enjoying a beer. Each and every one of them will detect as faintly evil, and attacking and killing any of them will be a very evil act. The paladin is lawful good, remember? Killing someone on the basis of alignment is neither.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Each and every one of them will detect as faintly evil, and attacking and killing any of them will be a very evil act. The paladin is lawful good, remember? Killing someone on the basis of alignment is neither.

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.

But I suppose this thread isn't meant as a forum for arguments over the nature of paladinhood, or the nature of good vs. evil.

Taking that into account, I think the best thing is to simply say that in your world, that's what lawful good means. No other justification will work, if the player doesn't view it in the same light. When you're dealing with good and evil, Rule 0 is really all there is.

 

[Crothian]

What do they do with the evil people if they don't kill them? If it's between letting them go to cause more harm, or killing them, then I think the Paladin would kill them.

 

[shilsen]

What do they do with the evil people if they don't kill them? If it's between letting them go to cause more harm, or killing them, then I think the Paladin would kill them.

They don't do anything much other than giving them dirty looks Not unless they want to get arrested, that is. Being evil in alignment is not against the law, esp. since only some select spellcasters can detect evil (clerics, paladins, and rangers). So the vast majority of people have no experience of the concept, and must take somebody else's word for it. This is especially true of primarily human communities, since they are often neutral in nature, and contain people of all alignments.

 

[Sanackranib]

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"

 

[Dragonblade]

The paladin is perfectly within his rights to slay the evil monsters. He is under no obligation to accept their surrender or offer them mercy.

If you as DM don't feel comfortable with such moral absolutes then you can simply rule zero your game to be however you want.

However, I notice how some people say that it is evil to kill evil creatures. How so? Who says so?

To me its evil to not kill evil creatures. How can a society that accepts "evil" beings then turn around and condemn the paladin for destroying them?

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 such evil is acceptable it follows then that such a "tolerant" society would than have no moral high ground with which to condemn a paladin for "murdering" evil beings.

If everyone has the "right" to their own moral code and no one has the right to judge another, than by what right does one judge the paladin as wrong for slaying evil beings wherever he finds them? For such is his code and his belief and if morality is relative than who are you to judge the paladin and say he is wrong?

So either morality is absolute and the paladin is right.

Or morality is relative and the paladin is still right.

Or (my favorite and Ayn Rand's )morality is objective...but thats a whole other discussion.