Blood Crazed Paladin Fights The Man

[Dragonblade]

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...

Yep, I absolutely agree. The DM needs to work out in advance how he views the morality and the attitudes of gods and cultures in their world.

And then needs to inform any would be paladin player in advance of what his expectations are. Otherwise its not fair to penalize a player for playing his paladin in a way the DM doesn't agree with.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

I see no problem here. If a creature is trying to kill you one minute and then surrenders the next to save its own skin then I see nothing wrong with a Paladin deciding to execute them for their crimes.

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'm A Banana]

Ah, the eternal question of paladins killing evil things....

How I do it, IMC (and this is a slight reinterpretation, I think

Paladins are dedicated to the desruction of Evil.

Not to the destruction of things which are Evil.

It's a stubtle distinction, but an important one. If the paladin detects evil, it's his right as an icon of all that is ordered and holy to find out what makes the creature evil. You fight against the evil the creature has, not against the creature itself.

So, for instance:

1) A fiend. The creature is evil, and produces evil. There isn't a shred of goodness within him -- fighting evil effectively means physically battling the creature itself.

2) An undead. The creature is evil, but is unintelligent (for the most part), or is unwilling to change. Again, fighting evil effectively means fighting the creature itself.

3) A child who is a bully. The creature is evil, and undoubtedly produces evil, but there is the potential for goodness within him. If the paladin bodily fights the child, he isn't being true to his vows, he isn't fighting evil, merely the effects of evil. The paladin should, instead of killing the kid, find a way to turn the kid aroud, fight against the evil in his heart, and not his form.

4) A typically 'evil' humanoid. The creature is evil, and produces evil, but there may be the potential for goodness within him. This varies a lot by campaign, but normally orcs and the like can be swayed to goodness with only slightly more difficulty than a child. The paladin is obligated to attempt to sway the creature, but must preserve goodness above all -- if the creature isn't receptive, it is better to kill than to keep it alive.

All these assume the paladin has the legal right to kill all of these. Undead and fiends are 'monsters,' so there's not real question there. The child is arguably dishonorable, and an dult commoner only slightly less wrong. An evil humanoid may be within his rights, if it's a foriegner or a creature his nation is at war with.

I think I've covered most questionable situations with that look on it.

Fight the Evil itself. Not what happens to be evil.

 

[bondetamp]

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.

Fair enough. I'm not sure whether or not I agree, as it would make good people somewhat scarce, in my - perhaps somewhat cynical - opinion, but it is a valid stance.

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.

Well, if you consider killing helpless, evil prisoners to be Good, then the discussion is over before it has really started. There would be no problem for the Paladin to throat-slit the prisoners. No moral quandry.

Quite right!

I know.

Although...

What?

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.

Ah. I agree with that (fairly liberal) enforcement of the code, and I agree that this solves a good lot of problems.

The Paladin's dillemma will still be there, however. A Paladin's purpose is to uphold Law and Good. What happens when those two are in conflict?

(besides: I kind of like the idea of a truly doomed hero who goes around doing very unpleasant acts because someone has to do it, and he doesn't want anyone else to risk their souls.)

 

[Zentermi]

Here's how I see it.

And please, take this in the tone of discussion for discussions sake. Not antagonism.

1) A fiend: Born/created into a world of evil. What choice does it have but to be evil? So sad that the creature has to pay so harshly for the only road it had to take(cue fake tears)Accepting that evil in itself is a force and that the creature itself is an incarnation of evil... The only penalty for this most heinous of evil beings(until reaching epic levels anway) is banishment... you cant 'kill' something if you deal the killing blow on a plane not of its own. So heck... always 'kill' outsiders. You have no moral repercussions whatsoever. But it's a cop-out. Cuz that would be 'the Easy Way'. If faced with a single Vrock, the 8th level paladin and his party has no choice but to subdue it... and then arrange a Plane Shift to the appropriate plane of Hell and kill it for real. Just to be fair.

2) An undead. Undead can sometimes be highly intelligent. What if, the Powerful Lich-lord Bosephus(not mindless... was once human)... who has ravaged(killed all who lived within) entire cities... lets say 2 of them. He surrenders.... claiming " I finally see the light of my ways!" Who gets to make the judgement call? Should the paladin then spend the next couple of years buried in semantic discussions with a genocidal Lich-Lord? Or should he just scream vengeance and Holy Sword 'im into calcium deposits

3) A child who is a bully: It's a child. 99.9 percent of the time... you bring the kid to an orphanage of your god. There's still time. The child is likely NOT a threat to the party's safety. Properly managed... it should not pose much of a problem. Oh. And by the way. There is nothing inherently heroic about disciplining misbehaving children. I suggest you skip it in your campaign. Chances are if you don't your players will skip your sessions.

4) A typically 'evil' humanoid: The worst of the worst. They KNOW the difference between good and evil and CHOOSE evil. They didn't have to. They saw it as the best way to get what they want. They have the CAPACITY for both... but good... well it just wasn't how they felt like doing things. So they made the concious decision for evil. If they were really proficient at being evil... there will be an evil deity waiting for them with open arms. Or maybe not. But it was their choice. If they had not chosen to put the children/maidens/elderly to the sword to get what they wanted... well Mr. Pal A. Din, would have been off slaying dragons that day and it wouldn't be an issue. In D&D-Land, having a paladin come along to swipe off yer noggin is on the List (#27) for Reasons Not to Do Things the Evil Way. Like I said earlier, it's an easy IF - THEN statement. IF I douse myself in gasoline and light a match.... THEN - I'm going to be horribly burned. IF - I don't douse myself in gasoline... THEN - I most likely will not.

The evil is the choice. The act is the nail in your coffin.

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

PS I really need to spell-check BEFORE I click submit. >sigh<

 

[Dragonblade]

Well, "helpless prisoners" is an interesting term full of all sorts of imagery that implies the paladin is just some self-righteous bully on a power trip.

Its easy to say that killing helpless people or prisoners is wrong but lets put it in context.

If the paladin walks into the town dungeon and starts slitting the throats of the local drunks that would be different than if the paladin captured some unrepentant necromancer cultist who continuously screams that one day it will be the paladin's friends who are bent over the altar to the dark gods.

Both may be "helpless prisoners" but the situation is completely different. In one case the paladin is perfectly justified in slitting the throat of the prisoner. In the other he is not.

This goes back to my original offhand comment about morality being objective rather than absolute or relative. In other words the morality of a situation and thus the paladin's response to it fully depends on an objective appraisal of the situation itself.

In my opinion the Lawful and Good compenents of the paladin's alignment don't conflict with each other. They complement each other. The paladin is lawful in that he supports and believes in his code. He believes that an ordered society in accordance with his deity is the best way to achieve the most good for the most people. But common sense would say where following the law ceases to be good, the paladin will no longer follow it.

Conversely CG is the belief that the most good for the most people can be achieved simply by leaving people alone to live their life as they see fit as long as what they do doesn't interfere with or harm others. Laws are often an unnecessary burden on the freedoms of the individual.

Although I do like your imagery of the doomed hero. In fact such paladins exist in my world. Although it isn't their soul which is in danger so much as their mortal life. Since such paladins often crusade alone, deep into unknown and dangerous territory, some never to return or be heard from again.

 

[Haradim]

Re:

What do the other Paladins plan to do now that they have prisoners?

If they oppose execution, their options are rather limited. They can take the prisoners to a safe location, prey their word is their bond, and release them in hopes they will turn from the darkness. This may either come back to haunt the Paladins, or prove to be a rare success story. Given the odds, I'd probably not penalise a Paladin for going this route; turning from evil is hard, and the risk a Paladin takes (and the anguish he may feel in the event of tragedy) in the hope of a convert and soul 'saved' is cost enough for me (barring circumstances that indicate such leniency is simply far too dangerous and thus foolish, eg. insanity).

Or, they can take them back to town, where they will probably just be killed anyway (likely without any trial, maybe even as the party approaches), since your average Orc-fearing peasant isn't one to hold to the lofty ideals of a Paladin, and is quite happy to slay even a truely repentant creature if the opportunity presents.

Taking them back to town means the result is the same (execution), and may ironically bring out hateful and evil feelings from the people of the settlement.

So it would seem to me, at 3:15 in the morning, that the only option that doesn't lead the prisoners to their deaths is to let them go on good faith, and hope for the best.

Are they willing to go that far? Is it permitted in their Code? And most importantly, does Good in your campaign include things like mercy and compassion, where such an activity is actually a positive thing? About the only things that can't change given a chance are evil outsiders (essentially corporeal beings of evil) and creatures too dumb to understand such a concept. Whether or not the chance is successful, and what penalties it brings upon the Paladin(s) if it fails, is up to you.

My 2 bits.

 

[drnuncheon]

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.

You're getting into house rules here. Paladins are devoted to "righteousness" according to the PHB and need not get their power from a deity.

They are devoted to the principles of Lawful Good. Part of what makes that different from Neutral or Chaotic Good is believing that there is an order to things, and that order should be followed. They don't get to decide what they think is right and wrong like a CG person does - they have to follow the rules.

If the rules of society, of their church should they have one, etc say that killing a prisoner is evil, unworthy, or dishonorable, then a paladin cannot do it and remain a paladin. Period.

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.

Then what exactly separates Lawful Good from Chaotic Good in your view? How would a Chaotic Good character act any differently than this paladin who is going around making his own decisions on what is good and what is not, ignoring those of society?

"'Law' implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability."

If someone has surrendered to you, and you kill them, that is dishonorable - they are helpless to defend themselves. It is untrustworthy - they surrendered and put their trust in you that you would treat them properly. I would not trust someone who accepted a foe's surrender and then killed them. It may be being disobedient to authority, if the proper authority has said that prisoners should be treated in a certain way. It doesn't seem very reliable either, especially if your friends are relying on you to guard the prisoners and not kill them.

Do you see the slaughter of a surrendered person as honorable? Do you see killing of a surrendered foe as trustworthy? (Remember, the original example stated that the surrender was already accepted.) If not, how can you say that a paladin can do such a thing and remain lawful?

Remember that a chaotic character can follow a 'divine law' as well - if that divine law is chaotic in nature.

J

 

[DustTC]

I think the main problem is that some (most?) people feel there are gradations of evil, but have difficulty pinning down how they would work in a game of D&D.

I don't think anyone would complain if your Paladin gave no quarter to a chromatic dragon or a demon (in fact, most DMs would applaud him for slaying the monster on the spot despite what the other PCs might be saying). In the Sunless Citadel there is a situation where you can capture a dragon. I allowed my 2 Paladin players to take the dragon to a seperate room and cut it's head off. No problem. Chromatic dragons are inherently evil, there is no redeeming them and there is no point in keeping them alive.

On the other hand, when confronted with humanoids (emphasis on human), it's a whole different situation. We do not tend to think of ourselves, as humans, as black and white in terms of morality. Nobody is born evil (or good), unlike the aforementioned demons and their ilk. In many cases, it would not be justified for a Paladin to kill evil people if they surrender.

IMC, all creatures that by their very nature represent a certain alignment trait are considered the extreme, unchangeable version of that alignment. A demon is irredeemably evil and chaotic. If you're talking about humanoids though, it's handy to show your players the alignment system in the Book of Hallowed Might. It's up to them to figure out where on the scale of evil someone is. If it's all the way up, treat the NPC as a demon for all I care. If it's on the lower side, that Paladin would better not lay a finger on him if he surrenders peacefully.

Using this system has the added benefit of solving a lot of the morality issues with Detect Evil: it's a great spell to know if some dodgy looking abberation is evil or not (time to smite it?), which is for the most part only interesting from a purely game-mechanic point of view (which is what Detect Evil is for IMHO, it's just another spell like Detect Undead, Detect Magic, Detect Animals and Plants, etc.).

On the other hand, Detect Evil will not help my players solve questions of morality or let them figure out the correct course of action with some humanoid they captured. If they're that desperate to know, there's better spells for that... Detect Evil is not your god telling you its all right to kill someone.

This is the essence of roleplaying games like D&D to me: there is the hack 'n slash, for which a whole system of alignments, aligned planes and matching monsters was designed, and then there is the plot, the humanoids who inhabit these fantasy worlds and the shades of gray that force people to think and play in character. Problems only arrise when you try to treat both aspects the same way for the sake of simplicity.

 

[Dragonblade]

You're getting into house rules here. Paladins are devoted to "righteousness" according to the PHB and need not get their power from a deity.

Yes. True. But they still get their power from an external source of cosmic good.

They are devoted to the principles of Lawful Good. Part of what makes that different from Neutral or Chaotic Good is believing that there is an order to things, and that order should be followed. They don't get to decide what they think is right and wrong like a CG person does - they have to follow the rules.

You are correct. They do follow the rules. Either the rules of their god or the basic moral rules of the universal good.

The paladin cannot just do whatever they like nor have I said that. But they don't have to follow the rules of others simply because others have rules.

If the rules of society, of their church should they have one, etc say that killing a prisoner is evil, unworthy, or dishonorable, then a paladin cannot do it and remain a paladin. Period.

Yes, you would be correct. But the key here is IF. Paladins in my world have no such rules against killing a prisoner just because they are a prisoner. Being a prisoner or helpless doesn't in and of itself give any sort of untouchable status. Whether or not the paladin can kill the prisoner depends on who the prisoner is and why they are a prisoner.

Then what exactly separates Lawful Good from Chaotic Good in your view? How would a Chaotic Good character act any differently than this paladin who is going around making his own decisions on what is good and what is not, ignoring those of society?

The paladin doesn't go around making his own decisions on what is good or not. What is good or not is determined by the paladin's code and the situation at hand.

A CG character is under no such external restrictions or code to guide his actions. CG characters are the ones who would go around making their own decisions on what is good or not.

If someone has surrendered to you, and you kill them, that is dishonorable - they are helpless to defend themselves. It is untrustworthy - they surrendered and put their trust in you that you would treat them properly. I would not trust someone who accepted a foe's surrender and then killed them. It may be being disobedient to authority, if the proper authority has said that prisoners should be treated in a certain way. It doesn't seem very reliable either, especially if your friends are relying on you to guard the prisoners and not kill them.

Do you see the slaughter of a surrendered person as honorable? Do you see killing of a surrendered foe as trustworthy? (Remember, the original example stated that the surrender was already accepted.) If not, how can you say that a paladin can do such a thing and remain lawful?

If the paladin has in fact accepted the surrender of his foe then you are correct. He cannot simply slay them out of hand. If he has given his word that the prisoners won't be harmed then he must keep his word.

But the paladin is under no obligation to accept a foe's surrender in the first place even if that foe drops his weapon and begs for mercy. Furthermore if after accepting a foe's surrender certain extenuating or extraordinary circumstances come to light then the paladin may kill the prisoner.

For example, if the paladin is fighting a brigand who surrenders and the paladin accepts his surrender. But then it is revealed the brigand is in fact a notorious serial rapist and killer with a death sentence on his head, the paladin may then kill the prisoner and carry out the death sentence.

But the paladin who has accepted a prisoner's surrender cannot simply kill the prisoner because he "felt like it" or some other frivolous reason. That would be more Chaotic and not Lawful.