Killing innocents - a paladin thread in disguise ;-)

Thanee

First Post
This is not really about paladins, but rather about the question, whether it is acceptable - given the right circumstances - to kill innocents in order to preserve the greater good, essentially. The question, when you have to choose between few deaths and many deaths, and there is (or at least appears to be) no way around it.

Here's the situation... with a bit of background information.

Our party (a paladin of Heironeous, her squire, another paladin of Heironeous (NPC), an exalted druid (no, he does not have VoP), and my sorceress) have been fighting against a huge threat for quite some time already. In the past, we managed to obtain a few items, not quite artifacts, but fairly powerful magical items, magical stones keyed to various planes, which together can be used to create a gate to a distant plane, which the evil powers we are opposing want to use for their nefarious ends. Let's just say, that it would not be good, if they would be able to obtain them all, but we also cannot simply destroy them.

Furthermore, our country is at war, a huge war (there are even gods involved somehow), and we are among the few left behind to protect the country. We have a region under our protection, where we often clash with the forces of said evil power, and where many of the stones could be found, certainly the reason for their involvement there.

Anyways, we were on a ship to an island, where we suspected another of the magical stones to be found, the last one needed, actually, we already have the other five. At one morning, suddenly some of the passengers became sick, us four included. We quickly found out, that we have been poisoned, along with a number of other passengers, quite randomly chosen. Now our druid could heal some of the poisoned ones, but not all of them, because the poison was rather deadly, it was inevitable, that some of the victims would die. We offered the wealthier passengers the chance of Reincarnation, but also made clear, that we do not have the coins to buy the material components; they gladly offered those, naturally.

Now the problems began. ;)

The murderer, who had poisoned us, obviously had spread the rumor, that we were responsible for it, and were trying to make money with this whole poison story. The captain of the ship believed him and a while later approached us together with some guards and asked us to surrender our weapons. Ok, this was pretty ridiculous, the paladin told them, who she was, but they just replied, that she could have made this up, and they wouldn't believe her. Also, the fact, that we used magic to heal some of the passengers and were poisoned ourselves did not make them reconsider.

In order to prevent a fight, we surrendered our weapons, but warned the captain about his possible mistake, and also demanded that the equipment was kept locked up and guarded in his cabin, so the murderer could not get to them and use them. The captain agreed to that at least.

So, we were locked up and a while later two guards came and asked the paladin to follow them. The druid was next, than I.

When I was brought in, there was the captain, his second-in-command and a low-level priest who also helped against the poison, but did not have the means to cure it, along with the two guards. On the table, the captain had the magical stones, the other two had on them. Our weapons were piled up in a corner (this was not the captains cabin). They asked me to surrender all magic items and let them put me in chains. They told me, that they found a vial of poison among the paladin's stuff.

It was quite obvious, what happened. The murderer had used the confusion and planted the vial there. It was absolutely impossible, that the paladin did the poisoning. Not unlikely, 100% impossible. The captain also had obviously broken his promise to keep the stuff safe. maybe he was involved, too? Quite likely, the murderer was close to him at least, otherwise it would probably not have been possible to convince him of this story with false paladins and adventurers who possessed the power to heal poison, who were out for a few quick coins.

As my two companions before, I tried to explain and convince them of this, but they would not listen. The captain then said, that I could either let them put me in chain, or they would force me. I told him, that I will stop them and have the means to stop them, if they force me to it. The problem, why I could not let them proceed was simple. Once chained up and defenseless, the murderer - who was quite clearly there to kill us, why else would all four of us get poisoned along with other random passengers and then get blamed for it, and most likely to retrieve the stones - would have an easy time to do his work then, especially with the captain, who seemed to trust him, whoever he was - certainly one of the three men there. If I would allow that, the evil powers would get what they wanted and many, many people would suffer and die. To let them proceed now would mean to abandon my promise to protect the land. Now, I'm not a paladin, not even close, but I do take my promises seriously. I really wondered, why the other two had not tried to stop them, but since there were no signs of a fight, they most likely gave in to their requests.

When the time ran out, I kicked back the chair I was seated on, made a step backwards and placed a Fireball right in their midst, sparing only the two guards at the door. Three failed saves and a roll of 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 3 (LOL, can't you roll like this when you don't shoot at low-level NPCs!?) later, we had three smoldering corpses and two panicked guards in the room. I told them to go quench the quickly spreading fire, and that there was no reason to continue this fight with them, unless they gave me one. They listened. The first thing I did, before that even, was to see, if the three could be stabilized, but they were immediately dead.

The crew could not manage to control the fire, and once I had secured the stones of my companions and our weapons from the room (I hid them in the cargo room, where we had left my mount, a dire wolverine, no less, and the celestial wolf companion of the druid, whom I told in celestial to guard them, as I did with my wolverine, using Handle Animal), when I came back saw the problems with the fire, I invoked the power of my stone (keyed to the plane of water) and placed a Wall of Ice on the deck over the cabin, so the heat would melt it and the water would rain down on it, as well as two more inside the now burning room, to suffocate the fire. It worked.

Of course, the problem with the three dead people, among them the ship's captain, remained...

I could have escaped, quite easily, but I could not leave the ship, so that would only delay and worsen the problem. I could not subdue them, I simply don't have a spell which does that, and trying to knock them out with my hands seemed not to be a very bright thing to do, not to mention, that there could have been someone seriously dangerous person among them. The only two viable options I could see were to either let them proceed or to fight them at full force, since going any lower, like attacking just one with a Magic Missile, would not have stopped them.

Ok, that's pretty much the important part of the story, now my question...

Do you think it was right or wrong to attack the captain and the other two men with killing force?

And if you think it was not, what would you have done in this situation, all things considered?

:)

Bye
Thanee
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

First I would ask my DM to define evil ;)

He would say 'cold blooded murder' is an evil act minus worshippers a list of selected gods and a few races - you can kill them with out any problem because your god hates them.

Then I would say, so as long as I kill them while defending myself in combat I have no problems with my god.

DM would 'that is correct'

I would then say...Does that include duels? :)

I think it was a bit over the top but trail by combat could be an option, the greater loss of life, the future of the races, but I have no problem with it, might makes right.
 
Last edited:

Might doesn't make right; that's why there are wars. Because people bring might to complete evil objectives and other people stop them. Either way there's a phenomenal amount of killing involved.

The greater question: is this good or evil? It steps outside of the standard bounds of alignment (note: I define alignment as a personality snapshot, not a guarantee) and goes straight into the question of perceived right. Them, putting you in chains, didn't fit your description. You informed them they were idiots. You warned them there were consequences.

Then you cooked them. You're a Sorceress, so no one can remove your powers. If it were the Paladin, I'd attempt a detect evil, failing that, beating them into submission (non-lethal force) would be acceptable. Failing that (the beat down being a non-verbal warning) you start killing people and atone later. The question posed - "What's the DM's definition of evil?" is one of the great moral quandries of D&D, and enables some great RP.

IF you were a Paladin, I don't think I would've removed your powers. Possibly not granted spells the next morning, but near as I can tell, you were out of options.
 

Thanee said:
As my two companions before, I tried to explain and convince them of this, but they would not listen. The captain then said, that I could either let them put me in chain, or they would force me. I told him, that I will stop them and have the means to stop them, if they force me to it. The problem, why I could not let them proceed was simple. Once chained up and defenseless, the murderer - who was quite clearly there to kill us, why else would all four of us get poisoned along with other random passengers and then get blamed for it, and most likely to retrieve the stones - would have an easy time to do his work then, especially with the captain, who seemed to trust him, whoever he was - certainly one of the three men there. If I would allow that, the evil powers would get what they wanted and many, many people would suffer and die. To let them proceed now would mean to abandon my promise to protect the land. Now, I'm not a paladin, not even close, but I do take my promises seriously. I really wondered, why the other two had not tried to stop them, but since there were no signs of a fight, they most likely gave in to their requests.[/QUOTE}

I think this is the crucial issue. If the party had surrendered, they would have left a great number of innocents to die as a gate to a distant plane is opened. Furthermore, anyone who follows a deity oppposed to the opening of the gate would have to consider the will of said deity. Much of what is good and evil in any campaign defines on how the DM defines the nature of good and evil in that campaign. However, I would argue that the greater good lies in saving a nation as opposed to three individuals -- at least one of whom was being foolish.

If the party had not surrendered their weapons, they could have struck to subdue. (If the PCs are of higher rank than the captain, pulling rank would have been an even better tactic.) It would seem that if the party's primary duty was to defend the land and prevent the opening of the gate, then that is the goal. In war, innocents sometimes die. In this instance, it seems that the party had to chose between saving the lives of thousands if not millions and saving the lives of three individuals. In this instance, I think that the path of good lies in saving a country. To use a famous Star Trek quote, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one."

As for the murderer, I believe the party should punish him after taking care of the problem of the gate. Perhaps the party might be reprimanded for not taking other actions, such as not surrendering their weapons and striking to subdue the rather foolish captain, by their superiors. However, I think that this scenario is much like the instance of someone who unwittingly is helping an enemy having to be stopped by any means necessary by those who know the truth. In which case, I believe that the question of what principles one serves comes into play. I think the DM should have a good explanation why the captain was so believing of such obvious deceptions (perhaps the NPC was charmed?).
 

That's a tough situation. Kudos to your DM for an interesting RP opportunity.

If you reckon that lethal force was your only option, I don't consider the act evil. It's not an good act either. Killing without malice, out of need but towards undeserved targets is squarely neutral in my book. As a non-Paladin I think you're cool.

A Paladin is in an even bigger jam. I won't even go into that after the last thread.
 

Thia Halmades said:
Might doesn't make right; that's why there are wars. Because people bring might to complete evil objectives and other people stop them. Either way there's a phenomenal amount of killing involved.

The greater question: is this good or evil? It steps outside of the standard bounds of alignment (note: I define alignment as a personality snapshot, not a guarantee) and goes straight into the question of perceived right. Them, putting you in chains, didn't fit your description. You informed them they were idiots. You warned them there were consequences.

Then you cooked them. You're a Sorceress, so no one can remove your powers. If it were the Paladin, I'd attempt a detect evil, failing that, beating them into submission (non-lethal force) would be acceptable. Failing that (the beat down being a non-verbal warning) you start killing people and atone later. The question posed - "What's the DM's definition of evil?" is one of the great moral quandries of D&D, and enables some great RP.

IF you were a Paladin, I don't think I would've removed your powers. Possibly not granted spells the next morning, but near as I can tell, you were out of options.

I agree with the majority of this, but not necessarily the last part. Much depends on the Paladin's deity, who may decide that the party was in the right. Killing the captain was not the best possible outcome. However, I think if it is a choice of three lives or thousands, than saving a nation wins out. Mind you, I think that a paladin or other good aligned character would view such an act with distaste. However, this is often the nature of war: you may sometimes have to do things that you would rather not do.
 

Thanee said:
Do you think it was right or wrong to attack the captain and the other two men with killing force?

You did what I probably would've done.

This is how I see it: Sometimes in the pursuit of a noble goal, any person who is a tool of evil can be killed as if they were evil. This is one of those times, IMO. If you had not taken a stand, the ultimate consequences could have been dire, for you and your country.

Tony M
 

WR: Point yielded, I left that open to say, basically, you could get punished for this, but the Paladin PC in my party has walked the line a couple of times and not had his powers revoked. The Gods are generally silent in my world, but each time he did it, he believed - not the belief of convenience, but of conviction - that he had no options left. It was kill a few, or fail to stop the killing of thousands.

In a case of a lesser of two evils, I'll take 'few' for 1,000 Alex. Killing is 'evil' - you're taking away someone else's life. That someone else might've been innocent. They might've been guilty. One of the great sequences any Paladin can engage in is the question posed by the commoner: "Who made you Judge, Jury & Executioner?" Answer: none of the above. The Paladin's role CAN be those things, but it isn't necessarily those things, although that's often the view that's taken.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. Agreed: I wouldn't necessarily have grounds to deny the Paladin spells, and it would depend on both the campaign and the deity in question.
 

I think you are really trying to convience the other players in the group and the DM, so let us look at the god Heironeous who is the champion of rightful combat and chivalrous deeds or something like that. Was the combat rightful, well you did warn the captain that you had the force to stop him, was it chivalrous? That is a bit harder (meaning of word) as you are basicly on a quest and it could be even thought of as a rightful quest as you have two paladins with you, and that could be taken as...hey, quest are cool what can I do to help you, because not helpping, would be seen as an issue.

There is no easy answer here.
 

William Ronald said:
I think this is the crucial issue. If the party had surrendered, they would have left a great number of innocents to die as a gate to a distant plane is opened.

That's essentially what I think would have happened - realistically - since the murderer could only really have been sent to kill us, and that means, he had orders from the forces we oppose.

Of course, I don't really believe it would have come that far, if I had surrendered, probably something else would have happened to allow us to get free or someone would have helped us, but basing my decision on that clearly would have been metagaming, so I didn't do so. :)

As for the murderer, I believe the party should punish him after taking care of the problem of the gate.

Well, I'm fairly sure, that we got him already. ;)

I think the DM should have a good explanation why the captain was so believing of such obvious deceptions (perhaps the NPC was charmed?).

Possible, but I guess he was just convinced by someone who was close enough to him to be trustworthy, which is why I think it was one of the three.

If the PCs are of higher rank than the captain, pulling rank would have been an even better tactic.

As for pulling ranks... the paladin revealed herself as a paladin of Heironeous (the church of Heironeous is very influential), the captain shrugged it off and said she was lying. So much for pulling ranks, the captain basically is the highest authority on his ship, and whatever we told him, he just shrugged off as 'the murderer would say the same now' or something like that. He simply did not believe us, whatever we said. He didn't know us, otherwise he would have known, that the paladin is a paladin, and would surely never do something like what he blamed her with.

Bye
Thanee
 

Remove ads

Top