My hypothetical situation removes the sword, the deal and the previous meeting. They have never been to the town before - they just come across the same destroyed town and, investigating, find the staked-out half ogress. Detection of Evil reveals she is Evil. Can the Paladin choose to kill her? Can he choose not to?
I would say, in the proposed hypothetical, that he
should choose not to because she is tied up...says she didn't do it...and by this scenario have knowledge or proof of the contrary other than his divine sense. Until she does something/the paladin has proof of her wrong doing...he can't jsut kill her. For all they know, in this scenario, she was their captive/prisoner.
Zeus (hardly a Paladin) agreed to share power, and Hades drew the underworld. Athena (an LG, I would suggest) puts up with her brother, Ares, despite opposing most of his schemes. If the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number demands a deal, can an LG character reasonably refuse to deal?
If that is criteria, then no they can not reasonably refuse because the deal gets them "the greatest good for the greatest number" (though I would submit this leans toward Neutral Good and not the summation of a definition for "Lawful Good").
If the Deities recognize they must compromise on occasion, holding their followers to a markedly higher standard seems like something Chaotic and Evil deities might do, much more than virtuous, fair-minded deities.
I'd suppose so...still not understanding the relevance here and wouldn't hold deities and mortals to same standards.
I think I mentioned knowledge of prior evil deeds as a mitigating factor that can explain the Paladin striking her down. Are those evil deeds known, with certainty, to have been undertaken by her, or are they rumour? Here, I am not versed in the campaign lore, so I don't know.
True. Me neither.
As a "source of obvious evil", it seems that the Paladin can and should strike her down.
If she is bound, he can't...and if she is bound, theoretically, her evil has been conquered/squashed. She is no threat.
Again, you have not told us what he SHOULD have done, only a long list of things he ought not to have done, and "A Paladin has a tough road to travel".
Yes. Becaue he did not do what he should have done, hence the penalties should begin to commence.
We do seem to agree that, if it's wrong for him to strike her down, it's just as wrong to let someone else do so while his back is conveniently turned.
Whee! Agreement in paladin threads is a rare and beautiful thing. Makes me happy.
Assuming the moral code of the Paladin is such that he must not strike down a helpless opponent, what does that mean to a villainous Orc which has fallen to a Colour Spray? Can he strike it, or must he await its recovery?
The paladin should not, no...and should not be that pleased by those that do. At the same time, I see no reason to interfere with others from doing so. He may not like it, but this is a battle. The orc has been knocked out, presumably, out of self-defense in a combat situation. It didn't surrender. If you are in a world/campaign where orcs are not irretrievably evil/shades of grey/moral ambiguity, then I suppose binding them and offering a chance to surrender would be preferable.
Is he required to take positive action?
I don't think so. No. Again, depends on the campaign/deity/world. Mine wouldn't.
Must he seek to bind the wounds of fallen foes, or can he let them bleed out?
I would say delivering of a "merciful end" instead of bleeding out is preferable. This goes to the definition of honor and deity's specialty/wishes also. A paladin of a war deity would probably not care if they bled out...or if they killed them while unconscious. A paladin of a "life" deity would/should probably be required to try to bind the wounds.
To the half ogress specifically, is it OK to walk away and expect she will eventually starve to death?
Are we back to determining/proven that she was involved in the destruction of the town (which, it seems, she wasn't and the paladin didn't bother taking the time to find out)? I woudl say a Lawful EVIL paladin could easily do this...maybe a Lawful Neutral could too if they, as a part of their role as a paladin of their deity is judge and execution, then sure you could get away with this sentence of death by starvation (for something really awful). Lawful Good? No. You can't do that.
A deal for her freedom is, from your comments, out of the question - no deals with the Evil.
Right. She can take death at the paladin's hand or be brought before the king's justice (or whoever the lawful authority of the realm they're in is). Those are your options.
Guess that means he can't buy the freedom of a slave from an evil slavemaster either.
If we're talking about a Lawful GOOD paladin, you have to lawful AND good. You are not obligated to enforce or sit powerless in the face of law that promotes Evil. Slavery, depending on the campaign world/culture/game would almost certainly be viewed by a 21st century audience as something Evil that can be thwarted. In fact, I would submit that offering to buy someone's freedom from an evil slavemaster is precisely what they should do. The slavemaster can say no...and in that case, no, then you are not justified in murdering the slavemaster in a kingdom where slavery is the law. You may, out of passion...or "answering to a higher authority" or whatever...and the GOOD paladin's deity probably wouldn't care. The LN or LE deity might be a bit peeved.
Absolutely. The Paladin is a shining beacon of Heroism. That Heroism should be capable of success, or we are not really playing in a Heroic game any more.
"We" who? My games are all "heroic." You are not playing villains. You are not playing "anti-heroes" [HATE those]. You can have plenty of moral ambiguity and in depth character development in a "Heroic" game. You are still playing the good guys.
If the intent was a non-heroic game where shades of grey rule, then we should just say "no paladins" as they will soon be fallen paladins or deceased paladins - which really makes them come off as "Lawful Stupid". That's clearly not the case in your game - the fact no Paladin PCs have fallen before makes that obvious.
I don't see how this is conclusion. I would say you can easily play a paladin in a "shades of greey" game. YOu just happen be the "White" among the shades of grey.
A good question - one to which the answers depend on background we do not have. What were the options when the deal was struck? I suspect the Paladin did not have the power then that he has now. If his choices were to walk away and let the town be destroyed, or throw himself (and his friends) against an unbeatable foe (so she gets the sword and destroys the town anyway), was one of those the right choice?
Probably not. But I refute your premise and seriously doubt those were the only two options.
I would hope that, in your game (where the ground rules are laid out more clearly, from your comments), the Paladin would not be left between choosing those two outcomes, or losing his Paladinhood by making a deal.
Certainly not. As I said, those aren't the only two options. And I'm not suggesting "losing his paladinhood" I'm suggesting penalties should begin to accrue. Things should start to "feel funny". You know what you did wasn't "right." You feel remorse. You want your soul cleansed to make you worthy of your deity's grace again...and that, likely, becomes an evermore consuming desire and need until you attain your atonement...or, ultimately, fall.
Murdering an old woman in the street because she stepped in front of you? Lose paladinhood.
Make some mistakes/the lesser of two evils/the "only" option, things start to slip...more or less,faster or slower, depending on how bad/far from your principles they were.
btw, why just the Paladin?
Because this thread is about paladins.
Why not another LG character?
Who said it isn't?...for any alignment.
The consequences are not as severe, but the requirement of the Paladin is to remain LG and not commit a wilful Evil act. If he has not done the latter (which would mean "Paladinhood gone", not "six weeks to atone"), then would his actions have equally significant consequences for, say, a divine spellcaster?
Agreed. Absolutely.
Would they push an LG character along the road to an alignment change? I'm curious in this regard - some tables certainly treat the Paladin as not just LG, but the upper left corner of LG in the alignment diagram.
Any character of any alignment that displays severe or consistent behavior at odds with the alignment on their character sheet is always subject to alignment changes. Paladins and LG Clerics may have it the most strict, yes. That is the virtues of being LG. But clerics of any alignment, shifting too far from their deity's/religion's alignment can easily find their prayers going unanswered.
Heck I still demand my druids be Neutral. Too much deviation and they too, fall "out of balance" and begin to find it difficult using their magic/powers.
So, in modern day parlance, "divine casters" need to be the most careful. But more than one "Neutral" thief or "Good" fighter who got a bit too zealous or blood thirsty or greedy in their tomb-raiding has found themselves beginning to shift toward the dark side.
I'm coming back to "what does the campaign say" - steeldragons campaign/culture seems pretty well defined, but I think Whizbang needs to decide (alone or with the players) how it is defined in his game. Practically, if the decision (or consensus) is that the actions of the Paladin were incompatible with Paladinhood, then a retcon should be permitted, since no one seems to have known what those requirements were.
Agreed on the consensus needing to be reached. I wouldn't retcon anything (I really hate to do that), but let the player know they dodged bullet...maybe th epaladin gets a "tsk tsk" vision/warning dream from an agent of their deity. Give them a set of guidelines, principles, or formal "rules" or code even if you want...and stick by it.
But, as I said, in my game, they'd be having some trouble with their powers by now.
). The "What about the evil law-abiding merchant?" should be the same as "What about the evil ogress we made a deal with?" argument is the typical reductio ad absurdum that leads to "Lawful Stupid" and used for decades to justify non-lawful paladins.
]
