Paladin problems

[IcyCool]

So, I'm running a game currently set in a heavily-modified Mystara, which will eventually jump into the planes. The idea being that not too long ago the Prinicipalities of Glantri became an expansionist power (I have players who might peruse this board, so I will leave out some detail here). They found a way to mass produce artificial troops (Warforged), and marched upon the known world. This was known as the Great War. They conquered Darokin, Ethengar, Rockhome, The Five Shires, Karameikos, and (kindof) Alfheim. Their expansion stopped when the Warforged started to become sentient (and rebelled), and a meteor struck deep in Glantri (forming the Great Crater).

Fast forward to present day where things are similar to the actual Mystara setting, except that the above conquered nations are nominal Principalities of the Glantrian Empire. What that really means is that they owe taxes to Glantri, are ruled by a wizard-prince who has a seat on the council, and have Glantri's blanket policy of "No open practice of religion." These regions are blissfully free of Glantri's mad bureacracy and permits.

There are two very specific things to this particular campaign:

1.) There is no planar travel (not in, not out), and hasn't been for hundreds, possibly thousands, of years. There are surviving books on the planes, and several spells that should allow one to travel to them, but none of them work (some spells do work, but have had flavor modified so it is consistent with this). The planes, and many creatures from them, are considered to be fairy tales or myths.

2.) An organization called the Inquisition. The Inquisition has been around for as long as memory (or so they claim), and operates solely within the Glantrian empire. Their creedo is "The Gods are false. They are not Gods, they are merely very powerful beings. They do not deserve our worship." The Inquisition is a reasonably small group (due to limitations placed upon it by the Council), and they have a small military force that they are allowed to keep, provided they make it available to Glantri when commanded to do so, pay for the appropriate permits, taxes, etc. The Inquisition has a charter from the the Glantrian council to operate in the empire, as enforcers of the "No open practice of religion" law. They have taken remarkable liberties with the enforcement of the law and in addition to executing any violators of this law, they also actively hunt down divine casters in the Empire. They have lobbied, pushed, and bribed, but alway stopped short of threatening, to get the Glantrian council to alter the law to "Practice of religion is punishable by death." The council has refused, on the grounds that removing all hope (even if it is false) from the people would lead to lower tax revenue and eventual rebellion. Due to the sheer size of the Glantrian Empire, and the small membership of the Inquisition, the average citizen is more likely to see a priest than an Inquisitor. While the power they wield is terrifying, the are mostly a "boogeyman" to frighten children with.

Thus sets the scene. Taking complete leave of my senses, I have allowed a player to play a Paladin in this game (he's shooting for Vassal of Bahamut). I have a personal dislike of Paladins, as everyone I've ever played or GM'd has either expected the other players to live by his code as well, or has been the "detect and smite" variety. I am very worried that this character won't fit into the campaign, and that playing along side him will not be fun for the other players. We have thus far had one session. During the session, a Merchant friend of the group sends the characters to a remote mountain complex to check up on some "contemplative" friends of hers. On the way up the mountain pass, they are ambushed by a small party of Gnolls. The flunkies are dispatched while the Paladin is duking it out with the Gnoll leader - a Berserker (Barbarian). As the group closes in, the Paladin tells them to stand back, and that they are taking this Gnoll alive because he might be able to be redeemed. Now, every once in a while, this could be a cool thing to play out, but I know my gut reaction, and I can already see it on the looks on the faces of the other players. Meanwhile, the mountain of patchy fur, ritual scars, and bloody spittle continues to hew at the Paladin with its greataxe. The Paladin manages to knock it out with the flat of his blade, and they bind it with rope and manacles. After some arguement (the Paladin wanted to drag it along until they hit a town), a hireling they have is instructed to escort the Gnoll back to town and turn it over to the authorities. I spoke to the player after the game and informed him that he did not have to capture every foe alive. He responded with "They should have a chance at redemption." I told him that capturing every foe he ran into and trasporting them back to a town would be logistically difficult, and not alot of fun for his fellow players. He thought about it and then said, "Maybe I'll just do it with humans then." It was late, I was tired, and I didn't want to argue. He's giving it some thought, but I'd like to have some suggestions for him. It may not be a problem, but I'd like to make sure that it doesn't become one. So, does anyone have any advice or suggestions for me?

 

[Quasqueton]

You don't like the "detect and smite" style paladins, yet you are essentially telling this Player to play his paladin in the "detect and smite" style?

Quasqueton

 

[IcyCool]

You don't like the "detect and smite" style paladins, yet you are essentially telling this Player to play his paladin in the "detect and smite" style?

Quasqueton

I apologize for being unclear.

By "detect and smite" I mean:

GM: You enter the Green Bramble Inn, pleasant music can

Paladin: I detect evil!

GM: Ok, sure. You pick up some faint evil from that table in the corner.

Paladin: I draw my sword and attack!

Does that make more sense? I've got a cold medicine buzz right now, so if it doesn't make sense, I'll try to clarify.

 

[jerichothebard]

"Redemption cannot be found on either end of a sword."

From the code of the Order of the Sword of Malicean the Prophet. (the paladins in my campaign)


This is taken to mean two things:
1 - When seeking to redeem an evildoer, it does not pay to do so using the idea of might = right.
2 - When an evildoer has a sword in his hand, he has already forsaken redemption.

They are encouraged to redeem those that they find willing, and slay those who are not.

 

[IcyCool]

Consider that yoinked jericho. That sort of reasoning will be quite helpful, and it feels like plain common sense.

Anyone else have suggestions?

Icy's GM rule #11 - Never start a new campaign while on medication.

 

[Torm]

In most circumstances, having offered honorable combat is grounds enough to follow combat to its natural possible conclusions - a kill, a mercy, or a yield in the face of a clearly superior foe in hopes they are honorable enough to give a mercy, themselves. And this isn't just when fighting Evil opponents - it applies to Good or Neutral ones, too.

A Paladin would almost always offer a mercy if asked for one, unless the opponent had made their devious nature obvious such as to make their word in accepting the terms of a mercy worthless, or unless the foe was too dangerous to the general populace or the world to accept one from. And a Paladin would almost always offer a mercy to someone who was forced to fight him under duress, or under a known misunderstanding, barring the same as above. If a Paladin wished to offer honorable combat to an opponent at a clear disadvantage, he might offer a weapon or even a handicap (fighting with only one hand, or such) to even the odds. But under no circumstance would a Paladin be expected to pull their punches against a combat foe, or to offer a mercy to one who had not asked for one.

If your player is playing a classical style Paladin, tell him, in combat, to think "What Would Worf Do?" - that should serve fairly well.

So speaks Torm the True, the Loyal Fury, GOD of Paladins.

 

[jerichothebard]

What would Worf do? That's an interesting connection... a Klingon Paladin. But I see your point, and it's a pretty good one - a warrior, but with honor.


Interesting... I'll have to remember that!

 

[R-Hero]

He's more like an spanish inquisitor rather thatn a paladin. Trying to force redemption on the enemy is going to cause them to rebel rather than accept.

The paladin should only try to redeem when the opponent seems to want to act in a manner acceptable and open to redeption.

An example

I was playing a paladin in the return to the temple of elemental evil and we had been harassed by Thrommel, (a fallen paladin vampire.) After a few clues, divination spells and what not, I dedcided to try and help Thrommel back to human form (and back to his lost love and home.) After some back and forth role playing, he was on a bridge we were trying to cross asking why we kept pestering him. I had a way to bring him back, but as an act of trust, I dropped sword, shield and helm and walked out to him. (unarmed and open). A couple of very precious wish spells later, he was back home, elderly but human.

The paladin is going to be the one to stick his neck out to try to change the hard hearted when he senses that change is imminent.
You can't tie up and arrest every evil doer you come accross. They could be to far gone or its not thier time. (They may have a change of heart when the little commoner girl pulles a thorn out of their foot.) A lone paladin can't save everybody.

 

[FireLance]

A bit metagamey, but let the player know that at your table, "a chance at redemption" means that he should ask the bad guys after he has captured them, and if they react negatively, he should execute them on the spot. This puts the option of running a redemption scenario in your hands, and will help smooth gameplay for the rest of the group.

 

[Byrons_Ghost]

Another option: rechannel. Find an actual crusade, quest, or whatever to take up his time.

Odds are, he's doing this to emphasize his paladin's code and holy status and all that. And that's good for players to do, though for some reason it always ends up being something odd like this (sidenote: a cleric IMC captured an evil orc and decided to beat on him until he "repented", reasoning that it was the only thing orcs understood. This was a cleric of a pacifistic diety, mind you, and also shortly after she'd miss the chance to redeem a bard NPC who was basically good but had done some evil acts in order to save a family member. I just don't get it...)

Anyhow, if he has a paladin mission to focus on, this will probably take the place of his random attempts at redemption, and still give him what he's looking for. And, as has been said, you can always throw a redemption plot into the mix later. Since paladins are lawful as well as good, and since he (presumably) has some sort of superior to report to, you can use that to influence his actions.

Another thing, that's even more metagame-y; I find it sometimes helps in my games to differentiate among monsters and NPCs, which ones are worthy of the players' attention and which ones should be dealt with for one scene and then promptly forgotten. The players might've thought that Xognar, king of all the gnolls, would make a good ally. But if he's described as "unnamed gnoll #6", they're likely to kill him, take his stuff, and move on.

Edit: another option for controlling the redemption attempts is the detect evil ability. If a bit more granularity is added to the ability, the paladin might be able to detect which foes might have the potential to redeem, and which ones should be destroyed. The MM "always/often/mostly evil" categories would be good guidelines. Of course, expanding detect evil like this might prod the PC more in the "detect and smite" area, so it'd really come down to the wording. Rather than describing foes as "irredeemably evil", described their opposites as "evil, but with potential for good."

If he keeps going on the "capture and redeem" strategy even for the ones with potential, have the captured foes start doing some damage- either to the paladin, or even better, to innocent bystanders. Evil creatures are going to respond to force in kind, which is why the paladin shouldn't be using it. I wouldn't do this for the first time, though; only after persistent problems.