Paladin Question

[Andras]

In the alignment section of the PHB, under Lawful Good, it says that [sample Paladin] is a "merciless opponent of evil".

The BoED has more information that lays down guidelines for exalted characters that's more restrictive then what's in the
PHB.

 

[Sejs]

As has already been said, the first thing you're going to want to do is have a sit down before the game with your paladin player and hash out between the two of you, what his code entails. Make sure it's something you are both satisfied with before you agree to finalize it.

Then, I'd probably suggest rolling back the clock on yanking his paladinhood based on this initial incedent because of the communication issue you two had.

It should be entirely possible to have two paladins with two completely different codes of conduct, based around what they each think is the best way to serve the greater good. One paladin could say yes, I accept your surrender, you will make reparation and now sin no more. Another paladin could say, sorry, no, I don't accept your last-ditch attempt to save your own skin; you made your bed now you get to lie in it. And they could both be equally correct.

 

[Kieperr]

In the alignment section of the PHB, under Lawful Good, it says that [sample Paladin] is a "merciless opponent of evil".

True, but once the creature lies down its weapon and surrenders it is no longer opposing the paladin. It is no longer an opponent. It is a prisoner.

 

[Sejs]

True, but once the creature lies down its weapon and surrenders it is no longer opposing the paladin. It is no longer an opponent. It is a prisoner.

To be fair, generally speaking in the kind of societies that D&D is set in, unless you have political value, you're only a prisoner for a short while before you're executed. Justice came in broad strokes - reparation, public humiliation, maiming, and execution.

... and if you're already in a situation where you've got a paladin on your ass, sword drawn, combat joined, you can pretty much forget about the first three options.

 

[Paraxis]

The problem is realy a matter of personal view, and yes you need to established a paladins personal code before someone plays the class. One of my close friends got into the habit of playing his paladins like Judge Dredd, and it got old real quick. I made a list of what was expected of him and drew the line, just waited and of course he crossed it and lost his paladin abilities, the character was respected(before it was cool like in the PHB2) as a fighter.
I would say, that killing an oppenent who has surenderd is in violation of a paladins code of conduct. But at the same time I don't believe it is an evil act, not a good act either.
I played a Kensi in an oriental adventures game years ago and a similar situation developed, my character was Lawful Neutral and killed the creature. My characters thoughts on the matter were a few seconds ago this notoriusly evil creature was trying to kill me now it wants to talk no a few words does not change him from someone i put my sword through to someone i tie up.

 

[Lorgrom]

True, but once the creature lies down its weapon and surrenders it is no longer opposing the paladin. It is no longer an opponent. It is a prisoner.

So a Monk (or any 'Monster' ie a Troll) who was using a weapon, then suddenly drops the weapon and surrenders is no longer an opponent?

Besides someone is not a prisoner until someone else takes (or in these kind of situations accepts) then as one. Until then they are still potential opponents. Just ones that are not currently being agressive.

 

[Big Jake]

True, but once the creature lies down its weapon and surrenders it is no longer opposing the paladin. It is no longer an opponent. It is a prisoner.

To do what? Hand them over to the local human populace, paraded through a human town that they've probably been robbing already, just to be killed by the jailor?

And what about their equipment (treasure)? Isn't it petty assault and robbery to take their things and throw them in jail? Or take their stuff and let them go to change their lives?

Do you want to DM every encounter so that it ends in taking monster races to human jails?

My suspension of disbelief ends when I have to sit at the table and ponder (or worse, debate) the moral, ethical, alignment-based decisions of the game.

Unless there is an in-game reason to take prisoners, just don't set 'em up that way. Have them run away... which makes more sense since they pretty much fear their ends at a human trial.

 

[Moorcrys]

I agree it has a lot to do with the particular situation, particularly your take on the campaign world...

In most 'high fantasy' campaigns based somewhat on a fantasy-feudalistic society, hobgoblins are wicked, despicable creatures who worship evil deities that reward them for their bloodlust and hatred, relish in torture and murder, and exist in a culture that actively promotes doing more evil. They are also as crafty and cunning as humans can be, perfectly willing to dissemble and cower, beg and weep if it will buy them some time to possibly escape (or even better, be set free!) and inflict more wickedness down the road. Encountering them some distance from a town or area where they can be safely brought in for quick justice, it may be the most merciful thing for a paladin to quickly dispatch the creatures... not reveling in the deed but doing what needs to be done for the greater good.

And if you're using a fantasy-feudal model for your campaign, I would imagine that the Paladin would know what awaits those creatures in town anyway -- immediate judgment without trial and then public humiliation, torture, and execution. As a miraculously-empowered representative of law and goodness, a quick death may not only be lawful (why shouldn't the paladin trust his divine mandate and serve as judge over these craven creatures), but also more merciful than either dragging them to town for humiliation, probably torture, and painful death... or worse, setting them free to return to their own comrades only to be re-immersed in wickedness and drown in evil once again.

They're not innocent until proven guilty, unless you have quite enlightened fantasy societies, which you may. They're as guilty as their humanoid skin and dark gods show them to be.

You may, of course, have a much more enlightened model of government and societies in your campaign world, in which case yes, you should make it clear to your players. Hobgoblins in your world may be more diverse than a high fantasy model... they may be a fringe race, ostracized and living off scraps from human societies and they might worship a whole range of deities that don't demand constant warfare with their own kind and the bloody eradication of other races. They may deserve pity in your world, and in that case you can let your players know. Especially if the player above hasn't shown himself to be intentionally disruptive in play with previous characters, it may simply be a case of two differing views of how your world works.

 

[Hawken]

So my question, was I too harsh, or is he acting in a true paly way and I just don't get it?

Short answer; yes.

Before going any further, let me state that paladins are lawful good, not lawful goody-two-shoes. There is nothing in the code of conduct under the paladin description that says he has to accept surrender requests or pleas of mercy or that it would be an evil act not to do so. Hell, even the SRD description of the LG alignment states, "lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished". Throwing down your weapons, surrendering, those things don't make one defenseless or helpless, especially after just attacking and trying to kill people, it just means they're they are submitting themselves to your judgment. It does not mean you have to march them off to the nearest town and jail, that's typically a right for a tax-paying citizen or slave, not a MONSTER.

Taking away Pally abilities without any kind of warning is just wrong. Asking him such a loaded question, as BBiggar did, is hardly fair warning either. The PC had no way of knowing if the hobgob was defenseless or not (no visible weapons or traps doesn't mean it didn't have any), and helpless only described him at the moment, a round or two earlier the hobgob was not helpless and possibly would not be helpless later on. An infant, a 0 level commoner, someone with absolutely 0% chance of doing lasting injury to the PC or anyone else, would be a helpless opponent, but not a hobgob who was attacking the PC and his friends just seconds earlier.

He also did not mention the paladin's deity or provide any info about his church or organization and whether killing monsters is even considered wrong under some circumstances. A monster is a monster, they're in the game to be killed. Things such as this should have been hammered out before play started with the Pally, as others have suggested.

Paladins have Sense Motive as a class skill, and should thus be able to tell (as a reactive skill check opposed by the Bluff of those who would try to decieve the paladin) whether such a character is actually repentant, or is merely trying to take advantage of the legendary forgiveness to such an honorable warrior...

Having a class skill is not the same as having enough skill points to put into it. Class skills don't mean a thing if there's not enough points to go into it.

Aren't paladins also supposed to show mercy? The creature may be evil but by surrendering it is asking for mercy. If the paladin shows no mercy then he should lose his abilities. Mercy is not only for the good, it is for all creatures. That is why playing a paladin is hard, and it should be. A paladin's actions are based upon his code AND his alignment. This does not change from one situation to another, it remains the same in all situations. Killing an unarmed creature is evil. It does not matter what that creature's alignment is.

I have read some posts before that have made me arch an eyebrow, but never one that has made me ask "WTF?!" No where is it written or even hinted at that paladins have to show mercy or they lose their abilities. That is the most asinine thing I've ever heard of. Barbarians, fighters, even wizards are more effective killing machines, yet they have no such restrictions. Clerics follow deities, yet they have no such restrictions. If anything, a cleric is more violent and more destructive toward the enemies of their beliefs than anyone else! And yet because a paladin is labeled as honorable and having a code of conduct (which does not mention or hint at mercy), he is expected to cave in everytime a MONSTER asks for mercy, or lose his powers? That is one of the most naive points of view I've come across in a long time...

True, but once the creature lies down its weapon and surrenders it is no longer opposing the paladin. It is no longer an opponent. It is a prisoner.

...until I read this. If the creature lays down its weapon and surrenders, it is placing its fate in the paladin's hands, plain and simple. It can hope for the best, but just seconds earlier attempting to kill someone and then asking for mercy is not a good way to get it. Again, the creature is a MONSTER, not a citizen or servant of the state or the same society as the paladin. He is under NO obligation to accept him as a prisoner and he is under no prohibition to run the MONSTER through. Nowhere is it stated in the PHB the paladin has to accept every or even any offers of surrender thrown its way. It most definitely IS still an opponent and it is not a prisoner because it says so. It becomes a prisoner only if and when the paladin says so!

One point no one is picking up on is that unless the paladin said during the battle, "I'm a paladin!" or has "Paladin on board" engraved on his breastplate, there is little other way the hobgoblin would have known the PC was a paladin. And the monster is not just going to throw itself on the mercy of just any sword-swinging fighter. The DM was giving the hobgoblin knowledge it wouldn't have been able to deduce (unless they can somehow look at a paladin and recognize one for what they are), and punishing the player for what was a sound, logical and tactical resolution.

In this case, the enemy was a hobgoblin. An evil creature intelligent enough to be dangerous, strong, brutal, cruel, and a hated enemy. It can see in the dark, so if it was captured, the group would have to constantly watch it. It is likely as strong as any warrior in the group, so even unarmed, it would be a threat to say, the mage or possibly the rogue (ie, the weaker group members). It could signal to nearby allies watching them, or escpe and inform others about the group, providing exact numbers, strengths, weaknesses, and all sorts of other information it could gather. And at night, it could help any nearby allies ambush the group or sneak in by signals, expressions, etc, that the group would be none the wiser about, disable the watch and kill the rest of the PCs in their sleep. Not to mention, it could resist them, slowing them down by forcing the PCs to drag it along as dead weight. It could argue, bark, yell and otherwise distract, or shout for reinforcements, help, etc.

In the circumstance described, there are no compelling reasons given for the Pally to have accepted the hobgoblins request for surrender. It would have been much more dangerous and troublesome to do so, especially when the hobgoblin was doing it just to prolong its life a little longer, not out of any sincere desire to change its life.

If it were an honorable foe who had perhaps challenged the pally and fought with all his effort to the paladin's demise, firm in his belief that what he was doing was right, it would be expected of the paladin to offer mercy before such an opponent even asked. However, a monster that attacks and cries mercy just to live a little longer and escape (or ambush) later is not a worthy example and definitely should not result in ANY penalty for the paladin.

 

[3d6]

The paladin's code of conduct requires a paladin to "punish those who harm or threaten innocents". The code says that the paladin must mete out punishment, not that the paladin must turn wrong-doers over to the local authorities. If the paladin doesn't mete out justice, she is violating her code of conduct. Assuming that the hobgoblins had commited a captial crime, the paladin would put her status in peril by not executing them after they surrender.