Paladin Question

[FireLance]

Because of their lawful good alignment, paladins tend to have fewer options than characters of other classes. However, while the path of the paladin might be narrow, it should not be a tightrope. Paladins should not be cookie cutter characters, required to act in exactly the same way when faced with the same circumstances. Within the general constraints of the lawful good alignment, paladin players ought to be able to individualize their characters.

A paladin embodying the righteous wrath of Good at war with Evil could decide that the only mercy available to foes who have surrendered is a swift death.

A paladin more concerned with the process of justice might conduct a summary trial and only execute his prisoners if they deserve death.

A paladin determined to exemplify honor could inform his opponents that he cannot accept their surrender, and they should either pick up their weapons and fight on, attempt to flee, or prepare to be cut down.

A paladin focused on redeeming the fallen may take his opponents prisoner and attempt to convince them of the error of their ways.

A paladin who has faith in mercy could even allow his opponents to go free if he is convinced that they have truly repented and will no longer be a danger to innocents.

A paladin may even choose to react in all the above ways at different times to different opponents, depending on his judgement of the individual circumstances. Naturally, a paladin is not perfect; he could act rashly or impulsively, or he could make an error in judgement. However, mistakes or errors alone should not cause a paladin to lose his powers.

 

[Drowbane]

So I am runnning a campaign for my buds and they are in a fight with a group of Hobgoblins, which they prety much beat down. The last 2 hobgoblins throw down their weapons and try to surrender. The groups paly says "I kill the one near me."

Now call me crazy, but a paly killing a surrendering foe seems to be an evil act to me, but he says his rational is that it is an evil creature and he has to vanquish it.

I asked him twice, "so you are gonna kill a defensless, surrendering enemy?" To which he replied "yes, he is an evil creature," both times.

I punished him by taking away his paly abilities until he had atoned, but the player became very upset, because he believed that is how a play should behave. So my question, was I too harsh, or is he acting in a true paly way and I just don't get it?

Ahh, the dreaded Paladin thread. There is a reason I tend to scowl at players who mention the desire to roll up a pally.

Player 1: So, I have this Paladin who...
DM Brew: Ahh! So you are bringing in a battle-Cleric, eh? Tell me more...

Anyways, paladin or not, murdering a foe who has surrendered can easily be an EVIL act. BoVD and BoED tell us so. I'd be all for godsmacking this "paladin" with a need for atonement... and while you're at it, toss him a few Dark Side points to boot.

 

[Hawken]

From the 3.5 SRD, "...a paladin’s code requires...punish those who harm or threaten...". That says it all right there, and others have said it as well. That does make paladins "judge, jury and executioner" and their alignment supports that statement too. Also frpm the same SRD, "A lawful good character...commitment to oppose evil...fight relentlessly...hates to see the guilty go unpunished."

Even the MM describes hobgoblins as having a strong grasp of strategy and tactics and capable of carrying out sophisticated battle plans...their discipline can prove a deciding factor. The paladin very likely would know this about hobgoblins and in the face of that, it should be impossible to punish the paladin for executing the enemy. And it was an execution. From the looks of some people on this thread, the DM's game, and possibly the DM himself are viewing the game world as having a code of justice similar to America where all sentient beings have the same access and rights to justice. Human society can barely prosper on its own in a medieval setting, but when it starts giving LE monsters the same rights as themselves, it would grind to a halt. Only citizens had rights and to be a citizen you had to have money or land. In a more generous setting, citizenship could mean any productive member of society, but it definitely would not apply to monsters. A clever, crafty monster might ask for mercy, might surrender, but that doesn't mean it would receive mercy or that it would be wrong to withhold that mercy when it would be expected--rightly so--for that monster to use that mercy to escape justice and do harm at a later time and place. Some would argue the hobgoblin could have been redeemed. Impossible, because the hobgoblin had never been good to begin with. Convert it then? Become "Good" or die? Faced with that choice, any creature would choose "Good" and then get the hell out at the first opportunity to escape the ever present threat of death if it wasn't "Good" enough.

The paladin's own code of conduct gives him the legal and spiritual authority to punish criminals (assault with a deadly weapon, conspiracy to commit murder, attempted murder, battery with a deadly weapon, murder; all of these charges could apply to the hobgoblin) and his alignment gives him the ethical and moral support to justify his position as well.

Had the paladin decided to haul the hobgoblin back to the nearest town (putting his current adventure on hold), and put the hobgoblin before a magistrate, the judge would have had the paladin and his (surviving) companions give testimony about the attack, each of them stating that the hobgoblin committed each of the above charges--and possibly more than once per charge if the hobgoblin attacked more than one party member--and would ask the hobgoblin if he committed those crimes. The hobgoblin--compelled by a Geas to answer honestly--would admit to each one. The judge would find the hobgoblin guilty, and since the hobgoblin was not a land owner or a productive member of society, but instead a monster that preys on the members of their society, he would sentence the creature to execution (not prison, as most prisons were just a place to keep criminals until they were executed or died of some disease awaiting execution) to be carried out by a lawfully appointed member of society (the paladin).

So, by executing the criminal hobgoblin on the spot, the paladin saved himself and his companions (and anyone else whose welfare depended on a speedy resolution to their adventure) several weeks of unproductive, unnecessary, and expensive travel and court time by judging the hobgoblin guilty of his crimes and executing punishment on the spot. He saved the town they would have taken the hobgoblin to the expense of holding a trial (something society would not deem fit for a monster), the cost of housing and feeding the captive hobgoblin (which likely would have started a riot and one or two lynch mobs) and the cost of bringing a judge in, if one wasn't already there, and holding court. How the DM could be concerned with a monstrous killer's rights and expectation of mercy just to play on the paladin's morals over the welfare of the society the paladin was acting in support of is beyond me. But maybe the DM didn't look that far into it and just made a snap decision.

While I don't think this DM should do a "take back", reverse time or any of that, he should have the paladin state his case to the church elder and immediately be reinstated with all paladin powers and abilities and be commended for such a good job with the explanation given that his powers were taken away briefly to test his resolve and mettle in the future when faced with similar choices.

 

[BBiggar]

Folks, I can't say thanks enough for the intelligent debate on this subject, it has been very enlightening to me a s a DM. I tend to think I may have been overly harsh in my punishment, fortunately he atoned that night in the temple and the ablity loss caused no harm to the game (or thankfully any animosity from the player).

In game he and I had a talk, diety to paladin (Hieronius, sorry if I misspelled that) and I let him know that I believe the killing of a surrendering foe to be an evil act. I have a backround as an officer in the army and sometimes my code of ethics gets in the way and I admit it probably did so in this instance.

Now, that being said, I plan on discussing this with the player at length when we see each other again (we are co-workers), so we can lay down some ground rules that we can both live with.

Thanks again for ALL the input, believe me when I say I have read em all and every one of you guys have made some interesting and thought provoking points.

 

[Kieperr]

A suggestion. If you have access to it, the Book of Exalted Deeds, in Chapter 1: The Nature of Good, discusses how creatures of good alignment act and behave within the game. This material applies to all characters of good alignment, not just exalted ones. Exalted characters are simply those good characters that all other good characters strive to emulate (For a real life example, nuns are good, Mother Teresa was exalted). In this chapter is a section on mercy (pg 7). This section states:
End of paragraph 1: "In a world full of enemies who show no respect for life whatsoever, it can be extremely tempting to treat foes as they have treated others, to exact revenge for slain comrades and innocents, to offer no quarter and become merciless."
Beginning of paragraph 2: "A good character must not succomb to this trap. Good characters must offer mercy and accept surrender no matter how many times villains might betray that kindness or escape from captivity to continue their evil deeds."

A paladin's actions are not based on his opponent's alignment. A paladin's actions are based on the paladin's alignment. A paladin is lawful good and must always act in such a manner. Killing a creature that has surrendered simply because it is evil is basing the paladin's actions on the hobgoblin's alignment. Killing a foe that has surrendered is an evil act no matter what the foe's alignment may be. Killing a good or neutral creature that has surrendered is an evil act and so is killing an evil creature that has surrendered.

In DnD it is the alignment of the character commiting the act that matters, not the alignment of the creature the act is commited against. An evil act is an evil act no matter who commits it or whom it is commited against.

Within the game you did the right thing. The paladin chose to commit an evil act and he lost his paladinhood because of it. There is no reason for you to worry or feel guilty. Good characters are altruistic. Check the synonyms for altruism in a thesarus. Yahoo reference came up with these: Kindly, charitable interest in others: beneficence, benevolence, benignancy, benignity, charitableness, charity, goodwill, grace, kindheartedness, kindliness, kindness, philanthropy.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

This material applies to all characters of good alignment, not just exalted ones.

I disagree. The BoED and its tennets are most certainly not meant to apply to all good characters. And a DM insisting that it did would be a bright neon sign that he and I needed to part ways.

 

[urDrakas]

And as you can see, we all have our own views on this subject.

As it has been stated, sit down with your player and work out his code. That will solve most of your problems. Also keep in mind any restrictions or requirements of the paladin's religion, if any.

Personally, I see no problems with stripping some or all of his abilities until he atones. Of course, the atonement is not always the easiest to pull off. All depends on the severity of the transgression.

 

[airwalkrr]

Don't have time to read the whole thread but wanted to comment. I don't wish to get embroiled in the discussion about what constitutes an evil act or a violation of the paladin's code. That is such a vague topic and so heavily dependent upon individual DM interpretation that I won't touch it with a 10-foot poll. What I do wish to point out is that there are only three things that necessitate revoking a paladin's abilities: 1) ceasing to be lawful good (which I don't think is the issue here), 2) willfully committing an evil act and 3) GROSS violation of the paladin's code (emphasis my own). The last two are obviously what is at issue. Concerning 2), I will not comment on whether I think you made the right decision or not; you clearly did, since you are the DM and it is your game. What I will say is that obviously you and the player do not share the view of what constitutes an evil act and that this should probably be clearly delineated before the campaign moves on if the player wishes to keep playing a paladin. As I like to say, in my experience players prefer consistency more than one particular ruling. If you say it is always an evil act to kill a surrendering opponent and always enforce it that way there is no ambiguity and the player is fully cognizant of the fact that he will lose his paladinhood if he does it. Regarding 3), this is not what I would consider a gross violation and could in fact be interpretted as carrying out the code since the evil hobgoblins were likely guilty of some crime which the paladin is obliged to mete out punishment for.

My recommendation: Go back to square one, let the player have his paladin abilities back and say that this was simply a warning from his deity or the forces that grant him his powers whatever they may be. At that point, clearly dilineate for him what constitutes an evil act or violation of his code of conduct so that he has no one to blame but himself if it happens again in the future. IMHO, a paladin should never lose his paladin abilities because the player didn't realize he was committing a morally ambiguous act. If a paladin loses his paladin abilities, the player should be expecting it, even if his character might not. A player may be playing a paladin who has a fiery passion that overtakes him and makes him overzealous and the player wants to roleplay the atonement. Or the player might just be wanting to cause a scene and do something drastic without caring about the consequences. But your player has a legitimate complaint based solely upon the fact that it really just boils down to the fact that he couldn't read your mind (you did ask him to confirm what he wanted to do and although you might have implied that you considered it an evil act, he may not have understood your implication i.e. a failed innuendo check lol). Now once you have explained what your interpretation of the rules is, he can argue with you until he is blue in the face as long as he accepts your judgment in the end. Otherwise, he is a disruptive player and is just trying to have his cake and eat it too.

I hope my suggestions help you. They are only my opinions after all and if someone else has something more valuable to add feel free to ignore me.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I think that as the dm you probably should have let the player do whatever so long as they could rationalize it in a way that doesn't stretch beyond your and their interpretation of lawful good behaviour. Based solidly on the phb description of course. You sort of have to take the campaign into consideration too.

Certainly blanking the paladin powers is _not_ something that should be done if their is any room for contention. Doing that has to be really worth it and if in doubt, don't.

(As an aside my current pally would've accepted their surrender on condition that they truly repent their evil ways. Then a sense motive hunch and if they're insincere, off with their head without second thought.)

 

[Rystil Arden]

Hobgoblins are "Usually lawful evil". Did the Paladin know for sure that the hobgoblin he killed was even evil and not Lawful Neutral? Did he check with Detect Evil first? In a Living ENWorld PbP adventure, the PCs attacked a bunch of hobgoblin mercenaries (mainly LN) who were fighting a gray render before the hobgoblins even saw them. They killed several, and when the hobgoblins asked for recompense for their dead comrades, they refused, so the hobgoblins left (even though the PCs were wounded from the gray render, which turned on them, and the hobgoblins could have finished them off). Later, the PCs chased the hobgoblins down and slaughtered some of the guards from ambush before trying to Coup de Grace those that were still asleep. Is this appropriate due to the "hobgoblins are evil creatures" mentality offered in the first post by the PC. I would say that this is Evil behaviour on behalf of the party, but it seems like many of you would argue that it is not.