Paladin thread, nuff said

[FreeTheSlaves]

My paladin character is called Marshal Darian Cedwick (democratic leader figure in our band) and he has been doing lots of naughty stuff - but is it too naughty? Btw, we are low level and not too tough so we always need to attack with some advantage.

****

1) The Mayor & sons of the frontier town run the place in a despotic fashion contrary to the laws of the king. Cedwick didn't know this and foolishly arrested the Mayor's goons who were promptly released the following day and later raided the Marshal's office to beat me and my deputies up. After crawling off to heal in some derelict farm we later recaptured the goons and marched them across the arid steppes to the distant cavalry fort, unfortunately the commander there was in cahoots so we had to flee (using him as a human shield). Releasing him, we head back to town full of frustration and with murderous thoughts towards the Mayor.

We planned to enter his home at night-time, locate him and hang him in the town square (preferably executing rather than stringing up a hacked body). Well the plan executed poorly and fearing that the Mayor had escaped I started fires upstairs while making a racket for any servants to flee. Fortunately my deputies hacked the Mayor to death after he jumped from the second story (while his brigand son was trying to kill me) and we strung his dead body up before fleeing into the night. The following noon we braved entering the town's main street to declare aloud our actions, loyalty to the king, and prove our honour by undertaking a (very dangerous) self-appointed quest vs the undead marauders that plague the region. We scarpered before any of the goon organised themselves but this fear seemed unjustified as the Mayor's body was still swinging.

The naughty thing there is that my character really should have taken the Mayor to justice (Cedwick has limited legal jurisdiction) but that would be 3 months away by horse, also his goons would pursue us likely catching up at some point. We've left the town without any official justicar, as the Mayor at least controlled apearances by reining in his goons - they might go nuts, especially his 2 grieving & angry sons. Also, the execution of the Mayor struck me later as pretty cold blooded, we struck at night and he was only in his nightshirt armed with a nearby sword. Realistically though, we can't afford to fight fair + there isn't any magical healing so getting wounded means you carry those wounds into the next fight if you don't rest.

****

2) After fleeing the corrupt cavalry and deciding to head back to town we are accosted by the 'Carlos Brothers' (*4 of them). We lose the initial exchange, flee, ambush and defeat them, killing all but the youngest. After questioning, I let him go unarmed but he pleads for his horse & water - I respond by giving him back his horse, 4 days rations (8 days stretched + extra water), and bearings to get to town that should be 7-8 days away. As a parting thought I throw a shovel next to his dead brothers and scribble a note with final rites for him to read aloud (we don't know the source of the undead).

The naughty thing there is that i should probably have had him accompanied us in case of wandering undead and also to testify that the Mayor issued a illegal bounty on us as we are innocent of the crimes. He was also a young twit they might have got himself lost & died of thirst/exposure (yes those rules are popping up all the time in this campaign).

My DM doesn't care a whit but I wonder what the rest of us ENWorldians think?

 

[Ibram]

Both actions seem reasonable to me, the mayor and his bunch betrayed the king and thus deserved to die. Your paladin couldnt just run off for three months to take him to court where he would just be hung anyway.

the second bit is the same, he took his chances comming out there and you are not responsable for his saftey afterwards (as a bandit hes lucky not to have been hung).

the only bad thing i see here is what you did with the dead.... knowing that there are undead around you should have dismembered or burned the corpses.

 

[Voadam]

Two relevant questions for paladins under RAW:

1) did he do an evil action? If no then no problem.

2) did he grossly violate the code of honor. if not grossly violated then no problem.

If he did either then immediate loss of paladin powers until atoned.

I don't think anything you did Grossly violated the code or was an evil act.

 

[Coredump]

Note: Upon re-reading this, I realize it may come out harsher that I mean it. I am 'chastizing' the character, not the player. The players seem to be having fun. Even if they are doing it 'wrong'.

Well, in my campaign, you would be trying to find a cleric so you could try and atone.

1)You snuck into a house in the dead of night, for the purpose of executing someone. You were willing to risk the lives of all the adults and children, just because you thought he might be getting away. Your deputies then hacked a fairly helpless man to death. A Palidin with 'murderous thoughts' is bad enough, yet you clearly acted on them.

Did the King appoint you judge jury and executioner? Or have you just unilaterally volunteered for the job?

You are in a fronteir town, and the closest 'law' is 3 months away? By Riding horse, that means 4300 miles. Even walking, that means over 2000 miles. So you are in Michigan, and the King is in California. Even if the king of this unbelievably huge kingdom is that far away, there is no other representative before that?

Sure it may be a long trip, but that is what good guys do, especially paladins, they obey the rules. Besides, it could make for a great story, as you guys keep trying to get to the king, and the bad guys keep trying to catch you.

I'm not saying you have to knock on his door,and tell him you plan on attacking in 30 minutes. Getting the drop on someone is fine, deciding to execute him when he really can't defend himself isn't. Possiblly burning innocents isn't. And saying "we can't afford to fight fair ... getting wounded means you carry those wounds into the next fight if you don't rest." Is great if you are chaotic neutral. Heck, otherwise just nuke them from space, that way you are always safe.

2) Without more info, I have no problem with the ambush. Do to the D&D rules, there is not much advantage to getting the 'drop' on someone unless you attack. IRL pointing a gun at someone means something, in DnD, pointing an arrow really doesn't. But that means an ambush is okay, a massacre is not. Making sure they have a way (and Time) to surrender is an important distinction. Otherwise it is just another execution.

You let him go? But he is obviously a 'bad guy'. Is the only important justice the one where they are a danger to you? Are you not concerned with letting such a miscreant back to cause more harm? Why let him just go back to town? Take him back to town, and put him in jail. Or on trial, or something. And if you want him to survive, why such little food? Just to torment him?

And I usually picture Paladins being a little less cavalier in their atitudes towards the dead. You are (presumably) lawful good. And you will just let their bodies lie in the sun? You don't administer last rites? You don't help to bury them?

From just this little bit, it sounds like you guys a playing a much more self-centered alignment. Something like chaotic neutral, with good tendencies. C'mon, haven't you seen enough cool westerns, take back the town, support the law. You will get beaten up a lot, but right before the end, the townsfolk will come to support you, you will get the mayor, his minions will run from the townspeople, and the King will grant you some land, and the hand of a nobles' daughter.

 

[Coredump]

I don't think anything you did Grossly violated the code or was an evil act.

So you have no problem with a Paladin casually burning down a house full of innocents, just because the bad guy *might* be getting away?
Or killing the bad guy when he is in his nightshirt?
Or setting up a situation where someone could easily die a very slow and painful death?

 

[Arnwyn]

My DM doesn't care a whit but I wonder what the rest of us ENWorldians think?

1) I've never been impressed with paladins who use "convenience" as an excuse to not do the right thing, especially when it involves assassinating some guy in his house in the middle of the night. (But that's just me, and we all draw the line in different places.)

2) I thought you did just fine here.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I play a rogue 2 paladin 4 shadowbane inquisitor 9.

In one town I was sent to, the earl was having a woman condemed to death by burning at the stake. After some investigation by my comrades and some use of diplomacy skill and (in my humble opinion) some great role playing, we turned the town against the earl. I had him bow before me to receive Helm's judgement, which was a coup de grace beheading with a large two handed sword using my Smite ability to smite any foe regardless of alignment.

Perhaps a touch over the top and very in tune with a Witch Hunter or Zealot from say Warhammer, but I figured this guy wanted to use Helm to further his own deeds and took me away from the church for nonsense and to kill an innocent woman so he had it coming.

I've also attacked nobels who thought that their position in court would protect them when they were clearly using magic to charm those about them. Using diplomacy skill and roleplaying again, I managed to show those under sway the error of their ways (having a wizard on hand to display things works well too.) that session was when I used the old, "For every 1,000 men hacking at the branches of evil, one strikes at the root. Today, I am that one."

 

[werk]

Yeah, I think you are fine too, but it depends on his specific diety and code of conduct. If you don't have one written out, do that before you start playing, that should send a definitive message to the player that he is suspect of wrong-doing/needs to check himself.

Example of prior paladin-loss:
We were part of a multi-faceted team of 'good guys' that were organizing and training newbs so we could win against the multi-faceted team of 'bad-guys' who were pretty much doing the same thing and awaiting the prophecised return of the uber-uber bad guy to start their attack. Our party was high level, but not epic, and had built a whole island city stronghold during the campaign, the works (chars were played from level1). We got intel that the bad guys had an arcane academy set up in their main city and were cranking out low-level mages as quickly as possible. So our plan was to go there and shut the school down. We bamf in and the mages in the party start raining fire down on this academy building while everyone is inside asleep in their beds. I'm like 'No stop!' and they say 'You're right, we should be setting fire from the bottom and inside, so the weight-bearing walls collapse and trap everyone. Go guard the front door and hack anyone that tries to leave.' At that, they teleport inside the building and I go to the front door, where no one tries to leave (burned alive).

The DM ruled that I should have done everything in my power to protect the helpless students even though they were not only evil but our enemies. My argument was that I was a 'DUTY' based paladin and my duty was to defeat the enemy forces, protect my city, and (to a lesser extent) follow the orders of my party leader within reason.
I atoned pretty quickly, and had to somewhat distance myself from the aggressive party in order to stick more tightly to the DMs idea of duty. I later sacrificed the paladin to return stability to the plane, enfusing the entire plane with my lawful-goodness.

Hope that helps?

 

[Voadam]

So you have no problem with a Paladin casually burning down a house full of innocents, just because the bad guy *might* be getting away?
Or killing the bad guy when he is in his nightshirt?
Or setting up a situation where someone could easily die a very slow and painful death?

1 it was not casually burning down a house full of innocents, if he was evil he could have done that from the start and never entered. Instead the burning was for a purpose and he was actively "making a racket for any servants to flee." so that innocents would not be burned to death.

2 why does it matter if he is in his nightshirt and armed with a sword instead of leather armor and sword? And it was not the paladin who did so but his deputies. Taking out a bad guy boss who is an ongoing threat is not an evil act that will get you stripped of your paladinhood in my games. Torturing him because he is evil and "deserves it" would.

3 letting his prisoner go alive with food, water, and a horse is evil? Because he might get lost in the area he has been riding in?

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

the only bad thing i see here is what you did with the dead.... knowing that there are undead around you should have dismembered or burned the corpses.

This is a Gygaxian campaign, the rules are bent or broken to create the right setting - in this case there are no clerics and thus no obvious means to animate the dead. My character thinks that a lack of burial rites may be partly the cause.

Btw, that sure made me laugh, my character 'hacking' corpses just in case.