D&D 5E Player agency and Paladin oath.

Why not? Not all adventurers have to be good - sometimes the adventurers are the evil cold-blooded murderers. Doesn't bother me either as player or DM.
Ugh. No thanks.

Sounds like she spoke in anger but never acted out on it. She's also probably suffering from some sort of PTSD.
Not remotely an excuse. She literally has a introspective breakdown over killing a fellow human, and can’t apply that on any level to creatures that aren’t human.
Besides which, real life is full of people whose trauma doesn’t lead them to bigotry.
Why bother even playing a Paladin then? In any case, even if he dropped the Code, it doesn't mean he'd condone killing prisoners. It is not the problem with the class. The problem is with the disparity between how the characters view the value of a creature's life. A wizard could, just as easily, decide (s)he is against killing prisoners. You are left with the same dilemma.
Yep. Like I said before, every non-evil character I’ve played would object to murdering prisoners after promise them release if they cooperate.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Not remotely an excuse. She literally has a introspective breakdown over killing a fellow human, and can’t apply that on any level to creatures that aren’t human.
Besides which, real life is full of people whose trauma doesn’t lead them to bigotry.

She didn't act on it, I don't think every PC need to perfectly reflect their alignment at all times.

In any case, no reason to derail this onto the subject. Want to discuss it, start a separate thread.
 

She didn't act on it, I don't think every PC need to perfectly reflect their alignment at all times.

In any case, no reason to derail this onto the subject. Want to discuss it, start a separate thread.
I don’t care about alignment. And it’s part of the thread. I’m not starting a secondary thread to discuss an example being used in this thread to talk about what makes a PC evil. 🤷‍♂️
 

Why bother even playing a Paladin then? In any case, even if he dropped the Code, it doesn't mean he'd condone killing prisoners. It is not the problem with the class. The problem is with the disparity between how the characters view the value of a creature's life. A wizard could, just as easily, decide (s)he is against killing prisoners. You are left with the same dilemma.
Yes, it's a good vs evil issue, the fact that the character is a paladin immaterial to the ethics involved here. As you say, any character with a good alignment would have taken offence, regardless of their class. But I'm not in this thread to put the PCs or the DM on trial. I'm proposing a solution that I think this particular DM can apply with this particular group of players.

But the fact that a paladin is involved is relevant to the situation because the OP opens the post with admitting that they don't like paladins because they are knuckleheads, at least it their eyes, and seems to blame the code for that. Thus addressing the code...

As to why play a paladin if the code is evacuated or downplayed? Because it has nice mechanics to play? Like people play warlocks without going about the loss of their soul all the time, or people play a cleric without observing a strict dogma and taboos.

why play a devotion paladin instead of, say, vengeance paladin in their case? Because the player wanted a change and got it as the DM says, which in retrospect seems like it was too much of a change for the group. From what I gather from the OP, corrections are necessary. There are many corrections possible, many have been suggested, I tried to contribute positively without repeating what people said before.
 


changing the code won't change the problem if he still doesn't want to kill the prisoners.

Which is my whole point. The DM can always set up scenarios with no "good" option. If I were playing in that game I'd probably just start killing everything and everyone that looked at me sideways. If I don't it's going to come back and bite me later.

It's partly an issue with the players, but it's also a DM that is antagonistic to the style of PC that their player wants to play which is only sort of related to their oath. Both of those issues need to be resolved.
 

I don't see it as antagonistic. But there should be cause/effect either way. And the the effect shouldn't always be good for one way and bad for another. I think keeping prisoners alive should open future story lines. Whether that is unexpected allies or a new villain. Letting the giant go was a short term consequence that resulted in an ambush. It could have had a richer, long term effect.
 

Why bother even playing a Paladin then? In any case, even if he dropped the Code, it doesn't mean he'd condone killing prisoners. It is not the problem with the class. The problem is with the disparity between how the characters view the value of a creature's life. A wizard could, just as easily, decide (s)he is against killing prisoners. You are left with the same dilemma.
They wanted to play a paladin, who am I to say they can't? It turns out it may not have been a good idea, but that easier to say that looking back on what resulted. But I believe there are alternative to scrubbing the campaign and start a new one.

As you say, the ethics of killing prisoners, and gods know what else, won't be solved by restarting a new campaign. It can only be resolved by players and DM talking about what heroes they want to play, whether they want to use alignment, and what good and evil means. Players and DM should then play coherently.

Maybe to this group, paladins are the only intransigent characters when it comes to ethics dilemmas, which is kind of old school, but not unheard of and used to be quite frequent.

Regardless, a discussion between players and DM seems to be the only way out.
 
Last edited:


Killing prisoners is not always an evil act.

If bandits are burning farms with people inside them and the party kills some and captures others. The bandits are questioned as to who they are workin for and why. There isn’t good justification for their banditry (Robin Hood) then it’s not an evil act to dispense justice and kill them. I’m not sure where this idea that killing a prisoner is evil came from.

Legally speaking, it came from the Geneva Convention at the end of World War I, which specifically bans the use of several uses of what was collectively viewed as horrific acts of dishonor and disrespect on the warfront, including things like biological/chemical weapons, killing prisoners that have surrendered, and certain forms of torture. But the idea of treating prisoners with respect and keeping your word definitely predates it conceptually and throughout most of history those who treated their prisoners poorly could largely expect the same treatment if captured or suffered severe issues when trying to be diplomatic as word got around quickly that they were not to be trusted. Hence why in my original post I suggest that if his players continue such behavior the logical result should be them slowly being ostracized by the very society they deem "civilized" if not outright hunted down by it.

Even in a highly regulated society vigilanteism isn’t necessarily evil. In a society without national police or legal system it would be normal. Remember most law enforcement was conducted by private citizens until the late 18th C or even later. Most serious crimes were punishable by death and there were over 200 crimes on the ‘bloody code’.

Such societies also still largely distrusted those known as vigilantes widely as any who tried to wield the law without proper authority to do so were often quick to become the very bandits they were supposedly there to keep at bay. Also, the DM has given us no context on if his world has no such law enforcement/standing army or what his legal system is for the specific area of where these events took place. Even if we look at real history not every nation was the American Wild West, and if anything such lawlessness was almost the exception to the rule in terms of law enforcement; there is a reason why the image of the American Wild West and Americans as "cowboys" are largely viewed as incredibly "foreign" or "chaotic" by much of the world.

That all aside, even if we remove the good vs evil aspect of the argument over whether killing a criminal is wrong (It is still an evil act unless there is no means of bringing them to trial, the neutral response is to only bring them back if it is reasonable and the evil one is to kill them because "it's easiest"), we still have the law vs chaos arguement. If such systems exist, the concept of bringing them back alive if possible is the lawful response, as is honoring your word that one would be let go. Said player in question was Lawful Good, and it's perfectly reasonable they'd be upset the group has effectively made them a liar against their will, paladin or not. I still maintain my previous statements: have the player reroll and in doing so, inform the local government or his religious order that the party is in effect a group of weyward wandering murderers. If wandering adventuring bands are legally right to declare that bandits are wholesale evil and deserving of murder on the spot, so too could an order of priests dedicated to a god of Justice/Law to the very same group of adventurers using the same logic. After all they ARE murderers, even if those they murdered were criminals.

Again, I take no issue with evil PCs (hell I've played in such games and they were loads of fun). But they should realize and own that they ARE in fact Evil. And logically face the consequences for their actions within the respective world.
 

Remove ads

Top