Prickly moral situation for a Paladin - did I judge it correctly?

[Tsyr]

Pray tell, what evidence do you have?

Subdual damage pretty much knocks out a character below 0.

I mean a lasting difference, should have been clear.

If the paladin dies, but kills, say, 2 of them before he does so, that's two less that will never plague the world again. The ones that got knocked out? Up again to terrorize the world.

 

[takyris]

Forcedude, good info to give. One dominate every other round is MUCH more feasible for 2nd or 3rd-level characters than 24 every round, and much more appropriate a challenge, especially since it grows less powerful when the children are subdued. Stupid questions: Was this Dominate Person (since I see no reason for the devil to give them the ability to dominate, say, Umber Hulks or Otyughs). Are Aasimar vulnerable to "___ Person" spells? I honestly can't remember.

One question that hasn't really been raised: What was your thought on the kids? I mean, were these kids wickedly tricked by some malicious force, or were they children who made a reasoned choice to become immortal in return for doing evil deeds? If the former -- if they were now charmed or dominated -- I wouldn't have had them radiate evil, and I would have offered up some clue to the paladin that they could be redeemed. If the latter, I wouldn't have dinged his paladinism.

Despite all that, let me just say that this sounds like a really interesting adventure, and a great attempt to make something that is creepy and (judging by the number of posts) morally challenging or disturbing enough to be worth whatever trouble it caused. Every DM has accidently tossed the PCs in over their heads once or twice. Don't beat yourself up. We're debating abstracts here, now, and I don't think any of us think you're a bad DM.

 

[Carnifex]

Despite all that, let me just say that this sounds like a really interesting adventure, and a great attempt to make something that is creepy and (judging by the number of posts) morally challenging or disturbing enough to be worth whatever trouble it caused. Every DM has accidently tossed the PCs in over their heads once or twice. Don't beat yourself up. We're debating abstracts here, now, and I don't think any of us think you're a bad DM.

Plus throwing morally challenging situations at the PC's is always good for roleplaying. I used Babyshields (Copyright Piratecat ) for a coven of elite werewolves that I threw at my PC's once, and am currently putting them in a situation where the optimum choice for their own survival is to side with the lesser of two evils.

And sure, you may have screwed up a little on balancing the enemy for the PC's. Every DM does that occasionally. Unfortunately as you found out the results are more pronounced when the enemy are too powerful and have mental powers (it's more easy to retreat from a battle against more powerful but more conventional enemies than from a more powerful psion or mage).

 

[nimisgod]

Despite all that, let me just say that this sounds like a really interesting adventure, and a great attempt to make something that is creepy and (judging by the number of posts) morally challenging or disturbing enough to be worth whatever trouble it caused. Every DM has accidently tossed the PCs in over their heads once or twice. Don't beat yourself up. We're debating abstracts here, now, and I don't think any of us think you're a bad DM.

*nods head* Despite my words, I think you made an interesting story and some very interesting villains.

Was it Dominate Person? An Aasimar is not a humanoid but an Outsider (Native) type and immune to person spells (Charm person, dominate person, hold person).

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Thanks Tsyr! I'd love to game with you, too! Feel free to e-mail me anytime, and we can exchange ideas!

I don't understand what the whole emphasis on "subduing" the evil children is for. What's the merit? They have slaughtered entire villages; they have long since wallowed in the bosom of evil, and they have drank deeply from the wine of rebellion; for their crimes, they should be executed. "Subduing" these evil, vile creatures seems pointless. The paladin is charged with defending society from evil; these creatures are evil, and thus should be destroyed. What's the point in subduing them, when they need to be destroyed? It is good to destroy evil creatures. Slacking in this prime responsibility seems negligent. There seems remote chance of these creatures converting to righteousness, and even if they had some small chance of doing so, such would be irrelevant; they must die for their horrid and wicked crimes against the community, and thus, even by putting them to the sword is a form of mercy, and it also satisfies justice; such creatures, if repentent in their hearts, may spend eternity serving the good deities in the Afterworld; still, they must suffer the just and righteous judgment for their crimes, and such, as judged by the righteous paladin, is death. Thus, the paladin can sleep soundly, knowing that his actions have not only saved the community from further evil, but also has meted out a righteous and holy wrath upon those who have prostrated themselves to the dominion of evil. Weighing what little or greater amount of "goodness" that may reside in their soul's as they seek repentance even as they die, would be more fitting for the deities that recieve them into the afterlife to judge, and certainly not for the paladin to worry about.

When confronted with such a circumstance, the paladin must also seek to satisfy the demands of justice, and never forget that those who do evil must pay the awful and terrible price for their rebellion to all that is righteous and holy. When such a paladin serves as the hand of judgment and wrath against such forces of evil, the paladin's actions also serve as a testimony to good creatures that evil shall not escape judgment for their deeds, that the blood of innocents shall be avenged, and that those who have fallen in past battles and struggles have not died in vain; and also as testimony to other evil creatures that the forces of righteousness shall carry the war to them, wherever they are found, and shall never surrender.

The issues at stake for a paladin and the society at large, are profound and demanding. The paladin must steel himself to the hard task at hand, and be fully prepared to hear the call to war, and to armour their heart to the need to bring fire and steel to the forces of darkness, no matter where they are, or what form they may take.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[LostSoul]

I would have sided with the Paladin in question, at the time, because it would have made the game go by quicker.

After the fight, I would have asked the Player what he thinks about his PC's actions. Were they good? Does he have any guilt? What does he think about losing his Paladin's abilities?

Then I'd let the Player decide what happens to his abilities. Take away the role-playing restrictions from the class and you're left with a class that's just as powerful as any other. So let the Player punish himself.

 

[The Kender]

I believe that the Paladin should actually recieve bonus XP for this. This has been stated a few times, but here's the one that stick out:

1) They sacrifice adults to dark and evil gods

2) They attacked him.

3) How the heck is the Paladin supposed to subdue them? I don't have my books in front of me, but it would be metagaming to think that if you gagged and bound them that they still couldn't use their mind control. First of all, you have to due enough subdual damage to take them down. Second, you have to find out how to tie and gag them all. Third, you have to keep them from going anywhere.

4) What's the greater evil? Killing some demon workshipping, sacrificing cultists or getting you, your party, and countless others killed. This one kinda went along with three.

5) He stood up for what he thought was right. He didn't let the group pressure him into changing. This seems like good roleplaying, maybe its just me. He stood up and vanquished evil, according to his beliefs.

 

[Mean DM]

Greetings!On another note, it always amazes me why so many people seem to expect paladins to be some 20th-century version of a social worker or defense lawyer; paladins are warriors first and foremost, and are charged with bringing war to the forces of darkness. If someone or a DM desires the character in question to be some kind of social worker or defense lawyer, always trying to second guess the motives and such of every evil creature they encounter, then really, some kind of cleric specializing in counseling and social work would be a better fit for such a role; such a fuzzy-warm cleric can naively afford to indulge in the quaint assumption that every evil creature encountered should, and must be redeemed for the good of society. [snip] Paladins, it would seem to me, are the hardened shock-troops of the forces of Good, called upon to bring the rough and deadly edge of wrath and war to the forces of evil, rather than some angst-filled naive social worker-priest.SHARK

So, how do you really feel about Social Workers Shark?

This boils down to the fact that I like a game that does not have absolute and clear good/evil distinctions. You like a more evil vs. good one. More power to you. I just like the ambiguity. It makes me all fuzzy-warm.

There are other takes on this scenario. There are ways to spin the so called facts so that a might is right attitude is wrong. It just strikes me funny that some are making absolute judgments about morality in a fantasy world. There is another take on this scenario. I may be in the minority, but that does not mean that a different take is necessarily wrong. But there I go again. My liberal relativism is showing again.

Cheers,

Mark

 

[Carnifex]

So, how do you really feel about Social Workers Shark?

This boils down to the fact that I like a game that does not have absolute and clear good/evil distinctions. You like a more evil vs. good one. More power to you. I just like the ambiguity. It makes me all fuzzy-warm.

There are other takes on this scenario. There are ways to spin the so called facts so that a might is right attitude is wrong. It just strikes me funny that some are making absolute judgments about morality in a fantasy world. There is another take on this scenario. I may be in the minority, but that does not mean that a different take is necessarily wrong. But there I go again. My liberal relativism is showing again.

Cheers,

Mark

Hey, I use lots of shades of gray in my games, and I like making the good/evil boundary fuzzy. But even *I* fail to see how, in any way, the paladin wasn't justified in killing things that were, effectively, as innately evil as real demons.

 

[Dragonblade]

I have played in SHARK's game Tsyr and it was awesome! Everything you could imagine.

Anyway, Blaine was correct, I support the paladin in this case. But I think Force User deserves some slack. He just misjudged the encounter. I have done the same thing when I have DMed. It happens.

I also love his evil-cultist-children plot. Consider that snipped for a future reference the next time I find myself DMing.