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

[Voadam]

Hack, hack, hack... Don't people use Diplomacy checks anymore? Of all people, I would think the Paladin could have talked his way out of this bad-situation before relying on brute force. Was Diplomacy even attempted?

Seems to me that the Paladin took the easy route, which was to kill first and ask questions later. Isn't the Paladin supposed to be held to a higher standard?

The cult kids were actively dominating the party in a combat situation. The 2nd level paladin could take a -10 penalty on his diplomacy check to get them from hostile to something different by spending a full round action trying to convince them he is their friend, however it seems a very poor tactic, and many DMs will not allow you to do so in a combat.

When an enchanter is trying to dominate the paladin he should not try to convince the bad guy to be friendly, but to stop the enchanter.


here is the srd quote on diplomacy:

DIPLOMACY (CHA)
Check: You can change the attitudes of others (nonplayer characters) with a successful Diplomacy check; see the Influencing NPC Attitudes sidebar, below, for basic DCs. In negotiations, participants roll opposed Diplomacy checks, and the winner gains the advantage. Opposed checks also resolve situations when two advocates or diplomats plead opposite cases in a hearing before a third party.
Action: Changing others’ attitudes with Diplomacy generally takes at least 1 full minute (10 consecutive full-round actions). In some situations, this time requirement may greatly increase. A rushed Diplomacy check can be made as a full-round action, but you take a –10 penalty on the check.
Try Again: Optional, but not recommended because retries usually do not work. Even if the initial Diplomacy check succeeds, the other character can be persuaded only so far, and a retry may do more harm than good. If the initial check fails, the other character has probably become more firmly committed to his position, and a retry is futile.
Special: A half-elf has a +2 racial bonus on Diplomacy checks.
If you have the Negotiator feat, you get a +2 bonus on Diplomacy checks.
Synergy: If you have 5 or more ranks in Bluff, Knowledge (nobility and royalty), or Sense Motive, you get a +2 bonus on Diplomacy checks.

INFLUENCING NPC ATTITUDES
Use the table below to determine the effectiveness of Diplomacy checks (or Charisma checks) made to influence the attitude of a nonplayer character, or wild empathy checks made to influence the attitude of an animal or magical beast.

Initial Attitude ————— New Attitude (DC to achieve)—————
Hostile Unfriendly Indifferent Friendly Helpful
Hostile Less than 20 20 25 35 50
Unfriendly Less than 5 5 15 25 40
Indifferent — Less than 1 1 15 30
Friendly — — Less than 1 1 20
Helpful — — — Less than 1 1

Attitude Means Possible Actions
Hostile Will take risks to hurt you Attack, interfere, berate, flee
Unfriendly Wishes you ill Mislead, gossip, avoid, watch suspiciously, insult
Indifferent Doesn’t much care Socially expected interaction
Friendly Wishes you well Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate
Helpful Will take risks to help you Protect, back up, heal, aid

 

[nimisgod]

They've been doing this whole parasitic slaughtering of villages for decades now. *If* a tiny sliver of possibility of redemption does remain, it's so small that it's frankly an evil act for the paladin to take that risk and thus put the lives of even more *real* innocents at risk.

Furthermore, this is the medieval church. By their standards, those kids are innately evil and doomed to hellfire.

I think that you assume too much. Remember that the Cardinal asked the party to keep them and the monks inside the monestary. Is it for execution or redemption, we don't know.

and its an evil act to want to redeem a soul(Not ust a child)? Hmm... are we playing the same game here?

 

[RC Hagy]

Ya know, maybe I'm a freak or something, but I don't get this whole "Children don't know what's right and wrong".

I knew what was right and what was wrong by the time I was I was in kidergarden. I knew stealing was wrong, I knew killing a person was wrong, I knew lying was wrong, etc. And moreover, I knew why it was wrong... I knew why murder was so terrible, etc. Oh sure, I still played with GI Joes and Hot Wheels like a kid, but I wasn't stupid.

And I didn't even grow up in a religous household that shoved the ten commandments down my throat. These concepts aren't hard to grasp.

And in a medieval (or even quasi medieval) setting, it's likely that children would be given much less leeway than we do.

And to be blunt, it's just not an excuse for some things, no matter how much you would like it to be. If demons say "If you kill your parents, I'll give you toys", and you kill your parents for toys, tough. You made your bed, you have to sleep in it. Only so much can be excused away as "childish stupidity".

Nope not a freak at all...
well at least your not the only one.

Children may know what is right from what is wrong...
actually getting them to keep their actions under control is something
totally different.

Impulsive does not even begin to describe a child.
Wether they be eight or eighteen. Medieval fantasy or modern.

That is about the only reason (I can think of) to give the slightest bit of (temporary) mercy.
The weaknesses of the children were exploited, they never stood a chance...

As stated by the DM though, it was not a few months or even a few years... but most probably decades of evil actions. They were chosing year
after year to do vile things. With that tidbit, the fact that a weakness was once exploited becomes a very, very minor factor in a combat situation.

The situation was quickly evolving, three choices would be readily apparent:

Subdue (not necessarily SUBDUAL),
Wait or
Kill.

That is just me though.


Hagy

And Tsyr's post just summed up the view, very nicely, that many share with him... hm, maybe I shoould have kept it one on one.

 

[Carnifex]

I think that you assume too much. Remember that the Cardinal asked the party to keep them and the monks inside the monestary. Is it for execution or redemption, we don't know.

and its an evil act to want to redeem a soul(Not ust a child)? Hmm... are we playing the same game here?

I think you're equivocating the word innate here to your own meaning. That might be the source of your confusion.

I know what I mean, and I'm talking about choice two from your list. It has become their essential nature, even if they were once not that.

I'm not saying its an evil choice to want to redeem a soul. I'm saying it's a negligent choice in the pursuit of the paladin's duties to put redeeming the souls of some vile beings above the safety of a larger number of innocents.

And I assume you haev at least a basic working knowledge of the medieval church. If so, you'll know that the response of a cleric to a situation like this would be that the children are beyond redeeming in this life. The best that could be done is to kill them to prevent them causing further evil and also further endangering their own souls through that action, and hope that the Almighty shows them His mercy. However, the fact that they have signed a pact with a demon more or less means they're damned anyway.

Let me put it this way; a demon was, in the DnD cosmology, once an innocent.

It began as a mortal, even maybe a human child. Then it became evil, died, and reformed as a demon in the outer planes.

These 'children' may once have been innocent but they sure as hell aren't any more. And they're a danger, one which the party was unable to contain. So the best course of action is to *kill* as many as possible to reduce the threat that the group poses as a whole, as much as possible.

And considering historical examples of what the Church did even to people accused of heresies and falling into evil faiths (eg think of what happened to the Knights Templar in France), and that they did indeed burn accused witches etc, I really think that even had the children been subdued and the Cardinal turned up, the eventual result would have been their death because they aren't children any more. They are evil, remorseless and incredibly dangerous.

 

[nimisgod]

First of all, the medieval church as we know it was incredibly biased and ignorant, even more so that the D&D churches. Second, they can actually ask their gawds for guidance instead of relying on themselves. Third, not all fiends come from mortal souls.

Even then, a Dretch or a Mane is innately evil (Always evil) compared to a child with powers of domination (whose alignment could range from Evil to Neutral).

 

[Carnifex]

First of all, the medieval church as we know it was incredibly biased and ignorant, even more so that the D&D churches. Second, they can actually ask their gawds for guidance instead of relying on themselves. Third, not all fiends come from mortal souls.

Even then, a Dretch or a Mane is innately evil (Always evil) compared to a child with powers of domination (whose alignment could range from Evil to Neutral).

Yet at the same time, a medieval church assailed by genuine, real demons of the D&D kind and other magical corrupting influences would *have* to be tough, just to survive. And it may well be that the god's own judgement on the kids will be to send them to hell. In fact, it's pretty damn likely, considering the Bible. I think most modern-day Christians would agree that a devil-worshipper would most likely go to hell even by the judgement of a merciful god, so the medieval equivalents living in a tougher world, judging people who have really, genuinely entered into demonic pacts, are probably also gonna consider them condemned to hellfire, and this is most likely the answer they'll be getting through divinations too.

And in this case, we're not talking about a child with mental powers of domination. It's gone beyond being a child. They've existed for decades, conciously choosing evil acts, again and again.

 

[PowerWordDumb]

I'm with the paladin. But then I also believe that all children are horrific little demons who deserve a good smiting, so take that with a grain of salt.

 

[Tsyr]

At this point, given how often the "child" arguement keeps comming up, I'm going to echo the sentiments of other posters:

If the "children" showed their true age, instead of physically looking like children, this wouldn't be an issue now.

 

[RC Hagy]

Originally Posted by RC Hagy

The more ambiguous the original situation the more carefully one should proceed in their solution.
If those children had been possessed... then an effort should have been made to try and save them.

Hagy

Conversely, the more dangerous the situation appears involving evil threats, the more need for immediate, unhesitating action.

Ah, yet even the portion of my post you quote does not imply half measures.

Unknowns increase the potential threat here, not decrease it, calling for immediate use of overwhelming force to stop the evil.

The more unknowns the more knowledge one should gain to more
effectively combat a threat. The party knew to little and got taken out.
ForceUser was quite nice, I would have had the dominated party wake up
after they had 'helped' the rats. From what many have written domination
is not even an excuse... the Paladin would be in even more doo-doo by that
standard.

I think the party knew the cultists had made pacts with infernal beings for powers including mind control.

Children being dooped do to a child's impulsivness and shortsightedness?
They became cultists... they did not start out that way. A fine
distinction which the decades of evil invalidated... still something one
should have considered... if there was time, which there turned out
not to be.

I think the paladin knew they had killed innocents before in a repeating pattern after dominating and using innocents.

I think the children were used... at the beginning... the repeated killings
are why what happened, in the end, is tolerable. Evil must be vanquished.

They did not know if this power was like a spell that needed line of sight, casting, etc.

All the more reason to regroup and formulate a good plan... hells even a
bad one, especially since a plan breaks down after the first five seconds. Not
having a plan means one must rely on luck when the 'expletive' hits the
blade barrier.

they did not know if it was permanent.

Standing around to get repeatedly tagged, and most likely ending up used
for what you are trying to prevent from happening again, is not a good way to find out.

They did not know if these cultists had other powers to draw upon and make things worse.

I seem to remember a 'blasted' door and a companion lying unconcious'
being mentioned...
Always assume something is behind the next door, paranoia is ones friend.

Proceeding slowly with half measures seems foolish in this situation and not required to be good or follow the code.

Again, I never advocated half measures.
Subduing (not subdual) is not a half measure.
Waiting is not a half measure.
Killing is not usually a half measure... here it was.

A threat is now, probably, able to return due to a lack of information
gathered. As I have stated in a couple other posts things happened fast,

Subdue, Wait or Kill were the only options. The paladin was alone he made
a choice... it is between him and his god... which happens to be the DM.


Hagy

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

The best solution would have been to have the whole lot of them beheaded or burned at the stake in front of witnesses and those who have suffered as a result of thier decades of evil and corruption. But in the situation I can't see a Paladin doing anything besides going medieval on thier asses! Unless his nerve is weak of course.