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

[takyris]

I think that as the DM, you were right to give a warning and then go with your feeling -- but most people here are telling you (and I agree) that your feeling, in this case, was, if not wrong, at least unpopular.

There's a ruling in the Star Wars game about whether or not people take Dark Side points or whatever. It basically boils down to:

0) Was it wrong?
1) Was it intentional?
2) Was it deliberate?

It doesn't matter if the character was wrong, if he THOUGHT he was doing the right thing. And even if the character realized that this was the wrong way to do things, if he was reacting to the stress of the situation, he's not doing deliberate and calculated evil.

So, was it wrong? You the DM seem to think so, while most of us disagree with you -- if you gave them the power and attitude of demons, it doesn't matter if they look like little kids.

Was it intentional? Yes, probably, although a case could be made that the paladin believed things through logical deduction that later turned out to be wrong -- ie, "These aren't real children." If the paladin thought that they were demons, then even if they WERE little children, he's not evil for killing them. Just tragically mistaken.

Was it deliberate or calculated? We saw the barbarian choose to do subdual damage, but we don't have a running monlogue of the paladin's mindset. He could be thinking, "The barbarian wants to subdue 'em... but NAW, I'm gonna just cleave 'em!" Or he could be thinking, "The barbarian doesn't realize the danger! He doesn't know that they can dominate us! If I warn him, I'll only become more of a target. I have to finish them quickly!" We don't know.

In the absence of proof of deliberation and intention and the murkiness of your absolute system, I'd give pally the benefit of the doubt.

 

[frankthedm]

To the DM: You were in your rights to make the moral decisions for your game. If you decide such an act cost a paladin his paladinhood so be it.

To ForceUser: I think you are letting your real world perceptions taint your game. The 'children' are a threat to the world. To Have them taken into custody gravely risks the lives of innocent people. It was likely the barbarian's player bringing his own modern child coddling weakness that gave him reason to try and subdue the little monsters.

 

[Olive]

Given the clear orders he was given, he's definitely not being lawful enough. I'd have the church punish him, but not strip him of his powers. I think that striking down cultists who have murdered their parents is an ok thing to do personally, regardless of cuteness.

 

[zyzzyr]

I think there's really two different issues here.

1) Did the paladin break his moral code?

2) Is the paladin the merciful type?

There are all kinds of paladins - ferocious ones (fighting on a warfront against orcs, e.g.), merciful ones (helping out peasants), and so on. Paladins can be lazy, ignorant, friendly, brooding, merciless, generous, and so on. Paladins do not need to be perfect. Paladins do not all need to be the same.

A1) The paladin didn't break his moral code. Maybe he did not perfectly interpret the abbot's orders, but that's not a break of the code. Maybe a warning from the church.

A2) The paladin is *clearly* not merciful. No attempt to knock the kids out, then perhaps have them turn away? He's obviously much more powerful than them, and he could have taken them prisoner. Instead, he mows them down one by one.

The truth is, that's fine. BUT (and this is a big but) he has just defined his character. The player has just defined that paladin as one who will not take prisoners unless there are major doubts as to guilt. He walks a fine line between paladinhood and tyranny, but that's ok. Gods sometimes need paladins like that. (As an aside, I would expect that this kind of fervour would spill out into other aspects of his character - he's also quite belligerent when someone disagrees with him, he believes his god is by far the best god, and so on).

So the question is really that of character consistency. He hasn't done anything super-evil, but he HAS laid down a very definite path for his character to walk.

The most important point here is that paladins are different, and he's basically told you what he wants his paladin to be like.

(What are his god's tenets? Destroy evil wherever it is found? Convert all you meet to good?)

 

[Elf Witch]

The code says that the Paladin should punish those who threaten and harm innocents. That the Paladin did.

The code says nothing of showing mercy, BTW. And it couldn't have been done easily. Mental control powers are very difficult notice and they can be used very discreetly. Subduing the child-demons would just ask for trouble, at least when they wake up (which takes some minutes, wasn't it?). So, letting the children live, he would've easily failed to obey the high-level cleric too, since the kids could've escaped.

I still think that punishing evildoers is more important than strictly following the church chain of command. Thus the Paladin did the right thing.

In any case his actions weren't a gross violation of the code, and thus he shouldn't lose his powers.

Whenever we get into this discussions about paladins the argument about showing mercy versus smiting evil always comes up. Yes it says in the PHB that a paladin should punish evil doers but it does not say how he should punish them. Killing is just one way of punishing.

Now in this situation I think the paladin made a few mistakes. One was not trying to follow what the cardinal asked of him and second being more blood thirsty than the barbarian.

But these so called children were not innocents and they were dangerous so I think that the paladin should not be punished for what he did.

Though I think players who bring a game to a screeching halt should be punished.

 

[Jakathi]

Evil oft-times takes the appearence of the harmless and beautiful.
The cuter one is, the more i'd suspect them, just on paranoid grounds.

I'd say, it's up to you. The DM has final say. But if you stripped him of his paladin hood status, in the next game, i'd give him a chance to atone for his actions.

say something along the lines that his deity has reviewed the case and decided to grant him a boone. So go do this and this or get this and this and you're on probation bucky. Next time, listen to your DM.
Or make it a vision etc.

 

[Agback]

G'day

Well, others have pointed out that the fact that these monsters had the bodies of children is neither here nor there. They were diabolists and murderers, not innocents, and the paladin deserves kudos for basing his judgements on realities rather than appearances, while the barbarian is a rank sentimentalist.

Here are what seem to me to be the crucial questions:

1) Was there any clear indication that the children could be saved? Christian (and Buddhist) ideas of goodness are based on the proposition that everyone, no matter how evil, can be redeemed, and therefore mercy is the essence of goodness. The same is not true in D&D. In the milieu in which the paladin has grown up, many evil things just have to be killed, and mercy is an unwarranted risk.

2) Was it clear that the monsters could be contained once they knew that their cover was blown? The paladin had resisted one domination attempt, but there might be others, and he had to sleep sometime. Would it have been better for him to wait until the monsters dominated a few burly monks and forced him to fight innocents? Was there even a hint that there was any way to suppress their power over weak minds?

If the answers are 'no', I don't think you can ping the paladin for being evil: he's just clear-sighted, strong-minded, and practical. His duty was to protect innocent lives, eg. the monks and others whom the monsters potentially threatened. Within the terms of D&D alignment killing non-innocent monsters is not evil, it is just an ethically neutral means to an end. (I think this makes D&D 'Good' hateful, but that's just me.)

As for lawfulness, I don't see that it requires the paladin to blindly follow directions when circumstances have changed and the orders no longer relate to the real situation. Unless there was clearly some dependable means to keep the monsters in the abbey, the cardinal's instructions were simply out of date, and there was no disrespect to his authority in not wasting opportunities and effort striving to achieve the impossible.

If the Emperor tells you to advance to the east, engage the Prussians, and drive them back over the Rhine, but if the Prussians have moved since he had intelligence, and are now to the north, and moving west to effect a junction with the British, what is an honourable, trustworthy, reliable, respectful officer to do? Go east, and fail to engage? Go north-east, and drive the Prussians west instead of east? Go north-west? Waste eleven hours sending for fresh orders?

Anyway, it sounds to me as though you are expecting a different sort of Good from what is defined in the PHB. If Good is heroically merciful, if Good is sentimental about things that look like children, if Good always gives Peace at least one chance--then your players deserve to be told this before they commit to playing a paladin or cleric. And you have to make sure that this sort of Good does not turn out in your campaign to be Stupid.

Regards,


Agback

 

[Oni]

Good does not equal stupid or foolish. Frankly given their ability to mentally dominate subduing them would be just that. Look ma, no hands.

These "children" were evil, and not stealing lunch money evil either. We're talking evil with a capital E here. I would say not only was the paladin in the right, but duty bound to follow the course of action that he did. If he choose not to do his utmost to contain their evil and one innocent died it would be on him for not following the best course of action.

 

[AnthonyJ]

G'day

Here are what seem to me to be the crucial questions:

1) Was there any clear indication that the children could be saved?

2) Was it clear that the monsters could be contained once they knew that their cover was blown?

There's another couple of issues:
3) How certain was the paladin of the correctness of his judgement? There are a number of ways in which deception is possible; tricking good people into doing evil is a standard demonic tactic, and further time might have allowed a deception, if present, to be uncovered.
4) Would some good end have been served by keeping the children alive? Perhaps by talking to them, the source of the evil that corrupted them could be found?
5) What are the consequences for the viewers? Whether or not the paladin was bothered by killing people who looked like children, the local villagers might be disturbed to see their execution. It's desireable to be able to convince onlookers of their guilt before carrying out an execution.

That said, #2 is by far the most important issue.

 

[takyris]

Well, if the children had been tricked, charmed, or dominated, they wouldn't radiate the evil that I assume our paladinic one detected, would they? (Not being argumentative -- didn't see clear indication that they radiated that.)

If they are worshippers with divine abilities, that means that they radiate Nasty Level Evil, right? About on the level of a minor fiend of some sort? Unless the DM has a) Nerfed Detect Evil, b) Limited it by having the Ambient amount of Evil mess it up, or c) Ruled that people affected by evil magic radiate evil, the paladin could as a free action go, "Hey, are they evil? They are? REALLY evil? Okay, a-smiting we will go!"