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

[Agback]

Upon receiving the message, the cardinal (a 9th-level cleric) at once replied with a sending that implored the player characters to keep both abbot and children at the abbey until the cardinal could arrive to deal with the problem.

Let's get something straight. Did he implore, or did he order?

The children proved to be much more difficult to entrap.

But you expected the PCs to continue with futile attempts to do so, rather than adapting to the developing situation.

The goal, after all, had been to keep them contained until the cardinal's arrival, not to slaughter them for their crimes.

But that goal was infeasible, and continuing to attempt it, at the risk of the little monsters escaping, was not so much Lawful Good as Pointless Stupid.

Because it was a sticky moral situation that had already degenerated into bickering, and because I was not absolutely convinced that I was right (it was more of a gut feeling...), I let it slide.

This turns out to have been a good call.

But I think that, of all the characters, the paladin should be the one who holds himself to a higher standard,

Indeed. But your paladin's player has a good case that he did perform at a higher standard. He judged Good and Evil on moral grounds rather than a sentimental judgment of superficial appearances, and he strove as best he could to effect the goal of his orders (that the little monsters be destroyed rather than allowed to escape) after the specifics had been rendered irrelevant by developments.

and who should enforce the will of the church (represented in this matter by the explicit orders from the cardinal to keep the children there until he arrived).

Earlier on the cardinal was imploring. Now it seems he gave the paladin explicit orders. Which was it?

In these things I feel the paladin failed, and I believe that I should have removed his holy powers, at least until he atoned.

According to the 'Paladin's Code' set out on p43 of the PHB, a paladin ought to lose his powers if:

1) he ceases to be Lawful Good;

2) he willingly commits an act of Evil;

3) fails to respect legitimate authority;

4) acts with dishonour (lies, cheats, uses poison etc.);

5) fails to help those who need help other than for Evil and Chaotic ends;

6) fails to punish those who harm or threaten innocents; or

7) knowingly associates with Evil characters.

Of course, you might have Rule Zeroed that, but you ought to have told the player if you did.

I don't think you can make a case that killing murderous cultists while they are in the act of escaping custody, and when it is extremely doubtful (and in fact untrue) that they can be restrained at all without killing them is Evil. Not by D&D standards. There is no question of his acting with dishonour or knowingly associating with Evil characters.

So: was the paladin's act Chaotic? Did it disrespect the authority of the cardinal, and was the cardinal's authority legitimate considering that the paladin is not a member of the clergy? Or given the fact taht the situation had developed to the point where the cardinal's instructions were not capable of execution, was this an authority "more honoured in the breach than the observance"?

On the other hand, would a futile attempt to arrest the mind-control monsters have run such a risk of letting them escape that it amounted to (1) failure to help the monsters' innocent potential victims, (2) failure to punish the monsters for harming their unwilling adoptive parents, and (3) disobedience of the cardinal's explicit instruction that they not be allowed to escape.

I think your paladin player can make an excellent case that killing the beasts ought not to lose him his status, whereas letting any of them escape alive if he could avoid it ought to.

So I think you were right not to penalise the paladin.

Regards,


Agback

 

[Agback]

this scenario puts me in mind of "Village of the Damned".

The movie Village of the Damned is an adaptation of the novel The Midwich Cuckoos, by "John Wyndham" (John Harris). The book is (as is often the case) superior to the film, and worth reading.

Regards,


Agback

 

[Tsyr]

A couple of points.

First, I think far from censuring him, as some people have been saying the church/cardinal should do, he should be commended. He had the forsight to see that there was no other choice (As witness what the Cardinal did).

Second, people have been suggesting that he should be censured by the church, but keep his powers.

That doesn't work in DnD.

The god in question is the arbiter of the posession of powers for the Paladin, not the church. If the church punishes him, but he keeps his powers, he can, quite rightly, say "But my God is on my side... You are wrong in this case". A paladin's god is his ultimate, final authority. It supercedes the church, the law of the land, and himself.

 

[Scarbonac]

The movie Village of the Damned is an adaptation of the novel The Midwich Cuckoos, by "John Wyndham" (John Harris). The book is (as is often the case) superior to the film, and worth reading.

Regards,


Agback

Actually, I'm about one-third through it -but- I also have in my sweaty hands a copy of Phillip Wylie's Gladiator, which I've been itching to read for a couple of decades.

Decisions, decisions...

 

[Carnifex]

Another good point has been brought up, which I missed originally - indeed, why is okay for the Cardinal to kill the 'children' but not for the paladin to do so? (And I believe both cardinal and paladin were justified in killing the hell-bound cultists). Considering it was the same course of action that the cardinal chose, the paladin should be commended for his actions in attempting to deal with the problem.

Furthermore, we're talking about the medieval church here, right?

The hell-children would have therefore been killed anyway.

 

[ForceUser]

Another good point has been brought up, which I missed originally - indeed, why is okay for the Cardinal to kill the 'children' but not for the paladin to do so? (And I believe both cardinal and paladin were justified in killing the hell-bound cultists). Considering it was the same course of action that the cardinal chose, the paladin should be commended for his actions in attempting to deal with the problem.

Furthermore, we're talking about the medieval church here, right?

The hell-children would have therefore been killed anyway.

At the time the cardinal rescued the party and put down the children, the decision had already been made not to penalize the paladin for his actions. And because I didn't want to linger on the argument, I just had done with it and moved on with the campaign. I didn't see a point to roleplaying the party's rescue, really, since nobody was happy they'd lost miserably (myself included). I have been known to misjudge the difficulty of an encounter, and when that happens I tend not to penalize the party because I put them into a no-win situation that I had unintentionally created. Furthermore, I gave them full XP for defeating the encounter even though they lost. In hindsight, of course, there are a few things I'd have done differently.

 

[Carnifex]

At the time the cardinal rescued the party and put down the children, the decision had already been made not to penalize the paladin for his actions. And because I didn't want to linger on the argument, I just had done with it and moved on with the campaign. I didn't see a point to roleplaying the party's rescue, really, since nobody was happy they'd lost miserably (myself included). I have been known to misjudge the difficulty of an encounter, and when that happens I tend not to penalize the party because I put them into a no-win situation that I had unintentionally created. Furthermore, I gave them full XP for defeating the encounter even though they lost. In hindsight, of course, there are a few things I'd have done differently.

This doesn't change the fact that if the version of your medieval church is anything like the real one was, genuine demon-worshipping cultist 'children' with mental powers should definitely be killed as soon as possible. The church ain't gonna tolerate their existence, and with good reason considering how dangerous they are.

 

[the_mighty_agrippa]

That's crap. Morality cannot wholly be DEFINED by the DM, especially when there is a substantial argument against his reasoning.

(A) The situation does seem a bit contrived against the paladin.
(B) There is no single template for a paladin's behaviour.

The DM set the tone for the campaign and pretty much defines what goes down. I'm siding with the DM because he wanted a moral quandry and got one, but I'm not chastising the Paladin; I'm upholding the DMs right to decide what is and what is not acceptable in his own game. Remember, this is a homebrew of sorts, with heavy Ravenloft influence. Dark powers could have dreamed up these kind of encounters just to corrupt the good.

Now, again, I don't think the Paladin's actions demand any sort of sanction other than a scolding from his superiors. There's lot more to being a Paladin than smiting and detecting evil - like redemption, mercy, etc. The fact that he hacked up some kid-like-things isn't so bad.

The player should have balked as soon as his virtue was in question. It's a game, so stop and ask the DM why the Paladin's actions are in question before you have down Kid #2.

 

[Tsyr]

The DM set the tone for the campaign and pretty much defines what goes down. I'm siding with the DM because he wanted a moral quandry and got one,

No, the DM wanted something to be a moral quandry that wasn't. It's not up to the DM to decide what is and isn't a moral quandry... That's up to the players experiencing the event. The DM can set something up that he himself would see as a moral quandry, but the players might not (and in this case didn't) see it that way. It's not the player's fault if they didn't angst over something they were supposed to.

The DM assumed that because these evil beings were child-shaped, that some how made for a moral quandry, when the paladin simply looked past the cute casing the evil was housed in.

Remember, this is a homebrew of sorts, with heavy Ravenloft influence. Dark powers could have dreamed up these kind of encounters just to corrupt the good.

Go not down that road if you want to keep players for the long term. If you start thinking of everything as "Could it be a test? Maybe I shouldn'd to that. It might all be a trick..." you won't have fun for too long. It gets old.

And the fact that the game is ravenlost esq is, IMO, all the more reason FOR the paladin to have done what he did... In ravenlost esq games more than another other type of game, you DON'T give evil the benefit of the doubt. That's suicidal.

Now, again, I don't think the Paladin's actions demand any sort of sanction other than a scolding from his superiors. There's lot more to being a Paladin than smiting and detecting evil - like redemption, mercy, etc.

Paladins have mercy when it is applicable, yes. That doesn't mean they don't get the right to defend themselves when attacked by evil. Nor does it mean they have to angst over every killing of evil, "Oh, could I have redeemed him?" and "Oh, should I have mercy on him?".

And hard as it may be to accept, there are times a paladin has to kill something. Darnit, I'm sorry to be the one to break the news. But it seems like anymore every time a paladin kills something we get a message board arguement over if he should have or not. The paladin is the martial arm of the church. They kill stuff. From a metagame perspective, that's the reason they get a high BAB, good weapon profs, etc. To kill stuff with. No, that doesn't mean they can go around hacking up every petty pickpocket. But when you are fighting for your life is not the time to stop and have an ethical debate with yourself -- it endangers you, your team mates, and (in the case of stopping an evil from fleeing) potentialy countless more people.

A cleric might have the luxury of sitting in the temple debating ethics. Paladins have the unhappy duty of having to actually DO stuff in the real world.

And in the end, the Church isn't the one to judge a Paladin, his God is. A church is made up of just a bunch of people. They can be wrong. They can be corrupt. They can just be mis-informed but with the best of intentions. If a Paladin's god sees fit to not chastise the paladin, the Church can punish him all they want.

Provided anything close to the norms are being used for the classes, there is one big difference between a paladin and a cleric: A cleric can choose to be what he is. Like it says in the PHB, "No one ever chooses to be a paladin. Becoming a paladin is answering a call, accepting one's desitny. No one, no matter how diligent, can become a paladin through practice. The nature is either within one or not, and it is not possible to to gain the paladin's nature by any act of will." A paladin by his very nature has to act instinctivly at times. And by his very nature, he is equiped to do so. A cleric can decide the right course of action. A paladin knows.

This doesn't mean paladins are immune to alignment shifts, or that everything they do is always right. They can screw up too. But just because a paladin's logic doesn't jive with yours doesn't mean he is wrong, either: to tie this in to the point, just because the rest of the players were trying to subdue the hell-children (And, from all reports, not doing a very bang-up job of it either, what with being dominated and having to be rescued and all), perhaps you need to consider that the paladin's first instinct - to kill them - was, just maybe, the correct one.

 

[Carnifex]

*snip lots of good stuff*

Wow. Excellent post. Not just because I do agree with what you're saying, but also just plain old very eloquent.