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

[Voadam]

4) If capturing and neutralizing the children was viable, destroying them was unwise; it's hard to question the dead.

Speak with the dead isn't that high a level spell. And they are working with a church who is sending out a higher up member. In D&D I'd rather question a corpse than a live evil prisoner who can dominate me.

 

[Westwind]

It sounds like there were two problems in the session:

1) Bad DM/player communication. Blame can probably be evenly assigned here. As a player I hate it when DMs tell me how to play my characters and as a DM I hate it when players totally ignore me.

2) Bringing current, real-world ethics and ideas into the game, mostly on the part of the Barbarian and Wizard players. This draws upon some of the earlier comments in this thread. If this game is generally based on the cosmology of Medieval society, then the very idea of childhood changes significantly. The social historian Phillipe Arrease said, "The invention of childhood is something that each society does for itself." The key word there is invention. People in early modern Europe didn't have the same idea of childhood we do, it's actually a fairly new thing (c. 17th century). The "innocent child" that we think of today is a Victorian notion, some go so far as to credit the idea to Dickens. Adolescence is even newer--for most of history, people in that age category were treated as smaller adults.

Now, it's fair to say I bring more history into my campaigns than most, so most of this might be moot. But, given the framework of the campaign, I think the Paladin's player was within his rights. They were no longer children (even if people think of them as such). The number of axes (pl. of axis, not some dwarven thing) Medieval-era people used to construct their world were fewer than we do today. Good/Evil really came down to God/Satan, which actually fits better in a DnD game it seems.

 

[Carnifex]

Speak with the dead isn't that high a level spell. And they are working with a church who is sending out a higher up member. In D&D I'd rather question a corpse than a live evil prisoner who can dominate me.

Not to mention that they don't need to question them. The cultists had nothing the Church needed to know, they were plain evil and highly dangerous.

 

[takyris]

One potential defense of the DM here: A lot of people are saying "You shouldn't make the paladin's behavior bad, because by historical 14th-cetury church rules, he'd have been fine." Okay, it's great that we've got so many history students here, but honestly, is historical accuracy in your realm of beholders and otyughs the highest priority? I know it isn't for me.

Maybe I'm just incredibly lazy for telling my players, "Okay, tech-wise, you know where the world is at. Morality-wise, just go ahead and play it like the present day, except that killing people who attack you is usually considered okay. Women aren't going to be stoned as adulteresses if they have sex outside the boundaries of marriage. Nobles are respected like powerful businessmen -- they do not have the immediate power of life and death, unless they are law enforcement for the area. So unless I stop the game to tell you that a certain weird custom is normal in the world, just play it, moralitywise, the way you want to play it."

I still disagree with the DM's ruling, as I previously stated, and am glad that the paladin will not suffer any long-term repercussions as a result of a moral quandry that turned out to be far less quandrous for the paladin than for the DM. But unless this game was specifically intended to be a historically accurate portrayal of Middle Ages ethics, let's not spend too much time dwelling on realism.

 

[Elf Witch]

It sounds like there were two problems in the session:

1) Bad DM/player communication. Blame can probably be evenly assigned here. As a player I hate it when DMs tell me how to play my characters and as a DM I hate it when players totally ignore me.

2) Bringing current, real-world ethics and ideas into the game, mostly on the part of the Barbarian and Wizard players. This draws upon some of the earlier comments in this thread. If this game is generally based on the cosmology of Medieval society, then the very idea of childhood changes significantly. The social historian Phillipe Arrease said, "The invention of childhood is something that each society does for itself." The key word there is invention. People in early modern Europe didn't have the same idea of childhood we do, it's actually a fairly new thing (c. 17th century). The "innocent child" that we think of today is a Victorian notion, some go so far as to credit the idea to Dickens. Adolescence is even newer--for most of history, people in that age category were treated as smaller adults.

Now, it's fair to say I bring more history into my campaigns than most, so most of this might be moot. But, given the framework of the campaign, I think the Paladin's player was within his rights. They were no longer children (even if people think of them as such). The number of axes (pl. of axis, not some dwarven thing) Medieval-era people used to construct their world were fewer than we do today. Good/Evil really came down to God/Satan, which actually fits better in a DnD game it seems.

I know that a lot of people want to play with a more medieval moral feel to the game. I don't I think it gets old after X amount a time. Why does every fantasy have to be set with that mind set. They don't unless you are playing a setting set in 10 century England you can pretty much do what you want with ethics and morals in your game.

If you are going to play this way then you also need to start changing the attitude that men have towards females there would be very few fighters , no clerics and most would be home taking care of the home and trying not to die while churning out another baby that may or may not live mostlikely not live.

Also most people are going to bring in real world ethics because this is the time we were raised in and these are the ethics we know.

For me I want to play in a fantasy setting not a real life historical setting.

 

[the Jester]

While I can definitely see both sides, I'm with the paladin on this one. It sounds like he was in a position where the only way he could've avoided taking the 'morality hit' was to be defeated- which, of course, also results in the cultists going free.

 

[Rackhir]

With regards to "offering mercy" to those "children" and trying to capture them, I would not say that it has anything to do with a paladin's code. That's 4 color superhero's code of honor/morality and more like Superman's at that. Supes can afford to show mercy after all since he's practically unstoppable and nearly indestructable. A 2nd lvl paladin does not fit that category.

 

[Carnifex]

Okay then, forget for a minute any mention of it being the 14th C Church and any desire for historical accuracy.

The paladin is still justified because he was being assailed by demonic beings using mental powers on himself and his companions, and furthermore just because they looklike children, it seemed the party had gathered enough info to know that they were not children in anything except for appearance.

I still say, kill 'em.

And whatever era the Church may be in- the fiends *still* don't have anything that the cchurch needs to know. There's no reason notto kill them.

 

[AnthonyJ]

Hm..speak with dead is resisted, but not necessarily terribly well.

The only information the children might have, that's of interest to the church, is 'who/what was the source of the evil'; you sort of want to go smite that too.

 

[Tzarevitch]

With regards to "offering mercy" to those "children" and trying to capture them, I would not say that it has anything to do with a paladin's code. That's 4 color superhero's code of honor/morality and more like Superman's at that. Supes can afford to show mercy after all since he's practically unstoppable and nearly indestructable. A 2nd lvl paladin does not fit that category.

Whether or not you can "afford" to show mercy is irrelevant. If the paladin's moral code or hisw deity's code calls for mercy that is what he must do or suffer the consequences. That is one of the downsides of being a paladin. (Great power on one hand, great responsibility on the other.)

That being said, I must revise my original post. From the original description I thought there was about 5 children. Over 20 of them is another matter completely. At that point there are too many to safely take on. Personally I would have backed off and tried to come up with a better plan to trap them, contain them or split them into smaller and more managable groups. Against enemies that are that weak it really isn't much more difficult to strike to subdue. My paladin would not have killed them without specific instructions to do so, but the cardinal's instructions were less than clear on what he really wanted done. The cardinal also wasn't on the scene to properly evaluate the situation.

Honestly, I still think that what the paladin did wasn't strictly necessary by any means, but I now agree that it was understandable under the situation.

Tzarevitch