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

[Believer]

It all depends on your view of a paladin. If you see him as a 'smiter of evil' then he did as he should of. He found a nest of evil and he destroyed it.

...

If you see him as a 'Defender of the Faith' then you can question his actions. You have already stated that he does not 'belong' to the Church, but does the Church follow certain 'divine laws'? Such as a 'Ten Commandments' bit? Is forgiveness one of those? What about 'help someone repent' type thing? If the answer is no... or the 'paladin' just didn't care since he doesn't follow the church (which is kind of hard... because in medieval society the Church WAS law... aka only thing holding together feudal nations was a common religion and such and a paladin is lawful good)

...

Does the God he worships stress forgiveness? Or is it kill evil wherever it may be and in whatever form it may be in (leads to fanaticism and corruption usually)?

...

They sent for the Cardinal for aid because they were lost, however they were under no obligation to follow his instructions (except for respect since he WAS comning a long way on a request from them), did the Paladin have some sort of Divine insight that told him to smite the little buggers?

...

As has been said before, you do seem to get hung up on the fact that they were 'children'. Evil things come in many different packages... children, succubi, devils, whatever.

...

All in all, it is your ruling, you are the DM. You essentially ARE the Paladin's god. Do as you wish, though if you are going to penalize the Paladin... be ready to deal with the fact that he will want his powers back (...a quest of repetence from the Cardinal would probably do nicely, just make sure it's a quest that doesn't stress combat, rather it stresses mercy or he has learned nothing...).
It is all up to you, I'm playing a paladin right now in a campaign... and we were attacked by two hobgoblins (we are apprentice level... so effectivly we are level .5). We managed to kill one and the other one ran off... one of the party members ran after him (I had been telling everyone to run for the past round, and the hobgoblin that ran was currently fighting me)... and he ended up stabbing him in the back. Later when I asked the DM how he thought everything went (and how we could play better, I'm relativly new to the whole tabletop RPG thing) he told me I probably should have been telling my friends to let the hobgoblin go...though it wasn't a big deal. In his campaign, mercy is just as big/bigger part of playing a paladin than smiting is... and trust me, no one is more sad about that then I....

Good luck, and remember... this is a FUN game!

 

[Blaine]

some words from the player in question

Being the player in question, I am thankful for all the support on this matter. For those of you in doubt of my actions, here are some important details that were left out of the original post by ForceUser and some of my own commentary.

1. The character in question was comatose when the sending was received by party from the Cardinal. The details of the sending were vaguely relayed to the Paladin upon his return to consciousness. At no time was he told that they were to keep the children and Abbot alive, only that we were to "not allow them to leave the abbey". To me, this sounds like a "Dead or Alive" kind of order.

2. When first meeting the children, the Paladin detected evil, and the children had a trace of it about them. Then we found out what had happened in the village they were found in. Then we found the Abbot under their "Domination". Doesn't sound like nice, little, misguided "children" to me...

3. The Paladin was the first to confront the "children" when they were beginning their escape. The Barbarian and Wizard arrived after the "children" had already tried to dominate the Paladin. They therefore didn't have the knowledge He had, and should have followed his lead in killing them. If the roles were reversed, he would have done the same.

4. Had they not tried to Dominate him, they would have been asked to return to the room they had been staying in, not hacked in two.

5. Me, as the player, knew they only had childlike physical stats because the DM said so. My character would not know this, and having killed many an enemy in one blow, whether mighty or weak, "evil IS evil" no matter what the form. So them dying with one blow isn't relevant. Their level of threat was.

6. Big note...there were 24 of them, and killing one, or some of them, didn't diminish their ability to Dominate. Only a complete wipe out of the entire group of them would stop them. If you subdue them, they would only wake up again eventually and try and Dominate again.

7. The party did end up completely under their control, and were only saved by the arrival of the Cardinal, who had to slay the children himself...Sounds to me like the Paladin had his wits about him, trying to kill them when he did.

That all said, the Paladin did feel remorse in having to slay the beings, as he does anytime he kills. Were he put in the same situation again, he would probably respond in the same manner, every time. If he felt there was another option, he would surely have taken it, but, as we have learned many times, especially in D&D, killing is sometimes the ONLY option afforded us.

Skie
Paladin of the White Lady

 

[ciaran00]

I'm going to side with the DM, but only for the following reasons...


He defines morality in his game. It's his game.

The Paladin was warned once and did it a 2nd time.

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.

A "convert or die" action could be considered evil, but IMHO from certain Paladins' standpoints it's not. Other paladins could arguably abhor such an action. However, the paladin is doing what he knows is right... preventing HIMSELF from being dominated and forced to do heinous acts. He will (and should) run through any possibility of that; the cost it too great.

The DM's warning is only valid if the player has no argument in his defense whatsoever. Trust me, this is not a Rule 0 issue. I would be the first DM to point at Rule 0, but morality cannot and should not be totally dictated by one DM. It is frustrating for any player who diverges even slightly from this template.

ciaran

 

[ThoughtBubble]

Uh. Wow.
Nice post Blane.

Anyway, I'm curious about the circumstances leading up to the arguement. From the description, it seemed like:

*hack*
DM: "That's a questionable act for you."
*hack*
DM: "That's against your code, you heard me right?"
PC: "It's not against my code."
Insert arguement.


And I'm sure that's not how it happened.

Unless it's detrimental to the game at hand, I usually let my players pick what they want to do. If it happens to be evil enough to warrent an ability change, well, that's what the warnings are for.

 

[Blaine]

Confrontation went like this.

1> Paladin arrived on scene of door blasted outward, companion laying unconcious in front of it, and "children pouring out of the room.

2> Paladin tells them to stop.

3> "Children" attempt to Dominate Paladin.

4> Paladin *hacks* first child in half.

5> DM warns Paladin that his actions are threatening his Paladinhood, without explaination

6> "Children" as one cry out in pain, and attempt to Dominate Paladin again.

7> Barbarian and Wizard arrive on scene, Barbarian subdues children at other end of hall, Wizard yells to subdue them from behind.

8> Paladin *hacks* second child...22 to go...

9> "Children" Dominate Paladin, then go on to Dominate the rest of the group.

 

[ForceUser]

I have no problem admitting it when I err. I'm more concerned that things are resolved fairly based on the situation. One reason I enjoy posting problems to this board is all the feedback; I can handle the criticism, and it gives me perspective I might not otherwise have when at the table. As a DM, all I want to do is run a good game with a good story.

 

[Tallok]

Confrontation went like this.

1> Paladin arrived on scene of door blasted outward, companion laying unconcious in front of it, and "children pouring out of the room.

2> Paladin tells them to stop.

3> "Children" attempt to Dominate Paladin.

4> Paladin *hacks* first child in half.

5> DM warns Paladin that his actions are threatening his Paladinhood, without explaination

6> "Children" as one cry out in pain, and attempt to Dominate Paladin again.

7> Barbarian and Wizard arrive on scene, Barbarian subdues children at other end of hall, Wizard yells to subdue them from behind.

8> Paladin *hacks* second child...22 to go...

9> "Children" Dominate Paladin, then go on to Dominate the rest of the group.

This looks like they were a very real threat to the paladin, and they succeeded in dominating the whole party. If, as you said, you didn't know that they were necessarily children (and one could make the argument that they weren't exactly), and they tried to dominate you multiple times, I think that this was perfectly justified.

 

[Femerus the Gnecro]

I'm with the paladin on this one.

I think it's important to take the 'children' in context of their powers and, more importantly, their age.

Sure... once they were children, and then they were corrupted. However, I think it's clear that they have remained corrupted for many, many years. Hell, they could even be older than the adults they're dominating. This means that they no longer have a child-like mental state, and thus are no longer 'children' in the appropriate sense of the word.

To my mind, their minds aged normally, while only their physical forms stayed child-like. It doesn't matter if evil takes the form of a fluffy bunny... if it does what these children have done, it deserves a sword to the head.

Now to address the argument about their 'helplessness.' Sure, these vile little things have the bodies of children. That doesn't make them much more vulnerable than, say, an Orc to a 20th lvl paladin. However, I doubt that many people would have a paladin spare the orc simply because he greatly outclasses it in combat. If the children had surrendered, sure... he would be pushing the boundaries of his moral code. But, they attacked first. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't make any difference whether they were evil preternaturally young demon worshippers or extremely short Illithids... they get put to the sword.

-Femerus

 

[Oni]

Well if I hadn't sided with the paladin before, I'd certainly do so now.

Personally I'm of the opinion that players should be given a certain degree of latitude, because when they tell you what they're doing at the table, they are the only ones that really understand their motivations at that point. It's after the fact that the DM should perhaps question the player more in depth as to their actions and their motivations. And morality and consequences can be argued at a more leasurely pace that won't disrupt the actual gaming session. Alignment is one of those slow overarching things that generally don't need snap decisions.

I think in this particular situation the idea thing would have been simply for the DM to mention that there might be potential reprecussions for the actions taken and then let the player proceed as they see fit. Then when all is said and done discuss it later without disrupting the game. Conclusion of said discussion would provide precedent for later similar situations. When a character is playing a class like a paladin, they should definately be given the opportunity to defend their actions, as you the DM certainly to not have the benefit of seeing things from their point of view from the get go.

 

[Chasmodai]

I think a lot of it depends on the Deity the Paladin worships (he does worship one doesn't he?). If, for instance, the deity was someone like Rao, Heironeous or Pelor, then the Paladins actions were definitely out of line. These gods promote mercy over all else, as well as protection and good. Heironeous also says kick butt when you need to, but only as a 'last resort' sort of thing. These are 'talk first, fight later' (in Heironeous' case, 'look pretty, die later') Gods.

If, however, the deity is one like St. Cuthbert, Joramy, or Pholtus, then the Paladin was completely justified (Destruction domain, anyone?). These are the deities that enforce 'might is right', 'peace through superior firepower' and 'shut up before i make you'. These are 'smite first, Speak With Dead later' gods.

Each God has a moral guideline they pass on to their chosen servants (Paladins, Clerics, whoever), and they pretty much expect them to follow those guidelines. If I were the DM and I felt that the paladin had done something wrong (though it wasn't drastically wrong, just something morally dubious), I wouldn't go so far as to strip his powers. Perhaps no spells until some form of atonement is sought?

And about the barbarian thing; just because he's a barbarian doesn't mean they have to be stone cold killers. Barbarians are nothing but big teddy bears sometimes, who get angry when people make fun of their size. What i'm trying to say is, what's the barbarian's alignment?


-Chasmodai, barbarian lover, heironeous hater.