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

[AnthonyJ]

Ok, given the situation, there was 'clear and present danger'. I was under the vague impression there were only two targets

Under the circumstances, I might have retreated rather than fighting (or cast protection from evil, which blocks dominate person for its duration), but I really can't see any rational reason not to attempt to eliminate the threat.

 

[mroberon1972]

All, right!

After reading on this, I just could not keep my mouth shut. This one acually caused me to cringe.

First:
The morality of the character is not defined by the game master. It is defined by the character. Period. Why? Because the game master CANNOT know the mind of the player. That simple.
The only thing the game master can base his views on is ALIGNMENT. Alignment equals the ACTIONS taken by the character. Actions define alignment.

Let us look at alignment then:
Lawful: there are many ways to interpert this. What are his priorities? Here are some basic law groups: Personal ethics, church law, god's law (these CAN differ), local legal law, law of common sense (which is not the paladin's friend). The question is which law is most and least important to him.

Good: Wow, this is wide open. How about "Do least harm, and most help." Simple, yet satisfying...

Now combine the above good with the above law: You could easily come up with a paladin that refuses to risk evil, killer, cutist children from getting loose once he has them. He had no proof that the others could contain them. Heck he had no proof he could succeed in killing them... What he did is take the safest path for the most lives. Sorry, no real dice on alignment violation either.


So what we have here, is the game master saying that his GOD was not happy with what he did, period. No violation but ticking off the being that gave him his abilities.

God giveth, god taketh away.

As for you, gamemaster: I think you were just being nasty because the player was messing with your carfully wrought plot. Happens to us all, but watch yourself for it.

Why? Because the only alignment violation you MIGHT be able to pin on him is being neutral good in the moment.

You just showed the player that his god is fickle. His smite works on the little buggers, but he was not supposed to use it on THEM... What next? He can't heal someone because they MIGHT kill somebody later?

Be consistant. They can't know what you are thinking either.

Mr Oberon.
"Player of 8 paladins, GM of who knows..."

 

[FrankTrollman]

I never saw why this was a moral question, prickly or otherwise.

With the expanded information it's even less so. It sounds mostly like the DM involved simply is too squeamish to use children as monsters. If oyu can't handle the prospect of "cute" creatures getting hacked to bits - don't have encounters where the monsters are cute. Period.

You are the DM, you have final control over what the players will encounter - if the players fighting those monsters gives you nightmares you are doing things wrong.

The player did nothing wrong - you gave him a situation where the only logical action - the only right action was one which disturbed you. The player did nothing wrong, you screwed up.

-Frank

 

[Blaine]

Just to let everyone know, Character in question is 3rd Level. 2nd Level Paladin with Aasimar Template.

 

[johnloyzd]

I think a lot of it depends on the Deity the Paladin worships (he does worship one doesn't he?).

I also tend to be of that kind of D&D playing. The ultimate arbitor of the actions of a servent of a deity is: what does that deity represent? I don't like religious fanatics running around killing people (and that's a totally different discussion) and something like this could be an example. But that is my opinion.

If the deity represents humility and compasion, then the paladin is definately in the wrong. But if the paladin is more for confronting evil, then he is completely justified. I just hope this isn't typical behaviour for him.

On a different note, if this is handled skillfuly, this could be a great opertunity for some true role-palying!

 

[Carnifex]

For those saying the paladin should have subdued the children...

...what then?

They'll just keep on using mental powers even if rounded up again. They're a constant threat. And just because they're physically weak doesn't mean they should be spared. Goblins are physically weak, and they normally get the pointy end of a sword with no questions asked. What this really comes down to is people are thinking 'they're children, therefore killing them is a bad thing.' They're not children, and haven't been for a long time.

 

[Silverglass]

I have to side with the majority here.

The Cardinals instructions (even if they had been transmitted succinctly to the Paladin) were based on a certain situation, which had changed when the party returned to the monastery. As they did not return with the intention of killing the children the paladin is only guilty of interpreting a vaguely worded instruction in light of new circumstances, not of defying a lawful instruction (and it looks like the cardinal was not an actual superior of the paladin).

The children were willingly evil to the paladins best knowledge, not dupes or possesed. Also they showed no remorse for their actions which should be the trigger for showing mercy, in fact the children demonstrated their absolute lack of remorse by dominating the abbot and trying to dominate the paladin. He should not therefore be penalised for not showing mercy as it would not be warranted.

The children may have been weak physically (although the paladin did not seem to have such knowledge, only the player) but they were certainly very strong magically, having the ability to dominate an entire village. So as soon as they attacked him he was absolutely correct to strike to kill to defend himself, his comrades and the innocents around him.

You do seem hung up on the fact that they had an "innocent" physical form but mentally and spiritually they were definitely not "innocent".

I would say that given the information presented here the Paladin acted entirely within the code and in a Lawful Good manner. The simplest test of this would be to check whether you would consider this in a different light is they had been 2 dozen adult cultists/diabolists of an evil god granted the power to dominate innocents and then covered by an illusion of youth (which is effectively what they were).

 

[Scarbonac]

Gosh, late to the dance!

I'm with the Paladin 100%; the little bastards weren't children anymore -- if they ever were; this scenario puts me in mind of "Village of the Damned". It's an old B&W movie about a small army of weird blond & blue-eyed alien children born into a small English hamlet (re-made in the 90s);

Spoiler

the kids have psychic powers, which they use to dominate and kill anyone who crosses them. They get blown up by their "teacher" in order to save humanity.

Good Sir Blaine had little or no choice; subduing the little beasts wouldn't help much (and given the numbers, would be nigh-impossible); splatter the wee hell-fiends from here to the Wild Coast, that'd be my advice (it looks like the Cardinal would think it to be sound, since he exterminated the vile vermin himself).


So why isn't the Paladin being given a medal, a ticker-tape parade and a hot night with the fair maiden(s) of his choice?

 

[Agback]

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.

Aha! That rather undermines any claim on the GM's part that killing the little monsters was Evil. The Forces of Goodness and Light had in fact no other recourse. So why in fact is this action supposed to have threatened the paladin's code?

Regards,


Agback

 

[Oni]

Aha! That rather undermines any claim on the GM's part that killing the little monsters was Evil. The Forces of Goodness and Light had in fact no other recourse. So why in fact is this action supposed to have threatened the paladin's code?

This is a good question. Why is ok for the cardinal and not the paladin?