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

[Tsyr]

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.

Restating:

The paladin is by default not a pacafist. The paladin is a holy warrior. Not a holy peacemaker that is inexplicably skilled at martial combat. A paladin is not under any vow of pacafism or peace. They are not obligated to at all times find the "warm fuzzy cuddely feel good" solution to a problem. Clerics have the luxury of sitting back and thinking about the absolute best way to handle all things. A paladin does not always have that luxury. A paladin is putting his life on the line to protect people from evil, and to combat evil. He is the first and last line of defense. He cannot sacrifice his life needlessly; if he dies, he cannot assume anyone else will pick up where he left off. If a paladin can, reasonably, persue a pacafistic, non violent solution, so much the better, but he is not obligated to do so. And if his attempt to do so needlessly endangers people (As attempting to subdue the demon-children would have, both the party and innocent people elsewhere when the party failed, or by delaying and attempting another solution when there may not have been time), he has commited a far worse, far more gross violation of his duty than if he killed them.

Granted, this all goes out the window if you're a Paladin of Fuzzyiya The Pacafist God, or something, but...

 

[Agback]

I'm siding with the DM because he wanted a moral quandry and got one,

I don't agree that there was any moral question involved (by D&D standards). The only quandary was a tactical one: "What is the most practical way to abate the threat of these insidious monsters?" I think on reflection that the best thing to do would have been to let them leave with the abbot (hoping that they would not split up and spread out so long as they thought their cover was intact), but keep in surreptitious contact so that you can call in Cardinal Airstrike. But the paladin was duty bound to try to keep them in the abbey, and besides, this option was long gone by the time the poo got into the punkah. Once the monsters know that their cover is blown there is a terrible risk that they will split up, spread out, and never get caught.

Remember that this encounter TPKed the party taking less than 25% losses. The paladin and his buddies had practically no chance of subduing all 24 of them, and once the party went down the subdued ones were as right as rain. So by the time the breakout occurred, the paladin's only Good choices were: (1) to try to take out as many as he could before he succumbed, and (2) to let them get away, hope that they were so stupid that they remained in a tight bunch, and to try to guide in his Cardinalosity. The second choice is not clearly better, and it is even further from what the cardinal implored the characters to do than what the paladin tried.

In fact, this was a no-win situation. The GM suckered the PCs into a certain defeat and then saved their characters by a humiliating rescue. In my experience that is a sure way to get players to leave your campaign. For instance, it got all the players to leave the first campaign I GMed.

There's lot more to being a Paladin than smiting and detecting evil - like redemption, mercy, etc.

I agree that there ought to be. But in D&D there isn't any mention of mercy or redemption in either the definition of Good nor in the Paladin's Code. If they are required in this campaign it is a Rule Zero, and ought to have been promulgated to the players in spoken or written words before they chose their characters: not by mental telepathy during a crisis and after the players were committed to their characters.

Regards,


Agback

 

[ForceUser]

In fact, this was a no-win situation. The GM suckered the PCs into a certain defeat and then saved their characters by a humiliating rescue. In my experience that is a sure way to get players to leave your campaign. For instance, it got all the players to leave the first campaign I GMed.

I didn't sucker anyone into anything. It was a poorly designed encounter on my part, nothing more. When the party confronts my BBEGs, I try to go for those epic, memorable fights. Occasionally I overdo it. I conceded I might have made an error, I fast-forwarded through the rescue, and I awarded everyone full XP for the encounter. What else am I supposed to do?

Oh, right. Not make mistakes. Sorry, I'm only human.

 

[Voadam]

I didn't sucker anyone into anything. It was a poorly designed encounter on my part, nothing more. When the party confronts my BBEGs, I try to go for those epic, memorable fights. Occasionally I overdo it. I conceded I might have made an error, I fast-forwarded through the rescue, and I awarded everyone full XP for the encounter. What else am I supposed to do?

Oh, right. Not make mistakes. Sorry, I'm only human.

With a paladin PC my advice would be to tell him explicitly what will cause him to lose his paladin status so there are no surprises on that front. Let him know if you require him to be merciful, follow church orders always, never act dishonorably as opposed to the written only loss for evil acts or GROSS violations of the code.

 

[Mean DM]

For me the question comes down to the fact of whether the children should be considered irrevocably evil. If so, then the Paladin was justified. But I am not sure if this was the case. The specifics of the pact were not fully known to the PCs IIRC. Could it be revoked? Could the "possession" be removed? I do not subscribe to the notion that all *evil* creatures necessarily stay *evil*. They choose to make the pact, but could they not then choose to change? The good to evil road is not a one-way street in my campaign. Once evil does not equal always evil. But then again, my game world appears to be very different than everyone else’s.

Cheers,

Mark

 

[Carnifex]

For me the question comes down to the fact of whether the children should be considered irrevocably evil. If so, then the Paladin was justified. But I am not sure if this was the case. The specifics of the pact were not fully known to the PCs IIRC. Could it be revoked? Could the "possession" be removed? I do not subscribe to the notion that all *evil* creatures necessarily stay *evil*. They choose to make the pact, but could they not then choose to change? The good to evil road is not a one-way street in my campaign. Once evil does not equal always evil. But then again, my game world appears to be very different than everyone else’s.

Cheers,

Mark

This is all very well, but when a pack of immortal devil-children is attempting to possess your party and most likely kill you in some satanic rite, it's not high on your agenda to try and take the near-suicidal course of attempting to redeem them. The party just wasn't powerful enough to deal with them like that.

 

[Tsyr]

For me the question comes down to the fact of whether the children should be considered irrevocably evil.

So it's better to risk the lives of your party and untold innocents elsewhere on the chance it might be possible to redeem them?

As I said before, such a risk is a worse violation of the paladins oath than attacking.

Furthermore, they made their choice, they have to live with it. Sometimes the result of making the choice of evil is your life. That's the way the cookie crumbles. No one ever said selling your soul was all sunshine and lolipops.

 

[Mean DM]

This is all very well, but when a pack of immortal devil-children is attempting to possess your party and most likely kill you in some satanic rite, it's not high on your agenda to try and take the near-suicidal course of attempting to redeem them. The party just wasn't powerful enough to deal with them like that.

Well, they weren't that immortal. They were all slain. This party was never actually threatened other than the mental domination (not a small thing I concede). But they could have just as easily subdued them. I vote for this as being the best option (if it were my campaign). I realize that I am a minority here. I just want to be a voice from the other side .

Cheers,

Mark

 

[Carnifex]

Well, they weren't that immortal. They were all slain. This party was never actually threatened other than the mental domination (not a small thing I concede). But they could have just as easily subdued them. I vote for this as being the best option (if it were my campaign). I realize that I am a minority here. I just want to be a voice from the other side .

Cheers,

Mark

The children were all slain by the 9th level Cardinal, not by the party (or at least, it is only because of the cardinal that the fiends were killed).

And subduing them *wasn't* as easy. First off, you take negative modifiers to hit when trying to subdue, so it'd have taken longer to take 'em all down, meaning even more mental assaults. Then even when you've got them all unconcious, if you manage to get that far, then there's nothing to stop 'em just waiting up and... mentally attacking you again!

Point is, they're not children anyway. And they can't be redeemed - they're screwed, they've entered a demonic pact. Their souls are heading for hell, and they're corrupted beyond redemption. Or at least, this'll be the official Church line on them, and this is supposed to be what the paladin should be following, isn't it?

 

[nimisgod]

The compassion to pursue good, the will to uphold law and the power to defeat evil- these are the three weapons of the paladin. Few have the purity and devotion that it takes to walk the paladin's parth, but those few are rewarded with the power to protect, to heal and to smite.
-PHB p41

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make sacrifices to help others.
-PHB p.88

It's not easy to play a paladin. All too often, the paladin is mistaken for a Holy Warrior and just that.

No. The Paladin is a Paragon of Good and Righteousness. He should be held to those standards regardless of the situation.

This means that by default, he is Warrior, Protector, Healer and Redeemer (unless his faith focuses on one more than the other).

If you want the archetype of the Paladin (though with Christian bias) think of Sir Galahad the Pure.

Good isn't stupid. But it doesn't take the easy way out either.