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

[Tsyr]

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

And all too often, people forget he is a holy warrior at all.

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

Quite the opposite. The paladin doesn't take the easy way out, ever. But the paladin has to make the hardest choice of all sometimes: To know that his solution may not be the ideal one in theory, but it's the only one that he can make.

This is such a case.

Yes, maybe you could redeem the children. The paladin probably knows this.

It also doesn't matter. It's not a viable option, and the paladin cannot risk attempting it.

The paladin's form of mercy is as much battlefield mercy or final mercy as mercy in the traditional sense... Making the hard choices because, in the long run, they are the real mercy.

 

[takyris]

I agree that you have the right to an opinion. I happen to disagree with it, but it's good for both the player and the DM to hear all sides.

For my part, I think that the flavor is getting in the way here. If it had been 24 knife-wielding cultists in red robes who held aloft bloody severed heads before dominating people, nobody would be saying "Hey, man, he might have been led into that cult by peer pressure or false pretenses, and even though he detects as evil and sacrificed an entire town to some dark force of fiendish origin, I still think we ought to try to redeem him."

From a real-world perspective, I would classify this as being shot at by an eleven-year-old with a handgun. Do I want to kill an eleven-year-old? No. Is it going to give me a vicious thrill? No. Am I happy about the state of the world that results in me getting shot at by an eleven-year-old? No. Do I nevertheless defend myself, even if it means that I have to kill the eleven-year-old? Most definitely. It's a tragedy that he's been led into this situation, but I have just as much right to live as he does -- and regardless of whether the deal made with the eleven-year-old was tempting or dishonest or somehow tricky, the fact is that the eleven-year-old is going around shooting people and must be stopped, even if the circumstances do not allow the eleven-year-old to be stopped with anything other than lethal force.

(In order to make this metaphor fit, of course, it would be 24 eleven-year-olds, each with a gun that could be fired even while bound and gagged, and if I got hit by the bullet, I have to go commit crimes for them -- oh, and given that the eleven-year-olds have all these abilities, I have no idea whether or not giving them a light rap on the head is going to work. If I were someone who prized myself on my ability to do good (like, say, a paladin), the notion of being turned into a tool for evil would be pretty reprehensible.)

Now, does that mean that any paladin who would hold back is stupid? No. Such a paladin could have an ironclad code that states that only evil outsiders, evil divine spellcasters, evil dragons, and evil summoned creatures can be slain without an attempt at redemption or an attempt to subdue. The paladin could have a weakness for children, which, roleplaying-wise, would be no different from Steve the Paladin-Ranger, dedicated companion and friend of his celestial horse, having trouble killing a nightmare because even though he knows it's evil, it looks like something that he has loved all his life. It's not too dissimilar from the entire strategy concept of the succubus -- "You don't want to kill me, I don't look threatening in the usual way." Roleplaying somebody as falling for that ploy is perfectly legitimate. But it should not be utterly necessary.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

I just love all of the hand-wringing about *whatever* might have led or influenced the demonic children into being evil cultists. Come on now! For the paladin, it shouldn't matter how, or why the children became evil cultists. It isn't necessary nor is it logical to assume that the paladin has any way of knowing this in any event; furthermore, such details do not absolve the creatures from their evil crimes, to which is what the paladin is faced with in combat, and must respond to on a life-and-death basis. The facts are they are evil cultists who are a threat to not only the paladin and his companions, but also the larger community. Thus, the paladin *should* kill them, and quickly! Indeed, paladins are more than mere *holy warriors*, however, anything else they may be is secondary to their first, and primary, purpose: that of being a HOLY WARRIOR.

On another note, it always amazes me why so many people seem to expect paladins to be some 20th-century version of a social worker or defense lawyer; paladins are warriors first and foremost, and are charged with bringing war to the forces of darkness. If someone or a DM desires the character in question to be some kind of social worker or defense lawyer, always trying to second guess the motives and such of every evil creature they encounter, then really, some kind of cleric specializing in counseling and social work would be a better fit for such a role; such a fuzzy-warm cleric can naively afford to indulge in the quaint assumption that every evil creature encountered should, and must be redeemed for the good of society. Meanwhile, the paladin can be left with the hard task of standing firm against the forces of darkness, and bringing death to those who oppose Goodness and Righteousness! Paladins, it would seem to me, are the hardened shock-troops of the forces of Good, called upon to bring the rough and deadly edge of wrath and war to the forces of evil, rather than some angst-filled naive social worker-priest. Such a calling can be amply fulfilled by some priest, which the role of counseling and seeking to redeem poor, evil, lost soul's is certainly within their calling of duties and expertise. For the paladin, such considerations should prima facie take a back seat to the paladin's priority to wage war against evil.

I think that while many people seem to want to force the paladin into some other role, it seems like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole--such is simply not the paladin's primary purpose. Other types of characters exist to fulfill other kinds of callings and professional skill sets. Such other callings are not necessarily inappropriate, and can even be fun and interesting to play, however, the paladin does not seem to be the ideal character-type to explore such a calling. This stark difference in philosophy also seems to be at the root of many DM/Player conflicts; the player sees the paladin as a holy, righteous champion that rides forth to crush evil, while the DM expects the character to be some kind of social worker. These two vastly different roles have entirely different assumptions built into them, and such differences can't really be resolved en media res, but rather, should be hammered out prior to making up a paladin character.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[FrankTrollman]

I didn't sucker anyone into anything. It was a poorly designed encounter on my part, nothing more.

Well, you did demand that your players use suboptimal tactics against overwhelming opposition. That's called "suckering". You slapped down a situation where the players were in a fight for their lives and then used DM-Direct-Command to get players to do stupid things.

Generally, that's regarded as bad form.

-Frank

 

[Tsyr]

Greetings!

Shark:

More than ever I wish I could game with you, man!

 

[nimisgod]

BALEETED!

 

[nimisgod]

And all too often, people forget he is a holy warrior at all.

Some people get stuck on the holy warrior part and forget the rest of the package. It's not all shiny sword and smiting (unless you want your game to be like that. In that case, it's all about the shiny sword and smiting )

Quite the opposite. The paladin doesn't take the easy way out, ever. But the paladin has to make the hardest choice of all sometimes: To know that his solution may not be the ideal one in theory, but it's the only one that he can make.

Agreed. This is the Paladin's yoke, but good requires brains as well as brawn. Now, I'm not saying that a paladin should never ever kill. I'm just saying that on occasion, a paladin can find a better way. After all, why else is he given diplomacy as a class skill? I mean, besides his prettiness.

In a combat oriented game like D&D, the Paladin should have his share of gore. But he is more than some fanatic that smites evil like a kid on a whack-a-mole.
The paladin is given powers of smiting but also powers of healing.

This is such a case.

Yes, maybe you could redeem the children. The paladin probably knows this.

It also doesn't matter. It's not a viable option, and the paladin cannot risk attempting it.

False dilemma. There's another option in this scenario.

Cannot risk attempting what? A simple -4 to strike for subdual against creatures with an AC of 10-11 and 2-4 hp (assuming that they are indeed just physically children)? Just using your bare fists would knock the buggers out.

Or without the game mechanics: he cannot even spend the effort to turn his blade against creatures no more PHYSICALLY powerful than mere children? Especially when his companions were doing it? When the barbarian was doing it?

Those actions made the paladin look especially bad in my eyes.

How doesn't it matter? It certainly matters to the children whether they live or die. (Once again, it's just a game. And the mood is very much dependent on how the GM's and the players' wants)[/quote]

The paladin's form of mercy is as much battlefield mercy or final mercy as mercy in the traditional sense... Making the hard choices because, in the long run, they are the real mercy.

You want to contain children with spell-like domination abilities? Just blind-fold them. No line of sight. Gag them too if you want, just in case.

Sometimes the choices are not difficult because of the guilt. Thinking may also be required. Some tactics are not dishonorable nor evil.

From a real-world perspective, I would classify this as being shot at by an eleven-year-old with a handgun. Do I want to kill an eleven-year-old? No. Is it going to give me a vicious thrill? No. Am I happy about the state of the world that results in me getting shot at by an eleven-year-old? No. Do I nevertheless defend myself, even if it means that I have to kill the eleven-year-old? Most definitely. It's a tragedy that he's been led into this situation, but I have just as much right to live as he does -- and regardless of whether the deal made with the eleven-year-old was tempting or dishonest or somehow tricky, the fact is that the eleven-year-old is going around shooting people and must be stopped, even if the circumstances do not allow the eleven-year-old to be stopped with anything other than lethal force.

False analogy. You aren't a holy warrior commited to compassion, altruism, righteousness, whatever. We're talking about (supposedly) a holy warrior that is supposed to be the paragon of goodness and righteousness. Larger than life, even.

For my part, I think that the flavor is getting in the way here. If it had been 24 knife-wielding cultists in red robes who held aloft bloody severed heads before dominating people, nobody would be saying "Hey, man, he might have been led into that cult by peer pressure or false pretenses, and even though he detects as evil and sacrificed an entire town to some dark force of fiendish origin, I still think we ought to try to redeem him."

Knife-wielding cultists do not necessarily have the physique of a child (and thus easily disabled).

But I do see all of your points. Ultimately, I think the scenario wasn't handled too well by both parties. The GM should've made clear the Paladin's code in his game. The players could've (or maybe not) used a less direct approach on subduing/defeating the evil children.

Were I the GM, I wouldn't penalize him for slaughtering the evil kiddies (save for a slight warning). But I wouldn't praise him either as the situation could've been done without as much bloodshed.

* Forgot to add IMO to most of the stuff said here.

 

[Tsyr]

Some people get stuck on the holy warrior part and forget the rest of the package. It's not all shiny sword and smiting (unless you want your game to be like that. In that case, it's all about the shiny sword and smiting )

We could go around and around with this one.

Agreed. This is the Paladin's yoke, but good requires brains as well as brawn. Now, I'm not saying that a paladin should never ever kill. I'm just saying that on occasion, a paladin can find a better way. After all, why else is he given diplomacy as a class skill? I mean, besides his prettiness.

I said as much. There are times a paladin doesn't have to kill.

False dilemma. There's another option in this scenario.

Cannot risk attempting what? A simple -4 to strike for subdual against creatures with an AC of 10-11 and 2-4 hp (assuming that they are indeed just physically children)? Just using your bare fists would knock the buggers out.

Or without the game mechanics: he cannot even spend the effort to turn his blade against creatures no more PHYSICALLY powerful than mere children? Especially when his companions were doing it? When the barbarian was doing it?

Those actions made the paladin look especially bad in my eyes.

Yeah. His companions tried that.

They also lost, remember? Loosing a fight against evil does no one except the evil any good.

Yes, there was another 'option'. It would have resulted in the death of the party if not for the intervention of the cardinal guy (who killed the children too). That's not an 'option'.

 

[barsoomcore]

Wow, everyone seems to be on the "They're not children, they're evil cultists" bandwagon.

Is a child held responsible for its acts? Can a child be expected to resist the temptations of a demonic power?

It seems the forces of darkness need only travel about, possessing or otherwise corrupting young'uns, and pretty soon (since said young'uns are to be exterminated when found by the Good Guys) there'll be no more young'uns left. If paladins are not here to protect children from evil, who is?

Bunch a heartless bastiches.

 

[nimisgod]

Yeah. His companions tried that.

They also lost, remember? Loosing a fight against evil does no one except the evil any good.

Yes, there was another 'option'. It would have resulted in the death of the party if not for the intervention of the cardinal guy (who killed the children too). That's not an 'option'.

Post hoc. They lost not because they tried subdual damage. They lost because of sheer numbers. Not even a paladin could take 24 will saves.

I said earlier that this could've been handled better (then again, I wasn't there to say that). When facing that many children, there are many tactics one could try.

Remember. Hacking them down didn't save him either. Even if their companions did the same, without some kind of tactics vs. their superior numbers, the PCs would've been overpowered anyway.