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

[RC Hagy]

Voadam: Um, nope. It was an option not chosen though.
Were the children responsible (which we now know they were) or were
they possessed in which case they might have been saved? That was
not something that was made apparent until ForceUser's post on page
six.

Numion: My main point from my first post - The weak should be given
the benefit of doubt, not a free pass. As it turns out
they were evil by choice, not possession. Therefore not really
redeemable.
Also, the paladin could have waited and consulted. Delay does not
always mean die. We do not know if they were one round away from
hitting the out of doors. His choice to attack right then and then
not withdraw made it a dead end.

Tsyr: Then why did their game bog down in discussion over to kill
or subdue? There was dissagreement. Sounds like some were
not sure if the children were responsible or some other force or
whatever.
So did the paladin see through something or not bother to look?


As I have written before and will write again... time seemed to be
against the paladin. I say he could have subdued, waited or
killed. He did what he thought was best with the time that seemed
to be allowed.



Hagy

 

[PowerWordDumb]

Having read the thread in more detail, and noted many of the "the punishment would not be so harsh in a magical medieval society (MMS) as in our own medieval history" comments, I have to disagree. I argue there's even less reason for the church to be particularly concerned with how the paladin deals with the situation.

The ready access to Speak With Dead and Raise Dead spells means that the well-meaning paladin can effectively deal with the situation according to his best judgement at the time, secure in the knowledge that once the immediate danger is past a few simple divinations can reveal the truth of things, and remedies can be made if he has been in error. Sure there's perception and public relation concerns that would nudge the Paladin towards thoughtful action rather than a "slaughter them all and let God(s) sort them out" point of view, but the finality of his actions just isn't there.

If people are going to hang their hats on the "MMS are just different" argument to counter the "brutality of punishments" question, then they owe it to themselves to at least follow that through to its logical conclusion, not simply use it as a reason to counter someone else's interpretation of events and then abandoning the point.

 

[D+1]

You were both right, but it was your fault.

Paladins should definitely be extremely hesistant about harm in any form befalling those who are generally known to be innocents, helpless, or simply incapable of defending themselves against given threats. So, you were right to warn him of his paladinhood being at risk. However, children who have made Pacts with Dark Powers, performed evil acts, who continue on that course of perpetrating further evil, and who attempt to overpower/destroy the righteous (the paladin, the abbot, and others who would otherwise aid and protect them) can ultimately expect no mercy. The paladin was perfectly justified in protecting himself with lethal force. He COULD have, and probably SHOULD have exercised restraint as the other characters were doing. But paladins carry swords for a reason. Given a choice between the threat of grave danger to himself and others or sending a few decidedly NON-innocent children (regardless of their appearance) to the next life his was a viable, if not very preferable option.

How was it your fault? Because it became an issue in the first place it's clear that the player and you were definitely NOT on the same page as far as what YOU consider justifiable actions by LG characters including paladins. Had the player been informed in advance that you consider that children should be protected regardless of their demonstrated deeds (either as a matter of LG belief in general or the paladins code specifically) the player would likely not have chosen the actions he did. If he had then it would be a purely roleplaying choice and the consequences would then be played out either by losing his paladinhood completely, performing an atonement, or simply becoming known as a paladin who believes in _harsh_ justice and being respected (or perhaps feared) accordingly as a result.

 

[D+1]

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.

Q.E.D. And if it were MY character I think he'd have killed them all, dropped to his knees to weep, and then fallen upon his own sword (or some such suicide attempt).

 

[D+1]

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..

Bad communication beforehand but by all accounts handled properly during the session. The DM gives the player fair warning of the supposed moral danger. The player rightfully argues that no moral danger exists or at least his character IS justified in his actions regardless of the supposed moral dangers manifested. And most importantly, the DM chose to let the issue drop, at least for the present, and move on with the game rather than slam on the parking brake until the issue was yakked to its ultimate end.

2) Bringing current, real-world ethics and ideas into the game, mostly on the part of the Barbarian and Wizard players.

No, I don't really see this as any kind of problem. At the very least it can be explained away as those characters NOT having the intense, unshakable moral and ethical grounding that the paladin has (and indeed MUST have.) They still see innocent children and try to deal with them as if they still were. The paladin sees them for what they REALLY are and comes to the much more difficult conclusion that it is either necessary or at least within the realm of proper choice of action to kill them.

Had they succeeded in killing or subduing the lot of them their conversation afterward could have very well had the wizard and barbarian at first expressing shock and dismay at the paladins apparantly abhorrent and evil behavior, followed by the paladin chastising the other characters for their lack of moral courage to do what was right and necessary (at least what the Paladin sees as right and necessary).

However, your comments properly infer that many games would be improved by players and DM's alike who did not attempt to overlay real-life and modern morals on a game system/world that is _designed_ not with shades of grey but crystalline black and white. D&D is a world where evil is a force that is openly manifested in the world to the point where it can be detected and opposed directly by spells and items for which that is their reason for existence. If children are innocent they can be identified as innocent without the children having to say or do anything at all as the paladin in this case apparantly did.

<digression>
Similar challenges can be made toward applying real world political structures, political dynamics, sociological forces, cultural norms, theories of law/crime and punishment, and so forth. Even benevolent kings are still _autocrats_ and ought to rule that way. There seems to be a common assumption that most NPC's are literate regardless of their occupation or social station but without the presence of schoolhouses for children to learn it. Education institutions are limited to monasteries, temples, sages, and perhaps universities, but which of those teaches basic literacy and when? And even more importantly - why? What do commoners read or write? Newspapers? Books? How can they if books are only found in the libraries of sages and wizards?

It's one thing for PC's and their NPC allies and enemies to read and write, but quite another to have a billboard in town where royal decrees and want ads are posted. It's also one thing to expect that children be perceived as wide-eyed innocents to be dealt with using kid gloves [ha! pun intended] but another to expect that to _continue_ when PC's are faced with manifestly evil, murdering children who are attempting escape with life-threatening tactics.

 

[D+1]

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.

And that's all fine and well - so long as the DM makes it clear to players at the outset what the campaign he's running will use as moral and ethical reference - the real world, a quasi-Medieval European world, or something else entirely. It's the failure to have the DM and the players on the same page as regards the expected morals and ethics in the world that created the problem originally presented.

 

[D+1]

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.

So don't beat yourself up about it. You and your players know best what you were REALLY trying to do. There are a couple of posts here that seem to be suggesting a rather more extreme degree of error or callous miscalculation on your part, but it's pretty clear to me, after reading your posts as well as those of players in the game in question including that of the paladin PC, that you're not as bad as all that. It was simply an error related to alignment issues that catches a LOT of people and undoubtedly one that you aren't likely to repeat.

 

[D+1]

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).

Aha! THIS is an extremely important point that rather sabotages your own position. It is an OPTION. It may have been the best option, the _preferred_ option to subdue rather than slay. But it was only one of any number of additional options that definitely includes simply laying to and killing the blighters and having done with it all, regardless of what other action may have been expected.

 

[D+1]

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.

I wholeheartedly DISagree. He should not be held as a Paragon of Good and Righteousness to the exclusion of all else.

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

Exactly - by default he is - at least in part if not primarily - a Warrior!

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

BAD choice for an archetype since Galahad and the other knights of the Round Table have a very specific world including moral and ethical views built around them; views that simply do NOT translate well to an archetype applicable to campaign worlds with far different views.

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

And slaying the children ISN'T the easy way out - it's by far the most difficult conclusion that the character would have to deal with after having arrived at it.

 

[D+1]

This is quite an interesting discussion. I have to say that there are solid arguments on both sides, but I think they really boil down to the perennial argument about Paladins. Should they smite anything that smells of evil or do they have a mission of mercy and redemption? And the DM can swing that as much as the particular god the Paladin worships can.

It's not either/or, it's both. They smite anything that smells of evil AND they promulgate mercy and redemption. And the DM swings it regardless of the deity because the DM can outright overrule what might otherwise be suggested by the deity and can still interpret the tenets of the religion differently than the player. Example: Paladins always kill Evil. Paladins never kill children. Does a paladin kill an Evil child or not? The player may focus on the first statement, the DM on the second. Since the DM is the one who swings the alignment-conformity mallet it is the DM's interpretation that matters most and it is the DM who must inform the player of that interpretation BEFORE it has even the potential to become an in-game issue.

Also, I wouldn't tell a player his Paladin powers are at risk.

NO! Because YOU, as DM have the sole power of enforcing YOUR interpretations you MUST inform the player - in no uncertain terms - when you percieve that he may be endangering paladinhood, rangerhood, druidhood, alignment status, etc. You cannot read the mind of players and know innately if their actions are deliberate for roleplaying reasons, deliberate based on false assumptions, or entirely unintentional. To then whack the PC with the behavior-enforcement mallet when they are NOT YET AWARE of their peril is more than mere bad form.

After all, you could say to the player, "Your paladin feels bad about this - are you sure you want to do it?" The player could then think, "Of course he feels bad about it, but it's a necessary and correct thing to do." He then says "I do it anyway." You hit him with the mallet and the argument starts.

Your first statement should be, "Your paladin feels bad about this. He WILL lose his status if he does it because of the following reasons..." The player can then respond either, "Oh. Since you put it that way..." or he can say, "Well the characters reasoning is thus... so that's why he's doing it." All open. All above board. And if the DM has done his job and made his interpretations in the matter clear WELL ahead of time it may not even be an exchange that occurs at all.