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

[D+1]

The punishment must fit the crime. Paladins do not kill each and every short-changing merchant nor every grumpy, child-hating old recluse. I would imagine that Village bullies and other simple-minded thugs wouldn't be put to the sword, but I guess, the Paladin's sword is without mercy.

No, they don't kill every short-changing merchant or grumpy recluse - but then not every short-changing merchant or grumpy recluse is Evil. Nor is every bully or thug. And YES, at least some times the paladins sword IS without mercy. I use Gandalf's quote in this regard: "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them?" The answer for paladins is that they are indeed the judge, jury, and executioner. They mete out life and death guided only by their deity's demands, their sworn oaths, and their own judgement. Only in extreme circumstances do other clerics of their deity have the ability to enable atonement when their deity decides that they've done wrong.

That's a non-trivial point, BTW. The clerics do not strip the paladin of his powers - they simply allow him an avenue to regain them after the fact.

 

[D+1]

The paladin's primary purpose is CAMPAIGN SPECIFIC!

Not really. It's pretty clear what their role is from the PH. That is the default. It's irrelevant whether the DM wants to stick to that or not, but it IS the responsibility of the DM to inform players if it is otherwise. That's all. Unless and until it is made clear that paladins in the campaign are operating under campaign-specific rules that alter what the PH indicates, when someone posts paladin or alignment related questions and comments we can all judge it on what the default assumptions are.

 

[takyris]

Hey, D+1, you didn't quote me EVER!

LAAAAAAME.

 

[Elaer]

Side note: anyone ever read the short story Running Wild by J.G. Ballard?

 

[Lodow MoBo]

Just to add a little information. there were twenty four of these little misbogotten brats. Making a domination attempt every round in hive mind fashion. A third of the party was absent. Because we were tender hearted the AE spells through an open window were withheld. The party showed great restraint for a weeks time. The proper course of action would have been a fireball though their tower suite and let them go up with all their imported stuffed bears!!! Instead it was a total party domination. I doubt the Paly's god was happy with him being the tool of these demon spawn children.

 

[Blaine]

Have to agree with Lodow Mobo, they were Dominating every round, not every other round, or there would have been more of them dead before I was wrongly Dominated...

Oh well, live and learn...it's and I can still about it.

 

[Elf Witch]

No, they don't kill every short-changing merchant or grumpy recluse - but then not every short-changing merchant or grumpy recluse is Evil. Nor is every bully or thug. And YES, at least some times the paladins sword IS without mercy. I use Gandalf's quote in this regard: "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them?" The answer for paladins is that they are indeed the judge, jury, and executioner. They mete out life and death guided only by their deity's demands, their sworn oaths, and their own judgement. Only in extreme circumstances do other clerics of their deity have the ability to enable atonement when their deity decides that they've done wrong.

That's a non-trivial point, BTW. The clerics do not strip the paladin of his powers - they simply allow him an avenue to regain them after the fact.

I can't believe you are using Gandulf's quote to support the paladin's right to kill. His statement was all about mercy and understanding that even evil creatures may still have apart to play in the shaping of the world. The ending of LOTR would have been so very much diferrent if an evil dectecting holy smiting paladin had meet up with him first.

 

[Voadam]

So you are implying the more dangerous the situation the less you need to think about the best way to handle it?

Sure, a critter surprises you and jumps on your chest tearing out your flesh with its claws, what do you do, take some time to figure out the optimal way to deal with it (giving it more time to claw you), or do you act, trying to knock it off you. Some situations require action, not deliberation. Say for example, a herd of demonic dangerous children about to escape if your paladin does nothing.

That statement doesn't make sense. You don't automatically react to an unknown threat with overwhelming force. That is tactically stupid and leaves you vulerable to traps and feints. You react to an unknown threat by determining the extend of the threat. Then you determine the extend of the response needed.



Again, failure to determine the extent of the danger is not an excuse. A 1st level protection from evil would protect you from mind control then you could disable them at your leisure. And very few abilities do not require at least a line of effect (if not line of sight). If you think about it, if they were that powerful then the party was doomed the minute they entered range.

If you have time and opportunity it is wise to determine the extent of the threat, here, from how it was described, they did not. They could either try to stop the evil children or stay out of the way and let them loose. Given that they were trying to stop the children, knowing they had evil demonic powers but not the full extent of them, assuming they are dangerous seems the prudent course of action.

As for the 1st level protection from evil which can protect 1 character, as described the wizard did not cast that spell (unknown if he had it or had it prepared). The 2nd level paladin certainly did not have it as a prepared spell.

It sounds to me that there were probably better ways to deal with the children that would both have allowed them to be taken (mostly) alive and would have been safer for the PCs. If you are dealing with them inside then it may be possible to use the passageways and doors to contain them and limit their ability to move about or get at you or anyone else. Outside, missile weapons at long-ish ranges are your friend. A bow, or a crossbow should be able to drop them into negatives with a hit without killing them so long as you don't crit and get a good roll.



That makes no sense. "I had to kill him because I didn't know what he could do."

That would be my policy with an evil foe I believed to have gained at least some sort of mental domination supernatural powers and longevity through demonic pacts and sacrifices. He is a a threat, and I don't know how much of one. Killing instead of subduing seems to eliminate the risk to innocents.

It is possible that the party or the players had some idea that the children had other powers but that has not come out that I have seen. Barring that, you can't argue that killing them is justified simply because it is POSSIBLE that they may be able to do something else.

It is obviously not justified simply because it is possible somebody has more powers we don't know about. But that possibility does increase the risks of letting them loose or subduing instead of killing them. Are there powers of teleportation that might let them escape once they recover? It's a possibility that increases the risk to innocents. Since they already made pacts for domination and longevity, is it foolish to consider the possibility they might have escaping powers, or demon summoning powers if given the opportunity to sacrifice more innocents?

However, the unknown is outweighed by the known here (domination, killing, history of evil actions resulting in sacrificing innocents after exploiting them).

Their repeated history of doing these things indicate that if they escape they will probably do so again.

Again the implication that taking your time and generating a plan is somehow a bad idea. Now, bear in mind I am not necessarily criticising the decision the paladin made to kill the evildoers. I am criticising this particular argument on why they charged in and did it. It may be that cutting them down really was the only way to deal with them but it doesn't sound to me like anything else was really tried beyond "kill them all and let the gods sort them out" and THAT is not paladin-ly. The paladin code is not a document that requires only adherence to the letter without regard to the circumstances. If that was the case, paladins would be LN not LG.

20+ kids with dominate abilities statistically will clean that party's clock if they charge in there and try to hack them down without a good plan. Barring very good saves they are going to loose. My objection isn't so much with killing the Children of the Corn but with the lack of plan that led up to it. The party seems to have plowed headfirst into a fight with the odds stacked against it then realized the only way out was to kill the children to stop them and save themselves (and finally have the DM come to their rescue). That is not noble, that was simply a poor plan and not just on the paladin's part.

Tzarevitch

My understanding is the situation was "The evil kids who use mind control and sacrifice people to demons are escaping, what do you do?"

Having the paladin step up immediately and use lethal force seems appropriate in that situation.

Letting them go so that a better plan could be created, different planned spells used, and better information gathering was an option, but it would be risking them escaping and gaining more dominated innocent victims to sacrifice later and no guarantee of better information or an opportunity to stop them.

 

[Lady Silverthorn]

While also being one of the members of this group more important details for thought.
1) The warrior has a 8 wisdom and probably should have killed the childern but the player is much brighter and probably decided not to.

2) There was a curse on 1/2 of the party and each day they stayed to prevent the children from leaving they lost a level a day (due to a Vistani curse). So the "cleric" and his companion had already left. The wizard and the warrior had already started losing levels which is why a fireball was no longer an option as that spell was no longer available. The bard (me) was the only one that had not yet started losing levels.

3) There was another curse on the warrior and the bard of which had no specific relevance on this encounter.

4) The burning hands couldnt occur sooner because of course we were in a very narrow hallway and the paladin and our fallen companion were on the ground. The children dominated the warrior on the 2nd round and the paladin on the 3rd. Then they got out of the building with the wizard and the bard trying to keep them in. The bard starts toward the barn to damage the wagons to make their travel slower and the wizard heads to the gate. The children hear the commotion in the barn so head to the gate. The wizard kills as many children with burning hands before becoming domiated. The bard comes up from behind and shoots one with her bow. Then she gets "grappled" with the warrior who is a long time traveling compaion. Then she gets dominated. Whala - entire group now under the childrens control with 2 members far away already from the other curse.

5) This is where the topic further ensued because I didnt agree with the DM (knowing the DM has played a holier then tho cleric in the past and HE would have killed the children in the same instance - I didnt understand his comment.) The DM's biggest comment was these are poor cute children ( and the players didnt get that cute picture from the DM - as he described a much different picture with the blood and gore we saw from what they had done to their parents. Were not stupid you know! (sometimes slow, yes)

6) Almost every encounter we have been given in this short (so far) campaign we have been hopless to win. The DM wants us to feel heroic when we accomplish a goal but most of the time we have several outstanding issues (like both curses) in which we are unable to defeat. (BTW the cardinal did get rid of the licantrop )(ok cant spell the word - but means on the full moon we turn into something else - bard a silver wolf - the warrior something else unspeakable.) So, now there is only one curse on most of the party of which we must constantly wander or die.

Hope this sheds some light to areas that were missing detail.

 

[Aaron L]

I can't believe you are using Gandulf's quote to support the paladin's right to kill. His statement was all about mercy and understanding that even evil creatures may still have apart to play in the shaping of the world. The ending of LOTR would have been so very much diferrent if an evil dectecting holy smiting paladin had meet up with him first.

There is a difference between a small weak evil creature mourning for something it has lost, and a small weak evil creature trying to take over your mind and sacrifice your soul to a demon.