Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Silverglass" data-source="post: 1207065" data-attributes="member: 14071">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).</blockquote>

Verification