Redemption v. Vengence: A Paladin's Question

[Queen_Dopplepopolis]

**Note to players in my game... this is not public information that the characters know.**


I run a paladin/cleric in a homegrown campaign. She's always been sort of a loner-- she was raised in a warriors school and rarely, if ever, visited by family. As such, she's come to fully depend on herself and very few others. She has a general mis-trust of the world around her, especially the world of evil... generally assuming that evil cannot be "turned" good.
Recently, she has discovered that her father is a major evil NPC that she has, on occasion, tried to kill. In fact, she has hated him with a firey passion since the very first adventure (now level 12... there's a lot of hate).

At this point, I am torn as to how she should react towards him in their next meeting. He does not seem to know that he is her father and, realistically, I'm sure that she'd just as soon NOT tell him... but, at the same time, she has never had a real *family*-- she hates him... but is somehow drawn to him because he is her blood.

I guess what I'm asking is-- do you ever see the lines between redemption and vengence cross/blur in your worlds?

Have your characters experienced it? If so, how have they handled it?

And, based on the little bit of information you have about Justice the Paladin, what do you think is the "right" response?

Should I make it my goal to see him redeemed? Or should I continue on my path of vengence and let the Light decide whether or not he is redeemable?

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Justice, I am your father!

Noooooo! (falling down shaft of Cloud City) Oh, wait...sorry.

Have not had to deal with this situation in any of my games.

I personally don't think you go wrong with this no matter what you choose.

If it were me, I would likely play it that Justice has a significant period of confusion and personal conflict. During that time she would actively avoid anything that might force her to decide one way or the other. Eventually I would have her start to look for any sign of humanity in her father, something that gives her a glimmer of hope that he could be redeemed. If she could find something (or possibly make something up depending upon how desparate I'd play her), she would latch on to that and start working at redeeming him, even to the point of possible destroying herself in the process. Of course how the DM decides to play it would have a huge impact on things.

 

[Queen_Dopplepopolis]

Yeah... I think of the SW parallel all the time... and, maybe that's where my questions come from... I feel obligated to attempt to bring him over to the Light because, if Vader can... hell, ANYONE can!

Just don't know if that is, indeed, the way my character would react.

 

[Torm]

I feel obligated to attempt to bring him over to the Light because, if Vader can... hell, ANYONE can!

Um, I hate to break it to you, but at least in the original trilogy, Vader was a GOOD guy. Let's examine the evidence:

1. Choked a Rebel troop into unconsciousness at the beginning of a New Hope. Okay, we start on a negative note, but you can't be sure that guy was dead, and regardless, Vader, as we will see, had bigger fish to fry and needed to keep up his image to do it.

2. Vader chokes Admiral Motti in the conference room, probably would have killed him if he could have gotten away with it without ruining his aforementioned essential image. Motti is a bad guy. One bad guy choked. Score 1 Good Point for Vader.

3. Vader chokes Captain Needa, ostenibly for failing some task. Needa = high up mucky muck bad guy. Major Good Points for Vader here. Appoints an incompentent, but only slightly less high up mucky muck to take his place, knowing he'll screw up and give cause to strangle him later, too. More Good Points for Vader, and just plain smart, too.

4. General Tagge, Admiral Ozzel, etc. More high mucky muck bad guys. He's destroying the evil organization from within, and they don't even see it! Good on Vader!

And, finally, 5. Vader FINALLY gets the chance he's secretly been waiting for for YEARS - Palpatine is distracted with using his lightning on Luke. Vader weighs carefully, looks over the whole situation - is this the right time, at last? And then picks up Palpatine and throws him to his death, killing the Big Bad just like he, Yoda, and Ben planned years ago. 20 Billion Good Points - Vader. Also, finally, he can admit to his son that he's been a good guy the whole time, but he's so screwed up it doesn't come out very coherent. But he does at last get to float around all blue and stuff with Ben and Yoda in the Ewok Village - not because he was redeemed, but because he was serving good the whole time!



Seriously, though, I maybe see your dedicated Paladin being sad about it, and maybe offering one chance for redemption based on the notion that family must be alike, somehow. But then I see her wasting no time following up on whatever happens from there. She may come to the conclusion that the trait that runs in the family is a strong understanding of Good and Evil, and the difference is what they've done with that understanding.

 

[lupus]

I see paladins as being all about the redemption, whenever possible. I stress that paladins are not about destroying evil. That's not their aim. They're about protecting good - it's just that destroying evil is often a way to protect good, and paladins, being holy warriors, happen to be pretty darn good at it.

But it's not the only way, and it's not necessarily the best way. See it from a pragmatic point of view: if you kill your dad, do you reduce the amount of evil in the world? Perhaps a smidgen, in that he isn't doing bad thigns any more. But the bad he's done is still there, and there are still people around ready to take his place.

If you redeem him, on the other hand, he can try to set things right.

And, finally, I see the ethic of the paladin as being diametrically opposed to vengeance. Revenge is a dark motivation - it's putting your own personal needs above those of 'good' and 'protecting the innocent.'

At least, that's how I do paladins. I like my Pallys as the genuine good guys of any campaign setting. Your own characters may vary... and of course, any individual may vary from the core ethics of the class. They have something of an instinctive understanding of right and wrong (it's part of what makes them paladins), but they aren't always right. They aren't perfect.

It's part of why I love the class.

 

[Gothic_Demon]

I stress that paladins are not about destroying evil.

I'd actually disagree, since the PHB describes paladins ans merciless crusaders against evil, but then I'd also say that turning an evil guy good destroys the evil in him (so the end result is pretty similar).

Anyway, either choice could be successful, and I agree that Justice probably should try. It depends a lot on her father's motivations whether this will be successful or not (and also on your DM )

The issue will be if this attempt fails. What will Justice do if her father abuses her trust and help for his own nefarious ends?

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

The issue will be if this attempt fails. What will Justice do if her father abuses her trust and help for his own nefarious ends?

That would be one heck of a great roleplaying opportunity, and a great Rat Bastard move on the part of the DM.

Killing him would probably be the safer move, but it don't think it would be as much fun. Good Luck, Justice.

 

[robberbaron]

I guess it depends on how you see your character.
I mean, ultimately, you have to be happy with what you do.

Personally, I'd reveal myself to him (I think I'll rephrase that. Then again) and give him one chance for redemption.
Then destroy him when he refuses.

 

[diaglo]

lets go back to the introduction of the paladin to the game.

Supplement I Greyhawk

a fighting man with a charisma of 17 and a Lawful alignment could be a paladin.


later it states that if the PC ever does anything to violate the Lawful alignment. he may NEVER gain the benefits of paladinhood.



the key to any paladin therefore is determining what alignment means in the campaign. always has been....

 

[Queen_Dopplepopolis]

lets go back to the introduction of the paladin to the game.

Supplement I Greyhawk

a fighting man with a charisma of 17 and a Lawful alignment could be a paladin.


later it states that if the PC ever does anything to violate the Lawful alignment. he may NEVER gain the benefits of paladinhood.



the key to any paladin therefore is determining what alignment means in the campaign. always has been....

The Paladin's Lawful Good alignment in our game is very much akin to a Batman sort of Lawful Good... but, Paladins can kill for the right reasons... even if Batman doesn't kill anybody.

My character's take on "Lawful" is, and has always been, a very "spirit of the law" not a "letter of the law" take.