Should there be Repercussions for This? (opinions wanted)

[JDragon]

Just a thought, this was not a situation I preplanned.

The fight was going badly for the bad guys, only 2 of 20 plus low level warriors were left, the head cleric had gone gaseous trying to escape when the cleris yeilded.

IT was out of combat as the party was searching the area when the incedent occured. THe paladin had voluntered himself to guard the prisoner.

I should have stopped the player to ask, but the guys been playing for 15 plus years so I was inclined to let him play the character as he saw fit.

At this point, I'm thinking I'll talk to the player about it. The character will have a bad dream from his god, and at most lose his abilities for a day or so.

This is asuming he doesn't come back with some wacked out reason for doing it.

 

[Mallus]

Semi-random thoughts.

1) Unless the paladin was some kind of expert in arcana [kinda tough, given that Spellcraft and Knowledge: Arcane aren't class skills. And they get a whopping 2 SP/level. And he's a bloody half-orc, to boot], I think his reaction was fine. Just what I'd expect from a bloodthristy half-orc who heeded the call to paladinhood.

2) Better the paladin react [rashly?] to the scene at hand as described by the DM, than act after fully considering a boatload of metagame knowledge. I want players to act on what I'm telling them, not on what they think they know about the game mechanics in play.

3) I'm not going to punish a player for playing a character that's ignorant about the things they should be ignorant of [a half-orc paladin should know an evil priest is bad. That's about it. The intricacies of his spellcasting are beyond him, see point 1)]

4) Paladins do a lot of killing [of baddies] when threatened. And I see no rule stating that they prefer non-lethal attacks.

5) I think a half-orc paladin that keeps jumping to the wrong conclusion is a wonderful character to have in a story. Maybe he does need some re-education. But don't waste such a great narrative thread by stripping him of his status after one infraction. Let this build.

6) While the DM controls the players adversaries, he isn't one of them. Even for paladins.

7) If the DM decides that paladins are an unplayable class, he should let the players know before they create one.

8) Paladins shouldn't be confronted with life-changing quandries every time they step out of the castle. Think "Guinevere and Lancelot", not "how can I trip the paladin up today?"

9) Anyone who denies that D&D, as presented in the rules, is combat-centic is clearly insane. Whether or not you play it that way, is another story.

 

[Hjorimir]

This topic is just too good to let go.

Would the player have killed the prisoner if it weren’t the paladin's friends who were acting strange? What if it were a couple of orcs or goblins?

I'm willing to bet on the odds that if orcs or goblins were the target of some spell or trap that the paladin would not have struck the smiling prisoner with such wrath (even if he knew the prisoner did, in fact, cast a spell).

That would mean that the paladin was not acting on what was good or righteous (as defined by the divine) but, instead, from what was personally important to him. The paladin is supposed to be stopping evil, not looking out for personal interests.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[Nifft]

IMC, Holy Avengers are made out of sharp, pointy objects because Paladins are intended -- by their gods -- to go out and kill evil.

Evil priests of evil gods are pretty darn evil.

If anything, the Paladin "compromised" by letting the evil priest live temporarily (presumably for pragmatic reasons). Killing evil is why Paladins receive their Calling.

Diplomats & Nurses receive a different Calling, and that one doesn't involve Martial Weapon Proficency or the Holy Smite class ability.

-- N

 

[Numion]

Paladins aren't modern day police.

Paladins aren't lawyers.

Paladins sure as hell aren't defence lawyers for the bad guys.

They indeed are the gods representatives on earth. Judge, jury and executioner for the Divine Law of their God. They don't collect proof of wrongdoings for their god - neither do they need search warrants before entering Dens of Evil. They think and act independently. If their God had a problem with that he wouldn't enlist paladins to his cause, instead relying on Celestials or personal involvement.

As to the case at hand, what happened was that the paladin executed an evil cleric. The cleric had surrendered, and if the paladin had promised to spare the clerics life he might've done wrong. If not, the paladins decision to execute the prisoner was justified, regardless of what the cleric did or didn't do mentally.

Killing of a known cleric of evil deity is perfectly fine IMO for a Paladin - it doesn't matter if the cleric puts up a fight or not.

 

[MerakSpielman]

Interesting views, Nifft and Numion, and this is surely a popular interpretation of the role of the paladin in a D&D world.

But that does not follow their description from the PHB very well. The closest we get to the definition of a how a paladin should go about his business is the paladin's Code, which doesn't say a thing about killing anybody.

Edit: my sig seems to have gone all supersize. Sorry about that.
Edit edit: Nevermind, it was just me ctrl-mousewheeling the text size again. Ignore me.

 

[Mallus]

This topic is just too good to let go.
That would mean that the paladin was not acting on what was good or righteous (as defined by the divine) but, instead, from what was personally important to him.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Or it would mean that the paladin was responding to a perceived threat.

And the road to stupidity, oddly, is paved with stupid intentions.

[editor's note: not calling you stupid, just cracking wise and cranky seeing as I'm still at work.]

 

[Cerubus Dark]

IMC, Holy Avengers are made out of sharp, pointy objects because Paladins are intended -- by their gods -- to go out and kill evil.

Evil priests of evil gods are pretty darn evil.

If anything, the Paladin "compromised" by letting the evil priest live temporarily (presumably for pragmatic reasons). Killing evil is why Paladins receive their Calling.

Diplomats & Nurses receive a different Calling, and that one doesn't involve Martial Weapon Proficency or the Holy Smite class ability.

-- N

That brings up a point. Would it be possible to have a Monk/Paladin?

 

[Nifft]

But that does not follow their description from the PHB very well. The closest we get to the definition of a how a paladin should go about his business is the paladin's Code, which doesn't say a thing about killing anybody.

Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

If I spare your life, and you use that respite to commit an Evil or Chaotic act, I can no longer spare your life.

If you harm or threaten innocents, I must punish you. What is a just punishment? Depends on the circumstances, and if it is repentance is possible. Death is certainly punishment, and the Code does NOT require that I use the smallest necessary force. There's no risk of lawsuit alleging "Paladin Brutality" listed in the Core Rules.

If I'm unsure if you're Evil or not, I can just Detect Evil. If you're not Evil, I can try diplomacy.

-- N

 

[Hjorimir]

1) Unless the paladin was some kind of expert in arcana [kinda tough, given that Spellcraft and Knowledge: Arcane aren't class skills. And they get a whopping 2 SP/level. And he's a bloody half-orc, to boot], I think his reaction was fine. Just what I'd expect from a bloodthristy half-orc who heeded the call to paladinhood.

Bloodthirsty and Paladin mix about as well as oil and water.

2) Better the paladin react [rashly?] to the scene at hand as described by the DM, than act after fully considering a boatload of metagame knowledge. I want players to act on what I'm telling them, not on what they think they know about the game mechanics in play.

I don't agree that it is meta-gaming for the paladin to recall his god holds him to a higher standard. Rash reactions don't sound like it is a wise way for a paladin to proceed.

3) I'm not going to punish a player for playing a character that's ignorant about the things they should be ignorant of [a half-orc paladin should know an evil priest is bad. That's about it. The intricacies of his spellcasting are beyond him, see point 1)]

Well paladins cast spells...so he can't be totally ignorant. At best you could argue that the paladin decided on a sentence without knowing the facts. Doesn't strike me as Lawful or Good.

4) Paladins do a lot of killing [of baddies] when threatened. And I see no rule stating that they prefer non-lethal attacks.

I don't see the point where the paladin was threatened. His prisoner smiled and she got the business end of his sword for it.

5) I think a half-orc paladin that keeps jumping to the wrong conclusion is a wonderful character to have in a story. Maybe he does need some re-education. But don't waste such a great narrative thread by stripping him of his status after one infraction. Let this build.

No better way to educate than have the deity remind the paladin why he has those abilities in the first place. Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind (as the saying goes).

6) While the DM controls the players adversaries, he isn't one of them. Even for paladins.

I'm not clear on how this relates to the topic. Seriously, I just can't figure it out (don't read this as a slight).

7) If the DM decides that paladins are an unplayable class, he should let the players know before they create one.

How does this make a paladin unplayable? The player could have knocked the prisoner out and would be okay. Though he may want to apologize to the prisoner when he learns she didn't actually cause his friends to act strangely.

8) Paladins shouldn't be confronted with life-changing quandries every time they step out of the castle. Think "Guinevere and Lancelot", not "how can I trip the paladin up today?"

The thread mentions one incident and it doesn't even sound like the DM crafted it. It sounds to me like this was all done by the players actions. Lancelot, by the way, fell from grace. Later, he atoned by helping Arthur in his final battle. I'm not altogether convinced Lancelot was a paladin in the first place though. Now Galahad was certainly a paladin.

9) Anyone who denies that D&D, as presented in the rules, is combat-centic is clearly insane. Whether or not you play it that way, is another story.

Combat-centric does not equate to kill first and ask questions later no matter what the situation is. Who is capable of judging who and who is not insane. Maybe we're all the insane ones and the people we have committed to hospitals have the true insight.