Should there be Repercussions for This? (opinions wanted)

[BSF]

Wow! A lot of activity on this thread. I think I will split up into two posts. One specifically addressing the original post. the other discussing the general thoughts on Paladinhood.

Regarding the Original Post:

I can see a lot of ways that this can be interpreted. Many people have pointed out the fallacies that would lead to a loss of powers. So, I will focus on a possibility that shows a little RP and an interesting character. Without knowing more about your campaign, I can't provide a strong answer. Hopefully, I have have all of the information you have provided, listed correctly.

The captured cleric is being watched/guarded by the paladin. I will make the assumption that negotiations for surrender include provisions that the cleric provide information on other dangers as part of a show of good faith. I would highly suggest that when somebody offers to yield in combat, the party pressure for every condition they can get. And yes, I realize this is an assumption.
Paladin's buddies are out of sight, but not out of hearing range.
Paladin's buddies suffer from the confusion affect, paladin is able to hear that *something* is going on. Note, it doesn't sound like the Paladin character knew what was going on. Just that something was happening. You are in an Evil Temple, you are probably going to assume the worst.
Paladin notices the smile of the cleric.
This is where you need answers from the player, but here are some possibilities.
- The Cleric was directly responsible for whatever mess the Paladin is hearing. This is unlikely since the group is out of sight.
- The Cleric surrendured, but did not do so in good faith. There was still a "challenge" that the cleric could have told the party about. This "challenge" now threatens the group as a whole.
Paladin is faced with some choices.
- He can ignore what is happening to the group because he is supposed to be guarding the cleric. I think everyone would agree that this would not be smart, or wise. You are in a dangerous place and your strength is your unity. If you enemies can seperate you, they can pick you off one at a time.
- He can drag the cleric into the new situation and hope the cleric can't adversely affect the situation as the paladin tries to help the group. Definitely one possibility, but not a very likely one, for a multitude of reasons.
- He can leave the cleric in one room, trusting that the cleric will abide by his word to not try to escape. The Paladin isn't stupid! We have a cleric that probably did not surrender in good faith, and is probably a liar anyway. This whole incident with the rest of the group might be a distraction geared to help free the cleric.
- He can disable the cleric, thus leaving the prisoner unable to escape (without help) and unable to make the situation worse. In my book, this would _normally_ be subdual damage.
- He can provide the prisoner with "High Justice" based on the premise that any terms for the clerics surrender were nullified by the cleric not warning the group of other dangers. This makes the assumption that Paladins are able to grant a death sentence in your campaign.

Now, the player, playing a half-orc paladin, goes for the bloodlust angle to show why the paladin chose a lethal response rather than subdual. IMO - This isn't bad, it is interesting. It might be an excuse to further develop the character. Later lamenting the giving in to the lethal option when a non-lethal option existed. It might not have been the wrong decision because he meant to disable, but struck harder than he had to (instead of doing subdual). Or, perhaps he chose to administer "justice" instead of waiting for a trial by the party, who might be dying at this very moment.

Depending on your campaign, and on the player's response, I might give him a slap on the wrist reminder that he didn't need to use lethal force. Or, I might begin yanking powers until he figures out why his actions were wrong and he has atoned for them. Or, I might go for anything in between.

Of course, you already know this. You are really just fishing for options and looking for a sanity check to make sure your decision isn't going to have unforeseen backlash to your game. Besides, it is an interesting question and you couldn't resist posting it to EN World! That's why we all check these boards, right?

Anyway, I hope my theoretical scenario provides somebody with a devil's advocate view on how this situation isn't completely out of line. Or, that my post provides plenty of fuel for the fire!

 

[S'mon]

Paladins get great powers. The code of conduct is meant to balance them.

Ignore the code, and your paladin just became the best class in the game: all brawn, no drawbacks.

Hm, I thought the 3.0 paladin was a bit of a weak class, especially considering the Code. Haven't checked out 3.5 yet.

I think the important thing is that the DM and player make sure they're on the same page re what is acceptable behaviour for a paladin in that campaign. If I as player am thinking Dirty Harry while the DM is thinking Superman, it's not going to go well.

After reading everything on this thread, I get the feeling that while executing an evil cleric prisoner (or indeed an orc warrior prisoner or whatever) certainly could be justifiable, the half-orc paladin in this case killed the prisoner for Chaotic reasons, not Lawful ones, and thus should be required to atone.

I once played a 1st-level paladin stuck down an orc-filled dungon in the wilderness who executed an orc prisoner because it seemed the only practical option, it being too much of a risk to keep him with us. Neither me nor my PC enjoyed doing it, but it seemed the lesser of two evils - the DM wasn't hugely happy about it, which I think was understandable. If the orc had surrendered and I had given my word to the orc that he wouldn't be harmed if he cooperated, then I would have been obliged to keep my word. This was a case where the orc had been captured unwillingly and questioned about the evil wizard running the dungeon, AFAIK he still posed a threat.

 

[BSF]

Commentary on general Paladinhood.

First of all, the guidelines in the PHB are good guidelines. But, this really ends up being campaign specific on implementation. The DM and the player should spend some time going over what the Paladin's Code will entail for the game. Within the Code should be strong guidelines, but each Paladin should have a little leeway. Why? Because they are individuals. Perhaps one Paladin focuses more on the Lawful aspect then on the Good aspect? As well, the paladin should have the wisdom to know when he can make judgements. When the paladin is wrong, he will lose his powers.

Paladins do not need to revere a single deity. The can derive their powers from devoting themselves to Righteousness. However, they can choose to revere a particular deity. It should be possible to have both types of Paladin in a campaign, though each campaign may rule differently. In any event, paladins should have similarities, but there will be a different emphasis on different aspects of the Code depending on personality, and on any religious influences. In fact, a Paladin that worships a specific deity may have to adhere to the Code while wrapping dogma around that code.

Paladins will respect legitimate authority, but in the case of Evil authority, they probably won't consider it legitimate. In the mind of a Paladin, a good ruler will uphold Law and order for the Good of the people, not simply to maintain their own powerbase. In lawless regions, the Paladin may be the only authority. Depending on specific campaigns, a Paladin may have all the responsibilities of a historic Knight, may be the equivelant of a Old West Marshal, or any number of things.

The big differences lie in individual campaigns. It may also lie in individual regions of that campaign. It is entirely acceptable to have a Paladin, who has sworn fealty to a Lord, be able to administer justice in any way he sees fit (Only answering to his Lord and possibly a Higher Power) while a wandering Paladin, that has entered the realm, has no such privelige. Administering Justice without the King's Authority might be an unlawful act. Imagine the RP possibilities when a Paladin is told, by his Lord, that he must apprehend another Paladin for unlawful actions! Or, reverse the situation and have an NPC Paladin come looking for the PC because they acted unlawfully in the King's Realm.

This allows you to take a class that has a rigid structure and still give if plenty of flexibility in your game. However, the key to really having fun with a Paladin in the game is to communicate well. The DM and the Player need to have reasonable expectations of what constitutes a Code violation. You also need to have trust. The DM needs to trust that the player will play the character to the Code. The player needs to trust that the DM is not just looking for an excuse to "screw me over". With that communication and trust comes tremendous RP possibilities. That way, when you (as the DM) see the Paladin do something that stretches the Code, or outright breaks it, you know that the Player is looking for the RP opportunity, not a simple overlooking of the Code to get away with murder.

 

[Carnifex]

To be frank, though I have yet to run or see run a 3.5e paladin, I find the 3e paladin to be brutally, well, poor compared to a fighter.

1 lousy smite evil per day? And that's supposed to make up for a shedload of combat feats? The cure diseases are generally not exactly that game-breaking an ability, while the paladin's own immunity to diseases is also not massively great.

So I think that a ridiculously stringent application of paladin code at every opportunity only serves to further drive the class down.

 

[Voadam]

Paladins get great powers. The code of conduct is meant to balance them.

Ignore the code, and your paladin just became the best class in the game: all brawn, no drawbacks.

No, all the roleplaying and alignment restrictions are just for default flavor, not game balance. The classes were designed to be mechanically balanced without role-playing restrictions.

A fighter or barbarian out fights a paladin. The paladin gets decent heavy armor fighting (better than a cleric, poorer than a fighter), good saves, some decent healing, and minor spellcasting.

A non-lawful monk is not inherently unbalanced, lawfulness is just the default flavor of monks. With paladins, many feel that the code and heroic Lawful good nature of Paladins, the roleplaying restrictions that define their roleplaying role as a hero are what define the class archetype and make them paladins, not the mechanics.

 

[Norfleet]

Many people seem to forget that the D&D game takes place in a medieval era: Life was short, brutish, and nasty. People survived, therefore, by being like life: Short, brutish, and nasty.

Paladins are commonly stated as being modelled on the Christian crusader knights....who were sent forth with instructions to the effect of "Kill them all, and God will recognize his own.". Life was cheap. Life is even more cheap in D&D, when being killed can be merely an inconvenient annoyance. In D&D, death is just God's way of telling you that you need to slow down.

That said, an evil priest is well within the paladin's group of people to smite. Evil priests aren't really in the group of people who repent. They have too many levels invested in being an evil priest, and more importantly, evil priests are doing what they believe is right: Their god, or whatever they happen to worship and derive power from, tells them that what they do is right. They're not going to repent, and certainly not in this lifetime: A paladin is well within his bounds to smite such people on sight, and offer a prayer for their soul after the smiting. The paladin doesn't fill the role of judge, jury, OR executioner: The paladin is the agent by which the wrongdoer's soul is delivered unto his god for judgement. I highly doubt a paladin has a code which forbids the smiting of evil priests, rather than encouraging such things. A paladin is not a modern police officer, out to arrest evildoers so that they can be tried in a court and sentenced to 15 years in a Federal prison: None of these things have been invented yet: The closest you had was being thrown in the dungeon of some local lord's castle and more or less forgotten. Paladins are instruments of divine wrath: They smite the wrongdoers, knocking their souls loose from their earthly shells so that they may face divine judgement. In a place like the TEMPLE OF ELEMENTAL EVIL, "Kill them all, and God will recognize his own." is a perfectly valid approach.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

On an interesting sidenote to this discussion, at a game I just played, our party (a lawful good eldritch knight, LN wizard, LN druid, NG halfling fighter/rogue, and CG Rogue/Holy Liberator) captured a villain who stole a very valuable gem and framed them for it. We knew that he had been involved in a pirate/slaver ring from documents we found. He was a rogue/shadowdancer (or so we assumed since we saw him move within our briar web then dissappear and when we looked at him, he seemed to melt into the shadows; he had the good fortune of evading the fireballs and feeblemind that took out the rest of his group). We knew that he was evil.

Most of us were for hanging him as a bandit but the holy liberator said he wanted to deal with the prisoner himself, and when the party aquiesced, took him into the forest alone (stripped of all his possessions and weapons), handed him a dagger, and told him to leave and never return. (I thought that was very good role-playing on the Holy Liberator's part). When he returned, he was wiping off his sword and said that he'd "dealt with the problem."

What's interesting is that I think that this is a somewhat similar case to the one we're discussing. I also find it interesting because I think that the lawful characters were acting within the bounds of what's normally expected of lawful alignments by wanting to hang him. The Holy Liberator was also well within the bounds of what's ordinarily considered CG behavior (although from answers in this thread, I suspect that many would also see it (except the misleading the party bit) as exemplary paladin-like behavior which goes to demonstrate my thesis in the other thread that D&D ideas of law and chaos have no real explanatory or descriptive power).

 

[tonym]

He was a rogue/shadowdancer...We knew that he was evil.

Most of us were for hanging him as a bandit but the holy liberator said he wanted to deal with the prisoner himself, and when the party aquiesced, took him into the forest alone (stripped of all his possessions and weapons), handed him a dagger, and told him to leave and never return....

That's a pretty cool scenario. It reminds me that a paladin often has to deal with evil beings on a case-by-case situation. (Heck, my paladin negotiated with a red dragon, once.)

This is the way I see paladins: as a paladin, sometimes you try to convert evil people....sometimes you show them mercy...sometimes you drag them to a town for trial...sometimes you cut them down in their boots. It all depends on the situation.

But EVIL clerics?? Like the one in the scenario that started this thread? An Evil cleric being EVIL in the Temple of Elemental Evil, no less? An evil cleric is the absolute WORST type of person. They will never deny their evil god, and as long as they live, they are a manifestation of their evil god's will on the planet.

Paladins should be noble and honorable and all that LG stuff. But paladins should be given the freedom to kill evil priests on sight, or at the slightest provocation, without their Player having to worry about any DM-inflicted consequences. IMHO.




Tony

 

[billd91]

Paladins should be noble and honorable and all that LG stuff. But paladins should be given the freedom to kill evil priests on sight, or at the slightest provocation, without their Player having to worry about any DM-inflicted consequences. IMHO.

And in my opinion, that is not the case. The paladin should have to worry about consequences because it's part and parcel of the social contract they have with their gods. If they are expected to merciful and honorable, then killing a bound prisoner who has surrendered is right out unless it's quite clear that the prisoner has tried something underhanded. I don't think that's the case here since it sounds like the characters who picked up the cursed item were out of the room and the other characters were only alerted of something once the commotion broke out.

Using a medieval parallel of D&D fantasy societies only goes so far. The paladins are far and away not crusaders. Crusader knights may have been nobility, but they weren't anything approaching paladins. The Pope called the crusades, partly, to help get the loose canon knights under control.
Paladins are closer to the romance stories of the late middle ages like the Arthurian legends. These were knights, quite fictional, who were supposed to be examples to follow and not reliable historical accounts. Paladins are strongly within that specific mode and not historical, rapacious, cannibal crusaders.
This is role-playing fantasy. We can enforce a much higher standard of conduct and literary example than medieval history.

 

[tonym]

And in my opinion, that is not the case. The paladin should have to worry about consequences because it's part and parcel of the social contract they have with their gods. If they are expected to merciful and honorable, then killing a bound prisoner who has surrendered is right out unless it's quite clear that the prisoner has tried something underhanded. I don't think that's the case here since it sounds like the characters who picked up the cursed item were out of the room and the other characters were only alerted of something once the commotion broke out.

I pretty much agree with your two points here. But I still see the evil cleric dead on the floor in this thread's scenario.

You said a paladin should worry about 'consequences' because of the contract they have with their god. As a general statement, I'd agree with that. However, when it comes to EVIL clerics, I don't think it applies. I think a paladin should never have to worry about killing evil clerics, any more than he should have to worry about killing a demon. An evil cleric is an extension of an evil god, and killing one is like doing a tiny bit of damage to the evil god--a good thing.

You also wrote that a paladin shouldn't kill a bound prisoner unless it's quite clear that the prisoner has tried something underhanded. As a general statement of Paladin Policy, I'd agree with that. However, I still think it doesn't apply to evil clerics. An evil cleric is never helpless...

At any moment, the evil cleric can kill every one of his captors, should his god intervene directly. After all, good gods have been known to intervene on behalf of their captive clerics...why not evil gods?

What is an evil cleric doing while tied-up? He's praying. What is he praying? "Oh dark master whom I serve and love and to whom I have sacrifieced forty-eight children...please release your servant from his bonds and empower him to kill the paladin and his allies in your dark, unholy name." Or something along those lines.

When I ran my paladin through the Temple of Elemental Evil, the party had to throw a Hold Person on him to stop him from killing an evil cleric they had captured.

They way I see it, a paladin has a duty to kill evil clerics and should not be penalized by a DM for acting on that duty.

Penalized for killing a truly helpless prisoner? Maybe yes.
Penalized for lieing, cheating, stealing? Maybe yes.
Penalized for raping, poisoning, donating money to an evil god? Definitely yes.

Penalized for slaying an evil cleric under any circumstance. No.

IMHO.


Tony