Should there be Repercussions for This? (opinions wanted)

[DaveStebbins]

As a DM, I would let the Paladin slide, in this case. Were they in a city, or some other relatively safe place with a legal authority not too far away that they could turn the prisoner over to, that would be different. However, deep in the bowels of an evil temple/dungeon, with his friends beginning to act in a manner which could be deadly for them all, a Paladin has to be allowed to dole out summary justice when necessary.

It would have been preferable if a non-lethal method could have been used which would ensure that the prisoner was no longer a threat. However, in a meta-game catch-22, it is easier to quickly and assuredly kill than incapacitate a prisoner. When all heck breaks loose, the Paladin could only spare one round making sure the prisoner was no longer a threat before moving to deal with other problems.

I don't think what he did was wrong. At worst it may warrant a verbal reminder to the player about the Paladin code.

Just my opinion.
-Dave

 

[hong]

Let's be fair, hong. It is the DMs responsibility to decide if the character broke his paladin code. If it was always up to the player of the character it would probably never happen. That is why atonement is in the game after all. It gives a system of recourse for the DM and the Player and creates a nice story hook.

Oh, I'm not saying that paladins should always be able to get off scot-free, regardless of what they do. There'll always be situations where people just do crazy things that noone else around the table can accept as being reasonable.

Getting back to the topic, I agree that talking to the player out-of-game is probably the best thing to do. First, it may well be that the player was just frustrated or annoyed and decided to lash out at a convenient target. Alternatively, it may be that the player has a very different idea of what being a paladin means, compared to the DM. Both ways, you're not going to resolve anything unless you talk things through -- and the main thing is to find out what the _player's_ thoughts are, not so much the character's.

Other than that, though, I just don't see why paladins should be held to a significantly higher standard than other, similar people, just because they're paladins. They're not the only lawful good people in the world. They're not even the only lawful good divine casters in the world. Ultimately the difference between a paladin and a LG fighter, cleric, or fighter/cleric is not that big, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Epametheus]

I fully see why the guy mowed down the evil spellcaster, though declaring "orcish blood lust" as the reason was a pretty bad move. I'm guessing the player himself isn't the brightest bulb in the room.

I never really cared for the Superman analogy, for a pretty simple reason: Superman is both nigh-invincible and nigh-unstoppable, and thus can take whatever approach he wants. Since he's a nice guy, he refrains from killing the people whom he completely outclasses. Except for Doomsday and perhaps a few other scenarios, Superman is hardly ever locked in a battle to the death with something that can fight him on his own terms. Supes can be threatened by mere mortals through kryptonite, but the situation immediately falls back under his control the instant the green rocks are gone.

DnD Paladins can't compete with that at all. A Paladin is a cleric with better martial ability, less magic, and a lot more constraints. He's a guy with a sword, risking his life against evil in the trenches, and sometimes he's going to screw up. Whacking a constrained evil priest who knew what misfortune had befallen the party and was clearly pleased with it was rather rash, but hardly evil -- in a world of supernatural evil (especially the frikking TEMPLE OF ELEMENTAL EVIL, which is where this happened), that could well be the best thing to do.

The worst the guy should get is a divine warning along the lines of "I know you mean well, but you need to watch yourself."

 

[Mort]

First, I think using superman as a model for paladins is a bad idea. Sure he’s LG but he’s lawful good in a way you can only be if your nie invulnerable with added amounts of plot immunity (in other words playing a character in this way amounts to lawful stupid).
edit:wow two nearly identical posts on superman, I didn't see the previous one before I posted

Second, paladins are not pacifists they are holy warriors. They are trained to respond to evil in ways that usually involve violence (that’s what smite is for). In this situation, the person killed was a cleric of an evil god – that right there may be reason enough for the paladin. If the paladin even suspected that the cleric is harming his companions deadly force should ensue (this of course depends on the individual patron god, but Heronius is a war god not a god of peace and tranquility).

The “rightful authority” argument is also flawed. The paladin is the “rightful authority” he’s essentially an agent of his god.

More important than any of the above, however, is the “fun” aspect. Very few people find entering a moral quagmire each and every time they draw their sword, appealing. Most just want to have fun playing a character that fights for good. That means giving players a break on these “moral ambiguities.” If the players do something obviously evil fine, but if they lose their paladinhood (or get otherwise punished) every time they make a judgement call, that’s just no fun.

 

[Czhorat]

Other than that, though, I just don't see why paladins should be held to a significantly higher standard than other, similar people, just because they're paladins. They're not the only lawful good people in the world. They're not even the only lawful good divine casters in the world. Ultimately the difference between a paladin and a LG fighter, cleric, or fighter/cleric is not that big, as far as I'm concerned.

I disagree -- the code is part of what makes paladin's special. A paladin isn't simply a lawful-good fighter, he's a holy knight holding himself to a very high and very exacting standard. In a world that recognizes the existence of such knights, think of the bit of extra status a paladin would have. If he swears to something everyone will KNOW that he'll keep his word. People recognizing him as a paladin could always trust him to tell the truth. For the player, a paladin's code lets him be somethign special - a character aspiring to and reaching the highest moral standard possible. Take that away and all you have left is a fighter with a handful of divine spells, a smart magic horse, and other tricks to compensate for a lack of bonus feats. That's nowhere near as fun to me.

 

[Eridanis]

Let's make sure our posts are pointed at the question, not each other, please.

 

[Arravis]

Count me in that 1% that disagrees with Hong.

 

[maddman75]

I was with the paladin up until he said something about his orcish bloodlust coming into play. It would be very reasonable to come to the conclusion that the priest was working some magic to harm his friends after he had surrendered. One, the prisoner was harming good folk - the paladin's allies. Two, the prisoner had broken terms of surrender. Therefore striking him down to stop the attack on his allies was neither evil nor chaotic.

However, the blood lust makes things different. While I don't think I'd strip the paladin's powers, I'd give him a test. Arrange it so that their next prisoner negotiates for a bit. Make him an orc or a half orc who doesn't trust humans, elves, or whoever else is in the party. The orc looks to the paladin and says 'can I trust you'? Then you arrange for something to happen, another character casting spells from a distance or something. The prisoner protests innocence. See if the orcish bloodlust can remain in check.

If he fails the second test, then it's atonement time.

PS - you're new because you don't know better than to get into a poking match with Hong

 

[MerakSpielman]

I think the major problem we're having here is that we all have a different idea of what a proper Paladin should be.

I like moral quandries. So do the rest of the people I play with. I play a paladin in one of those campaigns, and I have him uphold his code pretty much as I described it. The other characters think he's a major pain in the arse. T'rell Aspendale, halfling paladin, unaffiliated with any particular god. "Hey, don't you need a holy symbol to turn undead?" "My friend, I AM a holy symbol." Arrogent as all get out (though he doesn't think so), unwavering in what he believes is right (regardless of his own limited intelligence), and honest to a fault. He's heading into a major test of his dedication right now, to a town where a good man is to be executed after a fair trial. He has no idea what the circumstances are, but he's certain he'll weather the storm.

 

[Philip]

- Prisoner shows evil smile

I dunno, but if I were a player I would have taken this as a HINT from the DM: do something now, or your fellows are going to die!

NPCs are making facial expressions all the time, but DM's rarely draws attention to it, but if a DM does I will intrepret it as a clear-cut hint.

Suppose two outcomes were possible:

1. Your friends died because of some spell or device triggered by a imprisoned and known evil opponent, and you didn't do anything even though you should have realized the prisoner had something to do with it. You lose your paladinhood.
2. You strike down a imprisoned and known evil opponent because you suspect him to assault you friends with a trick. It turns out not to be the case. You lose your paladinhood.

Then it seems like a no-win situation for the poor paladin.