The paladin. A story and a question.

[anton1066]

I would say this is a matter of conflicting religious values.
The paladin should not loose his powers. If his god told him to do it, then there is no question. Now the monks and other religions might not see it that way, but that does not matter. The paladin serves his god and not any other. As a paladin, i would say that he is bound to protect the town from attack.

 

[wayne62682]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the paladin has done nothing wrong to warrant losing his status, however I'm sure that his God would impose some sort of atonement on him (namely defending the town from the goblin incursion that is sure to occur now).

The paladin belongs to an order that believes all undead to be evil and destroys them, correct? Thus the paladin was justified in destroying Father Nayavovich since Fr. Nayavovich was a ghost and thus in the eyes of the paladin an abomination that should not exist. Should he have maybe gathered some more information before going into "Smite Mode"? Definatly, but he did not act against his code by destroying what turned out to be a "good" undead (in fact I will go so far as to say if he did NOT destroy the undead, he would lose his status for failing to uphold his god's dogma).

Was he wrong to kill the monks? Of course not.. they attacked him first. They were justified in attacking him, and thusly he was justified in killing them. If a Lawful Good person thinks you're an enemy and tries to kill you, you are still Lawful Good if you kill them in self defense.

In short: He does not lose his paladin status but if this is/was a PC then he should be "tasked" with protecting the village against some newfound menace as "pennance". If its an NPC then he should be tasked with guarding the village for the remainder of his life.

 

[Lhorgrim]

So what was the correct course of action for the Paladin?

This seems like a Kobayashi Maru to me.

Anything the NPC Paladin did or did not do could be considered a violation in some DMs' minds.

Don't deal with the undead and he violates the tenents of his faith.

Don't defend against the monks and get killed or taken prisoner.

Don't defend a defenseless village he doesn't even know exists and he lets innocents die.

Tough call normally, but since it's an NPC the DM can alter the scenario ala Captain Kirk in order to achieve the desired result. If the Dm wants the NPC to have commited an evil act then he did or vice-versa.

 

[Aeric]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the paladin has done nothing wrong to warrant losing his status, however I'm sure that his God would impose some sort of atonement on him (namely defending the town from the goblin incursion that is sure to occur now).

The paladin belongs to an order that believes all undead to be evil and destroys them, correct? Thus the paladin was justified in destroying Father Nayavovich since Fr. Nayavovich was a ghost and thus in the eyes of the paladin an abomination that should not exist. Should he have maybe gathered some more information before going into "Smite Mode"? Definatly, but he did not act against his code by destroying what turned out to be a "good" undead (in fact I will go so far as to say if he did NOT destroy the undead, he would lose his status for failing to uphold his god's dogma).

Was he wrong to kill the monks? Of course not.. they attacked him first. They were justified in attacking him, and thusly he was justified in killing them. If a Lawful Good person thinks you're an enemy and tries to kill you, you are still Lawful Good if you kill them in self defense.

In short: He does not lose his paladin status but if this is/was a PC then he should be "tasked" with protecting the village against some newfound menace as "pennance". If its an NPC then he should be tasked with guarding the village for the remainder of his life.

Agreed on all counts, although I wouldn't necessarily call the defense of the village atonement as much as just another one of the paladin's responsibilities.

 

[Falkus]

The paladin belongs to an order that believes all undead to be evil and destroys them, correct? Thus the paladin was justified in destroying Father Nayavovich since Fr. Nayavovich was a ghost and thus in the eyes of the paladin an abomination that should not exist.

Which is irrelevant. DnD morality is objective, not subjective. What the Paladin thinks has no bearing on wether or not an action he comits is good or evil.

 

[Quartz]

I don't see why there's a dilemma here. Part of the Paladin's mission is to destroy undead and he's presented with undead. So he destroys them. No loss of paladinhood, no atonement, no nothing. Remember that Good characters can come into conflict with each other: two knights on a battlefield is the obvious example.

As a player, I'd resent it greatly if the GM tried to force a moral issue out of it.

 

[Demmero]

Part of the Paladin's mission is to destroy undead and he's presented with undead. So he destroys them. No loss of paladinhood, no atonement, no nothing.

I guess I missed the part where the OP said that the two LN monks were also undead.

Destroying the ghost is somewhat understandable; slaughtering the monks is not.

 

[Ringan]

The problem lies with the determination of what an undead is, and who this "ghost" is. It's game mechanics infringing on roleplay.

I think that statement sums up how I feel as well. If you define "undead" as innately evil, the way a demon or devil might be, then dispatching these undead might be understandable. Since it is given that the monks and priests were undead and LN, I don't think the innately evil paradigm works though.

I think it is inconsistent for a church that a LG paladin serves to encourage this behavior - that is, ending the existence of non-evil creatures who were not hurting anyone. So maybe the problem is the church rather than the paladin?

 

[Shemeska]

Given that objective morality exists within D&D, the random slaughter of an innocent, even if it goes with some religious creed, is still an evil act though the extent of the evil will vary with intention, etc. Even if a deity wants you to go out and burn orphans alive and drink baby orc blood every other full moon, that doesn't make it a good act. A god's alignment has nothing to do with the actual good or evil nature of the actions done in their name, though if a 'good' god is asking for such things to be done in their name, you might have big problems.

Having considered the OP some more, this leaves two options as I see it:

1) the paladin is going to fall, or realize his crime and accept punishment by his deity for the rushed, terribly misjudged actions he took in the name of his faith.

2) His deity wasn't LG in the first place or is in the process of falling away from Good, or the orders to destroy all undead have been wretchedly and blindly perverted by that deity's mortal followers.

 

[Mechnomancer]

He now knows what his God wants of him

Enough said.

And if he did break the law (and is not respecting legitimate authority), he's broken the paladin code of conduct and should expect reprisals.

When the laws of your patron deityand those of anyone else conflict, you go with your deity no matter what.