The paladin. A story and a question.

[FireLance]

But should a Paladin use lethal force against non-Evil sentient beings without first a serious, honest attempt to end the situation without killing? No. Absolutely not. Does that put Paladins at a major disadvantage? Sure does. It isn't easy being a Paladin. There's no excuse for failure to live up to their standards, and their death is, to them, a preferable end to moral failure.

It seems to me that there is an unspoken assumption that being a paladin should be difficult, and I wonder why this should be the case. I've started a thread to discuss it here.

 

[Falkus]

Actually, I always saw it as one of the major definitions of a Paladin. Sure- most of those beliefs are what we would call "good" ones, and therefore as players we tend to overlook the fact that those beliefs are being forced on others. Orcs shouldn't burn small villages, and therefore we are okay with a Paladin forcing that belief on a tribe of orcs. With the sword, if necessary. But make no mistake- a Paladin is there to enforce his beliefs on others.

I think I can make a fairly strong case on the differences between self defense and attacking a being that's not causing anybody any harm.

 

[Thurbane]

Part of the problem with Paladins is that people tend to have two polar extremes of what the Paladin's code requires them to be:

1.) The Punisher - kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out! Fire, brimstone and all that good stuff...

2.) Ghandi - wouldn't lift a hand against any non-evil creature, even if it was a cave bear gnawing on his leg...

 

[Felix]

The definition of murder has be redefined in a world consisting not only of non-human races, but also of people who can come back from the dead.

Well then, by all means... please do.

If you relent to "Depriving a sentient being of life" as being an acceptable definiton, then the ghost still was not murdered: he had no life to deprive him of; someone who was killed and then later brought back to life was deprived of life, if only for a short while, and so was still murdered.

Sorry, I don't buy that. If a Paladin were to cut down a man in broad daylight in a town with no provocation or justification, and several policeman attacked him as a result, it wouldn't be an evil act to slaughter the policemen?

It would be evil to kill the innocent, yes. I don't regard the ghost's condition as equal to a living man's, however, so I do not concede that point. But assuming the Evilness of the act, the paladin loses his powers the second he strikes the innocnet.

Were the authorities to come and attempt to arrest him, and he were to lash out and kill the police, yes, that too would be evil. And if the paladin rendered the police helpless and then killed them, that also would be evil. But if the police were killed without the malicious intent of killing, while he would be guilty of murder, the act itself wouldn't be evil.

There's room to argue that it is not possible to kill without a malicious intent, but that's a different thread, and if you assume that it is possible, then it is also possible for an evil person to kill someone without having it be an [Evil] act. Unlikely, but possible.

----

Regardless, until SS reveals the Truth of his campaign regarding the [Evil]ness of the existance of undead, this kind of semantical manaeuvering is fairly meaningless.

 

[haakon1]

If this guy's an NPC in my campaign, I'd probably let him keep his paladin status, because it would be a lot cooler. The evil guy who massacred the peaceful monastery and let the town be destroyed is actually a paladin. Cool.

Roger that.

And if it was a PC, I wouldn't hold it against them -- I don't see evil in slaying undead, and I don't see evil in self-defense. Stripping a PC of their paladinhood for the player missing the point in a set up like this would be unfair DMing, IMHO. The player's punishment (messing with the character concept) doesn't fit their crime (didn't know ghosts aren't always evil/didn't cheat by reading the MM/hastened played enough other characters to have stumbled across that info), unless it's a setup for a cool plot point (e.g., the paladin becomes a ronin and must redeem himself), and the player is a willing participant in the change in their character.

 

[Voadam]

For the original poster.

Since this NPC killed monks of your order and a spiritual guide then it makes perfect story sense to go after him or have a hate on for him.

As a paladin he would lose his paladin status if he 1) did an evil act, or 2) grossly violated his code of conduct. Even so there is the possibility of atonement between the time of the act and the time you catch up to him.

I don't think what he did was evil or a gross violation of his code. I would expect him to have divine grace bonuses to his saves to resist your stunning fist if you go after him.

However, the ghost is probably not destroyed, possibly only imprisoned in the paladin's crystal. So recovering the Ben Kenobi spirit might be another reason you should go after this paladin.

 

[Kristivas]

This doesn't sound Anakin-ish to you?

I think it would depend on how he went about clensing the rest of the monastery.

Monks sleeping in their beds, priestesses on their knees begging for mercy.. and he killed them anyway? Yeah, that'd be evil.

If they were given a chance to surrender, flee, or other such concessions then I hold firm that he wasn't wrong in destroying the ghost or killing those that attacked him first.

I honestly don't think, from what I know of the story, that there was any wrongdoing from the paladin, or the monks. He acted in according to his religion, and they fought in the defense of their home/friend. Both parties probably saw the others as evil. The monks viewing the paladin as a murder, and the paladin viewing the monks as allies of the profane undead. It's a shame when such forces are brought against each other, but in the end it's usually tragedy with no clear person to blame.

 

[Falkus]

If you relent to "Depriving a sentient being of life" as being an acceptable definiton, then the ghost still was not murdered: he had no life to deprive him of; someone who was killed and then later brought back to life was deprived of life, if only for a short while, and so was still murdered.

If I destroyed a sapient construct, have I murdered it? It doesn't have any life either.

 

[Torm]

If I destroyed a sapient construct, have I murdered it? It doesn't have any life either.

How's this definition?:

Murder in a such a setting = Removing a sentient's ability to willfully interact with the standard plane in such a way that it is beyond that sentient's power to begin doing so again without extraplanar assistance.

Had this been a Paladin I was playing, I think he or she would have either sought to get a True Resurrection done for the spirit, or left the thing alone, depending on their particular deity requirements.

 

[Falkus]

Quick nitpick. You mean sapient, not sentient. Sentient just the ability to perceive your environment. Sapient is the ability to reason and judge, and is what seperates us from the delicious animals that we eat.