The paladin. A story and a question.

[Heathen72]

Who's to say the place isn't covered with Undetectable Alignment?

So when detect evil suits his purposes, it's kill, kill, kill, but when it doesn't it must be undetectable alignment, so kill, kill, kill?

No, it's not good enough. If a discrepancy arises, a paladin should take a little more care.

2) Rejuvenation means that the ghost is coming back; all ghosts have it. Hard to say the ghost was "killed" when he'll be back in a week.

Except that the Paladin used some special means to dispose of the ghost, and the OP implies the Ghost is killed. I'm willing to accept that the ghost is dead. And I don't think it is unreasonable for monks in the situation to have acted as they did, even with the possiblity of the ghost's rejuvenation. You would move to defend a friend who is punched in the face wouldn't you?

In any case, as the instigator of all this, the paladin should be justifying his actions - not the monks, and any paladin should understand that people can get emotional when a friend is killed (or as they would see it, murdered). That is what subdual damage is all about. It's a paladin's best friend.

 

[Falkus]

1) the paladin neither killed nor murdered the ghost. The ghost had no life to deprive, and thus was not killed, and murder is a legal term for killing.

Well, if you're going to use the legal term, then a Paladin is free to slaughter Dwarves, Elves, Half-Elves, etc. all day long, since our definition of murder is: unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being.

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.

4) When attacked, it is not evil to protect yourself. If there was an evil deed here, it is destroying the ghost, and not protecting himself from hostile monks.

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?

 

[Demmero]

Would I make him lose his powers? No, not unless he went room by room, killing all who dwelled at the monastery without mercy. If he did, however, then he pulled an Anakin Skywalker (tuskan raider slaughter) and fell from grace right there.

Pulling back their sleeves would be the last thing these monks would ever do...The paladin believed this temple to be a sanctuary of the profane. It's halls would be unhallow no more.

This doesn't sound Anakin-ish to you?

 

[Torm]

As I, Torm the True, God of Paladins, see it, there are really TWO questions presented here:

(and yes, I know I'm going to ignore the RAW - ?&!@ the RAW, they only exist to facilitate the story and good gameplay, and with Paladins, I sometimes don't think they do the best job....)

1. Is what the Paladin did Lawful Good? Should it result in an alignment shift for the character?

2. How does the Paladin's DEITY (as actively roleplayed by the DM in the DM's mind) feel about what the Paladin did? Does HE think it merits power-stripping? A quest of atonement? Getting together for a celebrational BBQ?

Different deities are different characters with different views, and the RAW for Paladins has never dealt with that very well.

 

[FireLance]

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.

No, D&D morality is subjective. It's whatever the DM says it is.

If the DM has a Lawful Good deity that requires his followers to destroy all undead because undead are evil, then he had better make sure that undead are always evil.

If he does not, then his world is less black and white, and more shades of grey. Paladins can exist in a shades of grey world, but holding them to a black and white standard of morality in such a world would make them very difficult to play (of course, if the DM wants to discourage paladin PCs, that might actually be intentional ).

Scenarios in which a paladin must choose between following the precepts of his faith and doing the right thing (and there is no third way that will allow him to do both) need to be handled carefully, as they hold great potential for turning a game sour.

 

[TomWhitbrook]

I would agree with the other posters who indicated that destroying the ghost was not a bad thing. Lets for instance take the example of Kelemvor, the LN Forgotten Realms god of Death. His paladins are required to destroy those that use unnatural means to prolong their lifespans, and to help bring rest to those who have unnatural lifespans forced upon them. To a paladin of such a god, destroying a ghost is not a crime, but an act of mercy- it frees the soul from its forced bondage to speed it on its way to its proper place in the afterlife. After all, a ghost is a tortured being, stuck forever in a meaningless half life. Regardless of its alignment, a ghost is a spirit that cannot rest easy. Whatever the ghost does or whether lawful good or chaotic evil, putting a ghost to rest is a good thing. You have to question the morality of those who would keep a ghost around in such a state, rather than the paladin. I can't be sure exactly how your god who hates undead thinks, but it seems that in that situation he would be unlikely to strip him of his powers.

 

[Belbarid]

?!?!?!?!?!?!, right back at ya.

There's nothing wrong with a Paladin, or any other LG character, fighting LN foes who attack first. Would trying to reason with the attackers be nice? Sure. Would that have even been possible? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe the Paladin should have said "Stop!" while whacking them with his sword. But the Paladin didn't start the melee, and it's unreasonable to claim that Paladins can't fight back against LN foes while being attacked. Because if so, then the bane of a Paladin's existence aren't demons, devils, or undead, but rather LN foes who can beat on a Paladin all day long without fear of reprisal. :\

No question- but that doesn't relieve the Paladin of the burden of *trying*. Remember- he's not merely LG. He has shouldered the burden of being the physical embodiment of everything that is Lawful and Good.

Should a Paladin defend himself? No question- yes. Even against non-Evil beings attacking him? Yes.

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.

In this situation, had the Paladin not attacked the monks, opting to try to explain first, and if that failed, tried using non-lethal force, and then realized that none of that was working, then go for the throat. He tried, and made an honest effort with it, even at serious risk to himself. But, if that was the case, the scenario didn't portray it.

 

[Belbarid]

Except you're forgetting one tiny little thing here. The paladin attacked first, by killing the ghost.

Did he?

The ghost is undead, so keep in mind that the Paladin did not take anyone's life when ending that ghost's existance. I know, as players, we tend to look at it that way, but the undead aren't 'killed' per se.

Am I splitting hairs? What if the Paladin didn't (as we all assume) go, "ACK! Evil Undead(tm)" upon sensing the ghost? What if, to the Paladin, the ghost was nothing more than a spirit that needed to move on. Regardless of reasons to stay, regardless of any desire or lack thereof on the ghost's part, the spirit must move on to the next world, and it's the Paladin's duty to do so.

In this case, at least to the Paladin, this act isn't one of violence and destruction, but merely enforcing the natural order of life and death. The body dies, and the spirit moves on.

 

[Falkus]

Am I splitting hairs? What if the Paladin didn't (as we all assume) go, "ACK! Evil Undead(tm)" upon sensing the ghost? What if, to the Paladin, the ghost was nothing more than a spirit that needed to move on

And if it didn't want to move on? I believe forcing your religion and beliefs onto others is another big paladin no-no.

 

[Belbarid]

And if it didn't want to move on? I believe forcing your religion and beliefs onto others is another big paladin no-no.

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.