The paladin needs help with some bloody situation

[Dragonblade]

I think the problem isn't so much a paladin's dilemma as it is bad role-playing.

First of all, people don't just turn bloodthirsty and start slitting the bellies of unconscious foes on a lark. They would likely have had a prior history of such behavior and the paladin never would have become friends with such people in the first place. The situation is impossible and ridiculous.

Essentially all the players made their characters and one player wanted to be a paladin so he made one and then the party was thrown together for no more reason than that they were all PC's. Realistically, the paladin would never travel with such "friends" in the first place.

This may not be the case for you but in situations where paladins don't fit in with the party this is usually the case. And unless your group is composed of really mature and experienced role-players this is BAD BAD BAD!

In my experience, most groups like to start out with all the PC's being friends or relatives. But when you have radically different play styles and alignments these contrived origin stories are pure BS and result in exactly the problem you are having.

Personally, you need to sit down with your players and have a serious discussion about what type of character everyone wants to play. And if some people want to run blood thirsty mercs and some want to be paladins, then you better stop right there and seriously consider running two different games. Such anti-thetical and diametrically opposed characters in the same group not only stretches campaign reality, it also results in player in-fighting, arguments, and a breakdown of the entire game.

 

[Sarellion]

I don´t like this kind of roleplaying either. One of the players in question is new, the other two seem to be more into hack and slash games. I never played with these people before and was quite unprepared, especially as the major part of the evening was really ok. I will take care of the player aspect but the main problem now is the aspect in the game world.

The player of the paladin has asked what would his god demand of him to do now? He will surely ask his god, the lawbooks or his superiors about the case. I am not sure about the answer.

On the one hand I think that this is bloody murder the elf committed and that the leader should be killed only after trial. The paladin himself was not of high enough station to judge, so the surviving marauders had to be brought back to the local authorities.
Appropriate law in this case is found in the codex of the god of war. Prisoners may not be killed in cold blood. Defenceless people may not be killed. Treat your enemy hionorable if he behaved honorable. Stay human even in inhuman times like war.
But this is church law of this churches only (and in another realm) and you could argue if it would be applicable on marauders. At least the killing of prisoners would not be tolerated.
If the char was a priest of the god of war the session would have ended in char death. The mutilation of the dead was only the tip of the iceberg. Would someone still stay with this bunch of brutal ppl?

On the other hand I think that the middle ages were a brutal times. The characters were sent out to deal with the problem and local authorities couldn´t care less. The marauders would be hanged in town and the archer only hasted something that would happen when they came back.

So what kind of punishment if any awaits the bloodthirsty characters?

 

[Horacio]

"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"
- this is the legal code of a very well known LG Diety

IMHO, that quote is from, let's say, the 1st edition book of that Deity, and in that "1st edition" He was LN, not LG. It was in the "2nd edition" of the Book that He changed to LG, when He sent His Avatar and preached things like "Forgive your foes".

I prefer the "2nd edition", of course. And so would prefer, IMHO, a good paladin... YMMV, of course

 

[Sammael99]

IMHO, that quote is from, let's say, the 1st edition book of that Deity, and in that "1st edition" He was LN, not LG. It was in the "2nd edition" of the Book that He changed to LG, when He sent His Avatar and preached things like "Forgive your foes".

I prefer the "2nd edition", of course. And so would prefer, IMHO, a good paladin... YMMV, of course

I don't know if I prefer either, considering how both 1st and 2nd edition have sprouted munchkinism, rules lawyers, etc. In fact, a lot of the designers of 2nd Ed. were sacked and their worked was never published although some of these are to be found under the Apocrypha Rules.

Now I would say that a paladin's behaviour is dependant on his deity and on the game world.

Deity : If the law of Talion (the above law quoted from 1st Ed.) is the deity's law, then fine. I don't think that's in line with the canon definition of LG in D&D, but I have no problem with that. I never understood why only good deities could have champions. On the other hand, if the deity advocates compassion, then cold blooded murder, whatever the causes, would be a no-no. Standing by cold-blooded murder would also be a no-no.

Game World : How is justice administered in your game world ? We as DMs often tend to paint our modern view of justice into our med-fan universes. Truth is, civil tribunals are a relatively recent notion. In France, until the revolution (1789), the local (noble) ruler administered justice any way that he saw fit. And, in most cases, it probably had very little to do with being "just". So if a paladin has no way of dragging the guilty party to the local noble (because he's pressed with time, for example), he has only a few options : tie and gag the guilty party and hope to pick them up on the way back, or take the matter into his own hands. At this stage I should remind you that the law of talion was not binary : if you had stolen, one or both hands were cut, for example. If you had raped, you were castrated, etc. So killing would not be the only option.

All that being said, as a DM of "heroic" campaigns, I dislike unnecessary cruelty preformed by the players, whatever their characters or alignment. Call me sissy , but I find that most often it comes more from the players being lazy than from them playing their characters. After all, it's a very different thing to kill someone unconscious in cold blood than to kill someone in combat. Usually, as a DM, I'll make sure it comes back to haunt the players (sometimes quite literally.) There are many ways of doing this : your character starts having a reputation of cold blooded bastard. People fear him, enemies try to kill him at the first opportunity (no talk, no mercy) and if they get him in a similar situation, they will kill him. Families of the people killed in cold blood hunt them down if they can or try to hinder in any way they can if they're not hard enough to take them on, etc. Let your players know that nothing is done without consequences, especially not killing in cold blood.

Now back to Mr. Paladin. Based on what you say of his deity, here's what I would have done : As soon as the combat was over, I would have announced loud and clear that the surviving brigands were to be brought back to justice if that was feasible, or tied and gagged for further justice if not possible. Arguments probably would have occured at this point. Then I would have convinced the guys that one does not take justice into ones own hands.

If despite that, the archer had killed the brigand chief, I would have told him that he was evil and guilty of cold-blooded murder. I would have attacked and hopefully subdued him, and brought him back to justice. Maybe the party would have opposed this, maybe not. If they had opposed this, either they would have killed me or not. If they had not, I would have immediately gotten back to the nearest town and gathered a party of paladins of my order to hunt down the murdered and his companions. Anything less than this I would have considered complacency on my part.

This is why I only allow paladins in select and appropriate parties when I GM...

 

[Khorod]

If the paladin is a Paladin, then his defining characteristics should involve his own best interpretation of ideal Lawful Good behavior. His power comes from a mingling of his faith and pure beliefs in the order and good forces of the universe, and of their in importance in all aspects of existence, even if in a small way.

If it is a LG warrior champion of some suitable god... re-define the paladin class to reflect this, or replace the class with another.

I am creating such another- it allows the player to select one of his god's domains, select an alignment, religion, or race for smiting and detection, and thus allows a broad range of 'holy championship'.

 

[reapersaurus]

I don't think the answer to your dilemma can be found IN-GAME.

This is an out-of-game problem, with the other 2 characters not understanding that in a party with a paladin, you don't just have your bloodthirsty PC kill things without consequences.

If they do not realize what having a paladin in a party entails, or if they are unwilling to put themselves at the furious end of the paladin, than there are problems with the group as is.

My take is that the paladin player should have been FURIOUS at a godless elf getting between he and his captive and the righteous punishment that awaited the evildoer.

He is GOD'S REPRESENTATIVE, and whoever gets in the way of his justice is actively working against his god's sovereignty over the Lands.

Woe be to them.

 

[Dragonblade]

Excellent reapersaurus!

This is not a problem that can be resolved In-Game. It is something that must be resolved out of game via discussion with all the players.

This is not an issue that a discussion on paladin behavior or morality can remedy since its clear that the entire party social dynamic was flawed from the very beginning due to incompatible player attitudes, character choices and gaming style.

You need to stop the game right now and exert some DM authority to rein people in and hash out what everyone wants to play and the way they plan on playing and then have everyone make new characters (if necessary) and start over. This time with a group that meshes well together.

Any further discussion on paladin morality is pointless as it is largely irrelevant to the problem you are having.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Great stuff Reapersaurus and Dragonblade!

It reminds me of one campaign I was in, where I was playing a Paladin, and the group was in this strange city in some haunted forest on some lost continent. (We got there by a wierd gate chasing down an evil knight and his group). Anyhow, we are in this city at night, walking down the streets, looking about and stuff. One of the other players--playing a mercenary--closes in on a group of two or three drunk barbarians--they were wearing furs and horned helmets!--and he approaches them deceptively, pretending to be friendly.

He whips out his weapons, and slaughters the drunk barbarians right there in the dark alleyway!

I was so pissed, my paladin confronted the other character, and he started arguing, and I drew my sword and started hammering him--his character was quick, but my character just kicked ass--he couldn't stand in a toe-to-toe fight with me, and I, as my character--said "Yeah, dishonorable knave! If you want money so bad, why don't you try and take it from me? Take it from someone who can fight back, you uncouth dog! C'mon, show me how much strength and skill you have--instead of murdering some foreign barbarians who have done you no wrong!--You won't escape me you bloody bastard..."

I had his character on the floor, and ready to finish him off there--as I was quite ready to be judge, jury, and executioner--but the DM intervened with one of his characters, who was able to save the bastard. Meanwhile, OUT OF CHARACTER--I just told him that as a player, when I am playing a Paladin, there are no free rides because he is a player character. If any character acts like that around a paladin character of mine, my character will kill him every time. A good paladin just can't let that kind of greedy nonsense go by, you know?

As for the character at hand, I must agree. It is a deeper issue of what kind of characters the group wants to play. In some groups, where there is a more rugged, mercenary attitude, with lots of rogues, ruthless fighters, greedy mages,--Paladins have a very difficult, if not impossible time at ever fitting in. The character types just don't tend to mix well. That doesn't mean that Paladins, as characters, can't be ruthless and serious war-mongers, but it depends on the deity and religion followed, and the larger campaign dynamics in place.

For example, in one campaign I'm in, there are some very ruthless, rugged paladins that have been known to proceed with fiery, terrible sieges, where hundreds of thousands of people die. They have been known to burn people at the stake, among other things. However, the context is all very different. Vicious, undisciplined rogues or dishonorable mercenaries would never be tolerated. The lying, the cheating, the greed, the cold-blooded murder--these things don't mix well with paladin characters. I've had some players who want to make up some real scheming, greedy rogues, and since I have several righteous paladins in the group, I just said to him--

"Dude, trust me. Don't do it. Make up a different kind of character. Do this one here, and I can guarantee you that your character won't last three sessions. The paladins in the group will no doubt burn you at the stake as soon as you kill someone, or steal the jeweled chalice from the church that everyone is praying at. The rest of the group will laugh as they help gather the firewood for the bonfire that you will be burned in, while the paladins get the fire ready. So, do what you want, but you've been warned."

I'd have a good talk with the players, and make sure they all make up characters that can gell well with each other.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[NoOneofConsequence]

"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"
- this is the legal code of a very well known LG Diety and basically says that if a person has murdered and raped and plundered then that is exactly what they should recieve in return.
Ergo the Cousin et al were metting out Justice!

Not to get all "biblical on your @$$" but this is in fact not what the biblical reference means at all. What it means is that if you lost an eye then you can't take more than an eye in retribution, if you lost a tooth, then all you can take is a tooth. It's a principle of limitation, not an endorsement of revenge as a system of justice.

IMHO (and IMC) Paladins of Lawful Gods are ordained as Judges with the right to pass immediate sentence on Evil - and to thus seek Just Retribution for those who have suffered that Evil

Fair enough, but how do you stop the "He detected as evil, so I slew him." mentality IYC? And how do you stop rogue paladins? Or fighters who just claim to be paladins? In essence, if paladins are judge and executioners, who judges the judges?

The nonsense is the idea the criminals should be taken back to town to face trial by jury. They don't, they have been tried already and the PCs sent to seek Justice (not merely to arrest them)

By and large, historically, societies like to have criminals "brought to justice" so that they can "show justice being done", even when the final punishment ends up being much more brutal than just hunting them down and killing them.

 

[Undead Pete]

I would have the Paladin make a major atonement....

As for the other bloodthirsty savages in the party, send those marauders after them as undead Revenants.

Treat them as they treated their victims.