Tyler Do'Urden
Soap Maker
Yesterday I started a new campaign, and a friend of mine decided to make a Drallok Paladin. (Dralloks, for those of you not in the know, are a humanoid race from the underdark introduced in the AEG sourcebook "Mercenaries". They're generally N-LN in alignment, and are, from what I gathered, to humans what Drow are to surface elves- "Dark Men", essentially) I knew from the start that this was a bad idea- we weren't anywhere near the underdark, and a first level Drallok would be a complete "fish out of water" in this campaign. He decided to play it anyway.
At first, the game went decently- he was scared and paranoid, and used his detect evil power constantly... which served him well, until the party encountered a small band of gypsies that invited the party to supper.
He immediately detected evil on them, and detected that they were "faintly, mildly evil". Between the paranoia of his character, and the fact that the player himself is used to sadistic turns of events (the party had already been chased by a werewolf, attacked by an aligator and some snakes, and seen the spirits of an ancient army wander through the swamp they were exploring- they were on guard for anything) in my campaign, he decided to hide in shadows, sneak into the camp- and then lept out and murdered all the gypsies (Even a 1st level paladin can make short work of unarmed elders and children). I told him, after the smoke had cleared, that he had a sinking feeling that his god had abandoned him. I ruled an immediate change of alignment (Lawful Neutral) and loss of paladin status. The player moped for a little while, and then left.
Murdering elderly wanderers and children who detected as mildly evil (they were from a cursed bloodline, and made do as wandering con artists) strikes me as a blatantly evil action. A Paladin is not judge, jury, and executioner, and he had seen no visible threat from the gypsies. They merely invited the party to eat with them and spend the night. A better option, I told him, was if he was wary, just to leave them be. As far as I see it, a Paladin's job is to be a defender, not an offender. You want to charge into battle against a demon, devil, evil dragon, lich, vampire- fine. These creatures are corrupted beyond redemption. On the other hand, some defenseless humans who have not committed any crime that you know of are not deserving of death. A Paladin can't just walk into a bar, use his detect evil, and slaughter anyone who detects faintly of corruption. There's no justification, and in many cases this is an improper punishment for any crimes that they have committed. This is more the behavior of a Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil "Enforcer of Goodness" than a Paladin.
The player disagreed. He believed that since they were evil, they were naturally a threat to the party, and had to be eliminated. I thought that there were many more "paladinly" actions he could have taken, such as addressing them directly... or suggesting that the party continue on their way and avoid the gypsies. He said that evil must be eliminated, and because he was not human and had never been on the surface world before, he didn't know that slaying the gypsies was out of line. I said that ignorance of the law is not proper justification for such an action, and that he should have found a better guide to surface-conduct than our Chaotic Neutral Dwarven Berserker (our Neutral Good Half-Elven Cleric of Cuvanill, who managed to rescue one of the gypsies from the ravages of the Paladin and cast out the character after the incident, would have been a better choice).
In a previous campaign, we also had a paladin lose his status in a similar incident, although his was more justifiable, and more of a chaotic action than an evil one (one for which he was assigned a quest to regain his powers). This earlier Paladin had witnessed another PC burn down a barge that the characters were guarding, and had then witnessed the PC murder the bargemen with flame arrows when they tried to beat him and tie him up. Another PC restrained the errant sorcerer, and our Paladin decided to pass judgement immediately, having witnessed the sorcerers action. He beheaded the restrained, helpless sorcerer. As the killing, in this case, was readily justifiable (he had witnessed the sorcerer using undue force to slay a few commoners angry that their livelyhood had just been taken from them), it was not what I would call an evil action, but he had certainly overstepped his bounds- he announced, before performing the execution, that it was "The will of his god"- whereas I had explained to him earlier that the murder of a commoner, under the code of law of the kingdom (written by a patriarch of the paladin's own church, no less), was only punishable by ten years of imprisonment in a labor camp per person killed. Only murder or rape of an aristocrat (noble, knight, clergy, or guildmage) warranted the "death penalty".
So- was I warranted in stripping the paladin of his powers (all three of the other players agreed with me)... or was his action justified? Or should it have been considered a chaotic action rather than an evil action- punishable by temporary loss of powers, but not permanent?
At first, the game went decently- he was scared and paranoid, and used his detect evil power constantly... which served him well, until the party encountered a small band of gypsies that invited the party to supper.
He immediately detected evil on them, and detected that they were "faintly, mildly evil". Between the paranoia of his character, and the fact that the player himself is used to sadistic turns of events (the party had already been chased by a werewolf, attacked by an aligator and some snakes, and seen the spirits of an ancient army wander through the swamp they were exploring- they were on guard for anything) in my campaign, he decided to hide in shadows, sneak into the camp- and then lept out and murdered all the gypsies (Even a 1st level paladin can make short work of unarmed elders and children). I told him, after the smoke had cleared, that he had a sinking feeling that his god had abandoned him. I ruled an immediate change of alignment (Lawful Neutral) and loss of paladin status. The player moped for a little while, and then left.
Murdering elderly wanderers and children who detected as mildly evil (they were from a cursed bloodline, and made do as wandering con artists) strikes me as a blatantly evil action. A Paladin is not judge, jury, and executioner, and he had seen no visible threat from the gypsies. They merely invited the party to eat with them and spend the night. A better option, I told him, was if he was wary, just to leave them be. As far as I see it, a Paladin's job is to be a defender, not an offender. You want to charge into battle against a demon, devil, evil dragon, lich, vampire- fine. These creatures are corrupted beyond redemption. On the other hand, some defenseless humans who have not committed any crime that you know of are not deserving of death. A Paladin can't just walk into a bar, use his detect evil, and slaughter anyone who detects faintly of corruption. There's no justification, and in many cases this is an improper punishment for any crimes that they have committed. This is more the behavior of a Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil "Enforcer of Goodness" than a Paladin.
The player disagreed. He believed that since they were evil, they were naturally a threat to the party, and had to be eliminated. I thought that there were many more "paladinly" actions he could have taken, such as addressing them directly... or suggesting that the party continue on their way and avoid the gypsies. He said that evil must be eliminated, and because he was not human and had never been on the surface world before, he didn't know that slaying the gypsies was out of line. I said that ignorance of the law is not proper justification for such an action, and that he should have found a better guide to surface-conduct than our Chaotic Neutral Dwarven Berserker (our Neutral Good Half-Elven Cleric of Cuvanill, who managed to rescue one of the gypsies from the ravages of the Paladin and cast out the character after the incident, would have been a better choice).
In a previous campaign, we also had a paladin lose his status in a similar incident, although his was more justifiable, and more of a chaotic action than an evil one (one for which he was assigned a quest to regain his powers). This earlier Paladin had witnessed another PC burn down a barge that the characters were guarding, and had then witnessed the PC murder the bargemen with flame arrows when they tried to beat him and tie him up. Another PC restrained the errant sorcerer, and our Paladin decided to pass judgement immediately, having witnessed the sorcerers action. He beheaded the restrained, helpless sorcerer. As the killing, in this case, was readily justifiable (he had witnessed the sorcerer using undue force to slay a few commoners angry that their livelyhood had just been taken from them), it was not what I would call an evil action, but he had certainly overstepped his bounds- he announced, before performing the execution, that it was "The will of his god"- whereas I had explained to him earlier that the murder of a commoner, under the code of law of the kingdom (written by a patriarch of the paladin's own church, no less), was only punishable by ten years of imprisonment in a labor camp per person killed. Only murder or rape of an aristocrat (noble, knight, clergy, or guildmage) warranted the "death penalty".
So- was I warranted in stripping the paladin of his powers (all three of the other players agreed with me)... or was his action justified? Or should it have been considered a chaotic action rather than an evil action- punishable by temporary loss of powers, but not permanent?
