When Paladins Go Terribly Wrong

[Valmur_Dwur]

Yep I agree with kengar as far as what the "Detect" spells will do. Otherwise you have that same thing happen all the time since roughly 1/3 of the general populance would show as evil PLUS the real bad guys SO you have the problem of kill it if its evil reinforced by having Evil creatures go up against the pcs. On top of that you described the gypies as "about as evil as a goblin warrior". In my mind that sets off the association of kill goblins=kill anything that is like a goblin. Your intent was right in that you wanted to inject a sense of "keep your eyes open" which any party should do unless surrounded by those known to be friends, it just lead to some bad RP on the Paladin's part. If this was his first time I would have had it be a dream that the Paladin had from eating something that didn't agree with him And at the end of the dream before he awoke had a vision of his god telling him that tho' alot of people may be evil they aren't there to do you harm and so should be watched but don't act until Evil reveals itself for what it is.

my 2 bits and a lintball

 

[Squire James]

Remorseless killers aren't deserving of Paladin status. He didn't seem terribly remorseful, IMO.

That being said, as a new player I think he deserved a warning that your "detect evil" wasn't "detect Evil", and that the aura could result from some long-term magical effect that happened to be cast by an Evil guy (even if this isn't the case here). It should also be clear that converting evil to good is always better than killing evil guys, since the latter scores a soul for Evil. Allow him to "take back" his action. Once.

In most "starter campaigns", I tend to keep the game pretty black-and-white if one or more Paladins are being played. I think players won't appreciate the moral dilemmas until they are more experienced players. Even then, I'd hang a CR on the dilemma like I would a trap, because that is essentially what it is!

 

[Tonguez]

For future reference, you may want to conisder a house rule I employ regarding Detect Evil (as well as Detect Good/Chaos/Law): It does not detect the alignment of a "normal" sentient creature. In other words, the evil cleric of an evil deity registers as well as things like undead and demons, but a NE Rogue doesn't (Paladins register on a Detect Good, of course). This also applies to things like Orcs,

This in NOT a house rule - this is a good interpretation of the spell.

If you read the Spell you will see that it does not in fact mention Alignment at all. The Spell detects Creatures, Outsiders, Elementals, Undead and Spells with an EVIL descriptor as well as Clerics of Evil Gods ie a Neutral-aligned Cleric of an Evil God will detect as evil but a CE scorcerer wont

So congrats kengar for applying the spell correctly

as to the above yes strip him of Paladinhood and set the local law enforcement on him too!
That said however in past games of my own I have allowed Paladin-Inquisitors essentially Paladins empowwered to act as 'Judge and Excutioner' when it came to Demons and Satanic Cultist - but that was a very 'grim & gritty' campaign in which the PCs were fighting the forces of Corruption who had risen to power amongst the nobility...

 

[Gargoyle]

I think if you are in doubt, as it seems that you are since you're posting for advice, you should give him a second chance. I prefer to err on the side of the players when making such calls.

The #1 problem with paladins is that players and DM's don't see eye-to-eye on what is considered an evil act before the campaign begins. Would he have committed the massacre (and I agree that IMO it was an evil act and that he shouldn't use the detect evil ability as a "radar detector") if he knew you were going to consider it an evil act and permanently strip him of his class abilities? It doesn't sound like it.

I don't think you should have to warn paladin players every time they are about to do something wrong either, but I do think you should cut him some slack early in the campaign and allow him to seek atonement to regain his powers. A bloodthirsty crusading type of paladin might not consider what he did to be evil, but even then, it seems rather chaotic and should result in a temporary loss of powers. I think the alignment shift was appropriate as well, and of course that will have to shift back before he regains his abilities in any case.

It seems to me that the player really doesn't understand that a paladin exists to protect innocents, not merely hunt down and kill everything evil. It doesn't sound like he's simply shirking the Code and powergaming. Good intentions should count for something. OTOH, if you feel the character was simply way out of line, and that the player doesn't deserve a second chance, that's your call. Being too leniant on paladins makes the class irrelevant and just another type of fighter. A paladin who repeatedly violates his code without repercussions is more annoying than a DM who is too strict.

All IMO of course. (Edit: had to change that last sentence around, I didn't make any sense.)

 

[Jolly Giant]

His argument that slaying evil must be good is at least bordering on making a smithereen of sense, but nobody could possibly deny that this is about as far from the lawfull aspect of paladin-hood you could get!

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Really, this only solves the problem by making the world more black and white. If you adopt this solution then Detect Evil really does become a license to kill. Now some people like that play style--I myself prefer a world where a character can know that a third of the town is mildly evil and that often he has to work with people whose morals are more than questionable. If he wants to find the bad guy, Detect Evil is still a useful tool but a ping on the Evil'o'Meter doesn't mean kill--heck it doesn't even mean that it's the guy the paladin is looking for.

For future reference, you may want to conisder a house rule I employ regarding Detect Evil (as well as Detect Good/Chaos/Law): It does not detect the alignment of a "normal" sentient creature. In other words, the evil cleric of an evil deity registers as well as things like undead and demons, but a NE Rogue doesn't (Paladins register on a Detect Good, of course). This also applies to things like Orcs, etc.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Yes it is a House Rule. It detects evil "creatures." Humans are creatures. Therefore it detects evil humans.

Evil Human commoner 1: Evil power [HD/5]=.2
Radiates Faint Evil.

Evil Human Wiz 5: Evil power [HD/5]=1
Radiates Faint Evil.

Evil Human Clr 4: Evil power [HD]=4
Radiates Moderate Evil

Disguised Erynies devil: Evil power [HD]<4
Radiates Moderate Evil

Evil Human Wiz 20 (Necromancer king of Evildom: Evil power [HD/5]=4
Radiates Moderate Evil

LN Human Clr 5 (Hextor): Evil power [HD]=5
Radiates strong evil.

Obviously, this is not the spell to use if you want to know who you can smite. It gives information--good and useful information--but using it as the Smite Detector is asking for trouble: both from the paladin's god, from the law, and from that moderately evil 20th level fighter in the corner of the bar.

If you want black and white Smite O Rama, house-rule it.

This in NOT a house rule - this is a good interpretation of the spell.

If you read the Spell you will see that it does not in fact mention Alignment at all. The Spell detects Creatures, Outsiders, Elementals, Undead and Spells with an EVIL descriptor as well as Clerics of Evil Gods ie a Neutral-aligned Cleric of an Evil God will detect as evil but a CE scorcerer wont

So congrats kengar for applying the spell correctly

 

[Vocenoctum]

I think you should have discussed the paladin with him and what the Code and Evil were in your game.

There are plenty of paladin's whose job it is to hunt down evil. He overreacted in this situation, but it doesn't mean he's wrong. Evil is a conscious choice IMO, as is good. I also don't think the alignments are equally represented so that 1/3rd the population is evil. I figure 90% of people are true neutral.

As for the earlier paladin that decided to exact the death penalty, it's also something of a gray area since a paladin's role is not always tied to a secular government.

I think either case comes down to the DM and the Player having different perceptions of a situation.

When I was making my paladin, the DM actually said "I don't consider the detecting of evil to mean you can go around smiting whoever you want."
I told him I don't play that way, and we understood each other. Everything has worked out fine with my paladin.

 

[bloodymage]

Let 'im walk!

Seems to me that everyone is looking at this with tunnel vision. Sure we all agree that what the paladin did was wrong. No matter how you interpret the spell, it's agreed that Det Evil is not a viable early warning system for a first strike by a holy warrior. Now some of you are encouraging or chastising the DM to coax the player back, give Pally another chance, DM you shoulda done this or made clear or...

Bullpucky! This guy walks into the game, insists on playing a "drow" human paladin and walks out in a huff when his precious dark champion of all that's lawful and good mercilessly murders a defenseless extended family of commoners because he "senses" they're less than upright in morals? Puleeze! Let the bozo walk. I wouldn't want him in my game!

DM, you did good IMNSHO.

 

[reapersaurus]

My take is that the guy has no concept of what Lawful Good is about.

Let me guess - he likes the Paladin class because of the leet skills, a la Diablo.