When Paladins Go Terribly Wrong

[DerianCypher]

Depending on how paladins are in your world you might want to point out the fact that killing is generally a last resort. Converting or disabling are much preferable, and the average paladin would be remorsefull when they are forced to kill.

DC

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Re: Let 'im walk!

Rethinking this, I think that there is the possibility of an error on the player's part (although it seems to be slim given his reactions). The only "immediate EVIL intent" or "True Maniacially Laughing Baby Killing EVIL" show up on detect evil house rules actually would give a holy warrior a viable first strike justifying early warning system. Since the spell used to work that way (in 2E) and still does in a plurality of house-ruled campaigns, I suppose it's possible that this is a misunderstanding compounded by poor social skills. (If he'd said that he thought that's how Detect Evil worked, and that's why he acted as he did, the much of the ugliness of the situation might have been averted. . . but he didn't do that so there's obviously more than simple misunderstanding at work).

That said, I should probably come out in full support of the previous paladin who offed the psycho killer wizard. Just because the law of the land is dictates a certain penalty doesn't mean that a paladin is necessarily limited to it. (There's no penalty for the Boneheart killing anyone of lower rank in Iuz's empire but that doesn't mean a paladin would say "Well, Mr. Evil cleric, now that you've surrendered I have to treat you according to the law and, while sacrificing babies to gods other than Iuz is specifically forbidden, there is no statute against murdering people for Iuz so I guess I'll have to let you walk." Heck no. A paladin would probably say something like "Your reign of terror is at an end" and promptly make sure of it with a swing of his Holy Avenger).

I would imagine that a paladin who said "the lives of these commoners are worth just as much as the lives of a noble--no matter what the law says--and taking them deserves the same punishment as taking the life of a noble" could still be lawful good. Even if he dishes out the death penalty.

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...

 

[jgbrowning]

ah, the Paladin... the core class with amazingly poorly explained requirements which are utterly open to DM interpreation and house rules concerning alignment.

your post is the single reason why i'm not fond of paladins. some biggo serious lack of portablity due to a lack of explination from the creators. And its really not the paladin's fault. its the alignment requirement part of the paladin.

I think we, as ENworld, should swamp the "Sage" (tm) with hundreds and thousands of examples in order to get something remotely resembling a useful non-interpretive definition of what a paladin can and cannot do. maybe things would be clearer?.... naw...

joe b.

 

[Turjan]

All rules aside, and even under the obviously right assumption that D&D is a game with b&w morals, where do players like that leave their common sense when they sit down at the gaming table? Paladin or not, everybody would ask himself what his buddies would say if he started to slay a bunch of people who just invited you for tea.

That's all what I have to say to this story.

 

[LostSoul]

If they were orc hucksters and con-men, would he have still lost his Paladinhood?

 

[Plane Sailing]

Tyler, I'll go out on a limb here and blame you

I think that with characters like Paladins it is sometimes necessary for DM's to act as a bit of the players conscience. When he outlined his plan, you would have said something along the lines of "this would go against the vows you made when you accepted the post at the temple and devoted your life to xxx", or in some way warned the player that the action he was planning to take was out of character with all that the character had grown up believing and holding to be true - because at the moment the player probably doesn't have a good grip on these things (as evidenced in the story!).

After all, one of the aims is surely to have a paladin behaving in a paladinly fashion... after you've given a "voice of conscience" guidance he might still decide to overrule his conscience and take the action... you are not railroading him, you are providing him with that touch of divine guidance which he needs.

I don't see the fun in allowing someone to play a paladin and then smacking them when they do something wrong. Normally if a good person does something wrong he doesn't then "change alignment" and become more naughty, he has remorse that he has fallen from his ideals. Some people would slip further and further into irredeemable evil, but not most of them.

After all, what could be more fun than an angsty paladin?
[ rhetorical question ]

Cheers

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

I think your player did not understand what a paladin was supposed to be.
Did you, the DM, explain it to him?

Since the concept of good seems to vary as much as people do, perhaps you and your players should sit down and think out just what Good is supposed to be about.
Then, sit down again, and debate out what paladins are supposed to be about.

Only then can your players look at the paladin for what he or she is, and decide whether or not playing a paladin would be fun!

- - -

Now, of course, under most conceptions Good does not involve outright murder of defenseless people, and I believe that this case was an act of Evil.
This is the kind of thing, though, where your player should KNOW FOR CERTAIN THAT THIS IS EVIL.
Every paladin is taught his values, principals, and the weight of his actions in training. Your player's paladin should have had this training too.

Being a paladin is special. It is not something an ordinary person can accomplish. It is not something even highly principalled people can accomplish. It requires special dedication, and a special mindset, to be a paladin.
When a paladin commits a truly evil act (as defined in your campaign), this does not just change his alignment, but it sends a shock through the very magic and life essence of the world. Or, if it does not, it should!
It should be a great tragedy when a paladin falls deliberately into darkness. Think MacBeth. Think Picture of Dorian Gray. Think of every tragedy and horror tragedy you've ever read or watched.

After the alignment change, continued acts of evil cause further shocks.
If the acts of evil are great enough, and cause sufficient harm, and if the paladin is unrepentent enough, he becomes - not a Blackguard as might be thought - but a Death Knight!
And then there is real tragedy and death, for the character and all around him or her.

The very force of Good that the paladin epitomizes, the brillance of his or her Light, makes it possible for Death Knights to be (in my campaign, at least.)
A Fall, from such fundamental Goodness, causes irreversible rupture and harm (to the Magic of the world, to Life, to Destiny) and this harm rebounds upon the character, producing the horrific undead that is known as the Death Knight ... who in turn causes further rupturing of What Is.

But you must define what Good is, before your player's character can play that Good alignment (much less play a paladin.)
How will he or she know what is Good and Evil in your world, unless you tell him?
Do not assume he or she thinks like you do, on the subject of Good and Evil!

 

[Buttercup]

Plane, I agree that an angst-ridden paladin would be entertaining, but that requires the cooperation of the player. It doesn't sound like Tyler had that. Let's look at the facts:

1. He insisted on playing a human pseudo-drow race, even though the DM counselled against it.
2. He slaughtered a group of commoners who had just invited the party to share a meal, even though at least one of his party members was against it.
3. When told the consequences of his actions, he didn't try to find a way to make amends, in-character. That might have actually led to an interesting story. But instead, he took his bat & ball and went home.

FWIW, the only way I would let that player back into my game is if I had a really long talk with him first about what his motivations & intentions were. And I wouldn't let him play a paladin until he was way more experienced, if ever.

 

[Tsyr]

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?

In the first example, yes. In the latter case... no. No way in heck. A law that aids in corruption and evil doesn't bind a paladin. The law in question was corrupt, therefor the paladin was not bound by it. Regardless of if the church itself made it (What, you think churches can't be corrupt?).

Here is how I look at paladins: What Would (Their god) Say?

A Paladin doesn't draw powers from his church, despite the fact that many serve one.

A Paladin doesn't draw powers from the lawyers of a kingdom.

A Paladin doesn't draw powers from anything in the mortal realm.

A Paladin draws his powers from his god directly. A Paladin is the embodiement of all that is good, noble, and honorable about their god, not the church or state. A paladin is their god's hand upon the face of the world. The lawful part of a paladin alignment is between him and his god, not the law of the land. A Paladins vows are sworn to his god more than they do to anything else. No mortal power is greater than that, be it king or archbishop. Few clerics have as close a bond with their god as a Paladin does.

No church or king can withdraw powers from the Paladin. Only the paladin's god can do that. Thus, a paladin can fly in the face of the dictates of his church, as long as the paladin's god is behind him.

By extension, I can't see any god that would have paladins would be for the seperation of justice depending on your social status. And I can't see many paladins being cool with the idea either.

 

[Tyler Do'Urden]

If they were orc hucksters and con-men, would he have still lost his Paladinhood?

Keep in mind that three of the people slain were children, two of them were elderly, and the only weapons they posessed were a knife and a wood-axe. They were weak, defenseless, and not immediately threatening to the party (and had no evil intent against them). Had they been of the orcish race, the same fate would have befallen the Paladin. I consider orcs to be humanoids, and, therefore, responsible for their own actions and posessing of free will- therefore subject to the same conduct and respect as a Human, Elf, or Dwarf.