(Yet another) Paladin behaviour question

[IanB]

I suppose in my game (in Greyhawk) it would depend on the religion of the paladin in question. No paladin of Heironeous, for example, would be caught dead using a trick like this to beat his enemies.

...to be honest, though, while this may not violate the Good portion of a paladin's alignment, I get a definite feeling that in many campaigns the paladin's actions wouldn't be very consistent with the Lawful component.

The actions below are something more along the lines of what I would expect from say a CG Holy Liberator than a LG Paladin.

 

[Artoomis]

I suppose in my game (in Greyhawk) it would depend on the religion of the paladin in question. No paladin of Heironeous, for example, would be caught dead using a trick like this to beat his enemies.

...to be honest, though, while this may not violate the Good portion of a paladin's alignment, I get a definite feeling that in many campaigns the paladin's actions wouldn't be very consistent with the Lawful component.

The actions below are something more along the lines of what I would expect from say a CG Holy Liberator than a LG Paladin.

I totally agree. Much closer to CG than LG.

There should be a reprimand from the church - maybe something about how the church gets to decide on such matters, not individuals within the church. Perhaps something along the lines of:

Mr. Highly Respected Paladin:

We greatly appreciate the work you do for the church, you have been a powerful force for <Insert Diety's Name Here>. We have had word of the Battle of Crystal Spire, and are saddened at your personal loss and the loss to the church.

Word has also reached us that you have taken it upon yourself to declare the villians who did this foul deed as enemies of the church, and have exacted retribution upon them.

We remind you that it is the responsibility of the church council, not any one member, to declare who are enemies of the church and to declare what retribution will be dealt, and how and by whom.

We now issue a call for you to appear before the council forthwith and explain your actions, so that the council may decide what actions ahould be taken to prevent this vigilante behavior in the future.

Yours in <Diety Name>,

XXXXX XXXXXX
Council President

 

[Jeremy]

Of course, this being a church of vengeance and that being a particularly deft application of said vengeance, the letter may read a little differently than a note from say, Tormite or Ilmateri councils.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The paladin needs to be an effective champion of the ideals of his church.

If a paladin of a god of retribution doesn't get a little slack in exacting vengeance for a real injury done, that god shouldn't have paladins in the first place. And that ball is squarely in the DM's court.

 

[Hejdun]

See, that's the reason why I give my followers a Braclet of Friendship. If the fecal matter hits the fan, they can always bring in the reinforcement.

 

[Artoomis]

The paladin needs to be an effective champion of the ideals of his church.

If a paladin of a god of retribution doesn't get a little slack in exacting vengeance for a real injury done, that god shouldn't have paladins in the first place. And that ball is squarely in the DM's court.

Yes, the ball is in the DM's court.

However, the "Law" side of the Paladin is frequently neglected, but can make for much fun roleplaying, as I demonstrated above.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

I would like to know what deity it is as well. You mentioned he had retribution as one of his domains. Tyr has retribution as a domain, but his Paladins would never resort to such underhanded and dishonorable tactics.

If I were that same Paladin, I would have raised an army and went to war on the bandit kingdoms. Kind of like what Wyatt Earp did to the Cowboy's in Tombstone, except medieval style. I would have had the other party member's help as well.

Paladin's are knights of the church. They are not just church fighters, they are literally the champions of lawful good churches upheld to the highest most righteous ideals of any socieity. they are pure and untainted. They are given divine abilities such as immunity to fear and divine grace to carry out their sacred duties without question. The very nature of a paladin implies that they are honorable and trustworthy. I could not see a Paladin telling a lie to lure even bandits into such a situation.

If he were just some fighter sent to exact vengeance by whatever means necessary, then his actions would not be a problem. He is the ultimate holy warrior of a lawful or neutral good god. He represented his religion badly. If his actions are ever found out, then his church will have a bad reputation.

Imagine if you heard about 40 people disappearing in a tent. Would you talk to followers of that religion anymore or go into their churches or to their shrines? I know I wouldn't. He didn't even give the bandits a proper burial. They are still human beings, and life, even evil life, would deserve respect upon death.

That Paladin would not have his Paladin status right now in my campaign if he followed through with those actions. He would have to do some serious atoning.

Tricking people into a tent with the intent of killing those who are guilty of killing his followers in battle and then disintegrating them is an evil act in my opinion. One conducted by an extremely vengeful and angry individual with no thought of justice, just revenge. Any church that would employ Lawful Good Paladins, besides maybe a Lawful Neutral church with complete ambiguity about good and evil might condone something like this. I don't believe even Cuthbert would condone such acts.

That Paladin was way out of line. If you want to allow a Paladin to act in such a manner, then mine as well let them murder every evil person they see in the streets with impunity.

 

[Westwind]

Interesting point on the GC aspect of the action, I hadn't really considered that angle.

The God in question is a homebrew God, somewhere between Tyr (FR version) and Cuthbert (Greyhawk version). There is a separate "shiny knight" (roughly a cross between Torm and Pelor I'd guess) God with Nobility as one of her domains, so there is a pretty clear distinction in the pantheon, although both churches support Paladins. The pantheon was developed by the DM with players' input, in this case there was interest in both the "knight in shining armor" paladin and the "gritty, relentless paladin" archetypes.

Raising an army is an attractive option on the one hand, but for out-of-character reasons I think the Paladin would risk highjacking the campaign, since that would take a lot of time and money. No one minds if a single session focuses on 1 player, but if that continues for a few weeks, then I'd guess players would start to grumble.

A few minor points:

The Paladin never lied. He told the bandits who he was looking for and he told people who had not participated he wasn't interested in them. It's roughly the same theory he uses when he dons his Robe of Disguise. He can dress up as "a noble from the South" but he would never, ever dress up as "Sir Garl, Grand Count of the Isle Kingdoms." Walking around in full platemail is cool and impressive, but it really makes talking to the local population tough sometimes.

He also never presented himself has a member of the Church, although he obviously didn't pretend to be a member of a different Church either. In his mind (other clergy might disagree) he was actually doing a great job of representing the Church, after a fashion. "You mess with us, this is what you get"

In some cases, the above 2 examples could be seen as splitting hairs, or seen as theological differences between the 2 LG churches. Obviously, the session is over and a call was made by the DM, but we all thought it would be interesting to throw the scenario out to the enworld population, since there are many different and legitimate takes on Paladins here.

Final note: The Paladin in question has spent a ton of ranks on Profession (Judge) so, mostly because of that, Church law has been fleshed out fairly well. Currently, his church is at war with the CE church who hired these mercs in the first place, which means martial law applies, so this is not the kind of behaviour one would expect if he fought a pack of bugbears.

 

[Rashak Mani]

I think that very clearly he used deception and lying. These are stated in the Paladins code of honor as wrong. Even more these men killed his men in battle didnt they ? Thus to kill them thru a "ambush" isnt retribution in a correct sense... its Vengeance.

Even if he was correct about their being punishable with death he should be delivering this sentence as an executor, not as a deceiver. Saying things like "For your crimes and your acts I thus excecute you in the name of (insert god here)." Doing it by surprise in a silenced tent seems very far from that.

Congrats for his new Fighter status I would say. (without those extra feats too)....


Added for comment above:

The CE church hired them... they themselves are not the enemy then. Just hired muscle... that makes it even worse. He should have used them as mercenaries against the CE church.

Second... using disguises and hiding your identity to find a criminal is borderline ok. Killing them by surprise isnt.

 

[Stalker0]

From what I understand, the paladin called out the bandits who had slaughtered his men. Told them that each one of them had to fight him one on one. He then killed them and disentigrated them.

Sounds like there was a few lies of omission there, but no outward lies so I would allow that. A paladin has to be honest, didn't say he had to be forthcoming.

And as long as they knew they were facing him, wasn't like he suddenly attacked them when they had no prior warning, then that's totally within the ideal of one on one combat and a fair duel. Since his god was the god of retribution I would say his actions were justified. However, the disintegration thing was not within the code. Those bodies deserved burial just like any other creature.