(Yet another) Paladin behaviour question

[Westwind]

It's interesting a lot of people are discussing the burial thing, that wasn't one of ths issues that came up in-session. Would you have a Paladin in command of an army buy every orc they fight on the field? Even if speed was important? I'd guess that massive funeral pyres would be the order of the day (this hasn't come up yet, so it's just a guess).

And you can be sure the Paladin was very clear about why the bandits were about to die (this also goes back to the illusionary sound in a field of silence thing). Although no dummy (Int 12), the Paladin's worldview is not exactly sophisticated. The idea of making a distinction between the bandits and the Church who hired them (in terms of degrees of culpability--if you are GUILTY you will be PUNISHED) isn't really on his mind, although others could make a really interesting arguement for and against it. I suspect this might end up as the issue the Paladin needs to answer for before it's all said and done.

I like Stalker0's distinction between lying and being forthcoming. A perfectly good answer to a question can be "I'd rather not say" unless, of course, you are under oath in a court or discussing things with church elders. I am reminded of Sturm Brightblade's trial at the Whitestone council in the Dragonlance series (God, it's been ages since 've read that and I still remember it). Sturm tried to evade questions but to him by elder Knights until he was forced to answer them fully.

 

[Valmur_Dwur]

One point not touched upon, how did the Paladin know that all the bandits (mercs) killed his men? I realize there was a Zone of Truth but that could be evaded(will save) or beating around the bush. What I'm getting at is that if I'm in a bandit kingdom and a bunch of people talked about the "cool" battle that was fought I might imagine myself there too. Or perhaps I was there but tripped over my own 2 feet and didn't actually "fight". Or still again maybe I was fighting this one guy and boom up comes another actual evil guy and runs him thru the back. I'm glad I'm alive but then I did fight in the battle and now someone wants to know if I did? This all may have been answered in game I don't know but again if one innocent died no more Paladin.

Jim

 

[Forrester]

A different point of view --

First, I have to agree that the behavior wasn't very paladin-y. Deception and trickery to get your foes into a weak position is sharp thinking, but unless this guy was a paladin of a god of deception and trickery . . .


Which brings me to my point. This paladin worships a God of the Retribution. I'm going to go out on a rather thick limb here and suggest that this God is probably of the opinion that Retribution should be PUBLIC.

Punishing the mercenaries, even if they were just hired guns, is fine. I have no problem with that. But who knows, at this point, that they've been punished for killing the paladin's men? NOBODY! The Paladin and the dead men, and that's it. Yeah, I guess that's retribution, but there was no lesson learned here for the general public, namely, you screw with the followers of this God (or innocents in general), and Revenge Shall Be His.

I suppose there could be a god somewhere of sneaky, secret, silent retribution, but this god is a cross between Tyr and Cuthbert. Nothing sneaky, secret, or silent about either of them.

I wouldn't take away paladinhood, but I would make sure that the god expressed displeasure in some way. I'm quite sure that this resolution wasn't the preferred one, smart as it might have been.

 

[Westwind]

That was, indeed, a risk the Paladin ran. The DM rolled a bunch of dice (although, like many DMs, this one has a habit of rolling dice and saying "Oh, it's nothing, don't worry about it.") when the Zone was cast. So far, no obvious repercussions from killing a merc who wanted to pretend he was present (that is, nothing in the remainder of that session). This might lead to a discussion of colateral damage and Paladins (in a seige is it permissable to starve out a citadel with women and children inside?) another time.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

There's a great thread at www.seankreynolds.com in the classes messageboard about rogue/paladins. Yes, you can use stealth.

 

[daemonslye]

This guy is not a paladin.

1. "Please come into my tent for a "job interview".

2. "Well, now that you are here... I really wanted to
SMITE YOU DOWN FOR THE MURDEROUS ROGUE YOU ARE!"

..a paladins code requires that she respect legitimate authority,
act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, etc.),...

As of the time of point "1." above, the paladins code was
broken. There is no rationalization around this.

A full 40 men entered a tent, one by one, and were hacked
down (on some illusory battlefield no less) by a vigilante
using magic ("silence and disintegration" to ensure their
silent deaths).

MURDER, FIRST DEGREE - In order for someone to be found guilty of first degree murder the government must prove that the person killed another person; the person killed the other person with malice aforethought; and the killing was premeditated.

To kill with malice aforethought means to kill either deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life.

Premeditation means with planning or deliberation. The amount of time needed for premeditation of a killing depends on the person and the circumstances. It must be long enough, after forming the intent to kill, for the killer to have been fully conscious of the intent and to have considered the killing.

Paladins seeking retribution are not consumed with the KILLING
of men; They are seeking JUSTICE. This justice is traditionally
meted out by the church through an "examination of evidence
and applicable law by a competent tribunal to determine the
issue of specified charges or claims."

For a group of men, following orders, that include the murder of
innocents (not exactly armsmen), the person most held
accountable would likely be their officer (leader). This man
may be approached (though not through trickery using lies)
and called out to face justice.

Wise paladins simply wait until the man is not surrounded
by thousands of loyal guardsmen (when they are on a mission
beyond camp). Otherwise, if this is not possible, the paladin
may, after review of evidence and on the advice of church council,
launch an attack (using stealth as necessary, such as invisibilty,
but not lies - ex. "I am interested in, um, hiring you folk... Yeah.")
to bring the leader to justice. Most often, a preferred method
is using subdual and conducting a public trial where the populace
are further reinforced regarding the lessons of the church.

...But, of course, I may be wrong. Consult with thy DM and your
own steady heart my good Paladin. Therein lies the final answer
as you knew it would. Atone.

~D

 

[Celtavian]

Re

All I can say is that in the same situation, I would have done the following:

Taken a group of bounty hunters into the area to track the men down. Magi, rangers, and rogues to gather information and use spells and such to locate the men.

Once they were located, I would have purchased one of those wagon cages and brought some of my more powerful followers and hopefully a few wizard and cleric friends. Basically, I would have brought a prison collection group with me fully armed and ready to collect and transport prisoners.

I would have went into the area and started to collect prisoners. I would also have brought enough manacles with me to shackle them and march them back as well.

I would have warred with anyone who happened to get in my way. If the bandit kings want to waste their troops in a war against a Paladin, his friends, and his followers, then so be it. Let them lose the bulk of their bandit riders.

Then once the prisoners were collected, they would have been tried and probably executed.

I would never have engaged in such ambiguous subterfuge. The reason burying is an issue is because humans are held to higher ideals than orcs and such, especially Paladins. For a Paladin to not give proper burial to fallen enemies, whether criminal or no, of his own species is evil. More akin to how a murderer who doesn't want to be found out would dispose of his victims than a just arbiter of retribution.

Let's face it. Your DM is slack on Paladins. It's your game, but I will never buy that what that Paladin did was just or good. It was a simple act of revenge carried out in a deceptive and unfair manner. The end result was justice, but the means to carry it out was not honorable or good. This is truly one of those instances where the Chaotic Evil church could say that they might do exactly the same thing.

Trick a bandits into a tent where a vastly superior warrior can easily butcher them one on one under the veil of silence spells in an illusionary arena and then disintegrate their corpses. Seriously, ask yourself if that is something you could see a lawful good paladin, or person period, doing to others?

 

[Neverwinter Knight]

Who says that paladins always have to knock on the front door? I think it's OK for the paladin to have done it, but maybe not grant him access to his highest level of spells for 2 sessions or so, since it was not REALLY BRAVE, as a reminder from his god.

And to all the CHAOTIC chants here: He planned the whole thing, every detail of it. No act described by the DM descried chaotic behavior, at least IMHO. However, laying out the law according to his own ends, e.g. saying, "I never deliberately lied, but I did not tell them the whole truth" sounds like a little lawful evil (reread the alignment description, please ).
So a little evil: yes. But chaotic: no !!!

 

[Westwind]

Just to stir things up some more, I thought I would quote "Faiths and Pantheons" from the Tyr entry (not the same God, but one that allows Paladins and has the retribution domain):

"Deliver vengence to the guilty for those who cannot do it themselves." (His lost men, clearly, couldn't exactly do it themselves. Also note the use of the word vengence, not justice)

"Without a civilized legal code with which to guide their judgements, they often default to a doctrine roughly equivalent to 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth'." (Again, clearly the Bandit Kingdoms don't have an established legal code, so this default would have applied).

 

[Celtavian]

Re

No one here thinks it's wrong that he executed them. It is the method of execution that seems very evil.

Luring bandits into a tent, and then telling them they are to fight him in a one on one battle under a veil of silence spells and then depositing the bodies into a disintegration chamber is not a good act. I could see a Lawful Neutral fighter or Divine Champion doing something like this, but not a lawful good Paladin.

Unless this is what was done to his men, what is the justification for him doing this to them?

Were his men lured into a one on one battle with the bandit king? Or were they simply killed in open battle or in an ambush? What justification did this Paladin have for carrying out this sort of punishment? Were his men burned beyond recognition and unburiable? What of the other circumstances?

P.S.: I play alot of Paladins, that is why I enjoy these discussions. My Paladin's are usually the archetypal Launcelot/Galahad type , though I understand there are Paladin's with different mindsets than the standard chivalrous knight.

Given this, I know a knight would never have done such a dishonorable and despicable act of revenge. I hope this Paladin player doesn't consider himself an honorable knight who follows the code of chivalry.