(Yet another) Paladin behaviour question

[Plane Sailing]

I notice a number of people seem to have said that they don't think a paladin should employ subterfuge.

I would humbly submit that a glance at the 2nd level paladin spells includes "undetectable alignment".

There cannot be many uses of this spell outside subterfuge, eh?

Cheers

 

[IanB]

Keep in mind that the rules do contain a character for whom "loose-cannon" enforcement of churchy stuff makes perfect sense - the Holy Liberator. IMO, the actions of this character make far more sense for that than for a paladin.

 

[Artoomis]

I notice a number of people seem to have said that they don't think a paladin should employ subterfuge.

I would humbly submit that a glance at the 2nd level paladin spells includes "undetectable alignment".

There cannot be many uses of this spell outside subterfuge, eh?

Cheers

Well, there ARE time when a paladin may have to attempt to sneak into the enemy camp to gain information. That's not the same as what was done here.

I still maintain , though, that the issue here is chaotic behavior, not evil behavior.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Hmmm, just thinking of a Paladin as "judge Dredd"... perhaps he is a little more like lawful evil though

 

[Westwind]

The authority issue is tricky, as this guy is decently high up in the Church heirarachy (hey, high-level Paladins with the leadership feat are rare, most of them get killed off). Think of it this way: Does a cardinal need to call Rome every time he makes a decision? No, there's a canon of law he's supposed to follow on his own--but when Rome calls him, he better answer the phone.

I'm psyched to see this generated as much debate as it did, I'll post the results of our DMs musings when we play next.

 

[Artoomis]

The authority issue is tricky, as this guy is decently high up in the Church heirarachy (hey, high-level Paladins with the leadership feat are rare, most of them get killed off). Think of it this way: Does a cardinal need to call Rome every time he makes a decision? No, there's a canon of law he's supposed to follow on his own--but when Rome calls him, he better answer the phone.

I'm psyched to see this generated as much debate as it did, I'll post the results of our DMs musings when we play next.

Does he have specific authority from the church to:

1. Unilaterally decide who is an "enemy of the church?"
2. Unilaterally decide what appropriate retribution to dish out to enemies of the church?

If he's been given permission to make these sorts of decisions, fine. Of course, I'd be surprised if, as a paladin, he was given such power. To extend the real-life analogy, he would be considered a lay member of the clergy - not an ordained member of the clergy. Normally, the types of decisions made here may only be made by an ordained member of the clergy, regardless of the power or influence of the lay member of the clergy.

That's how the ordained clergy protect their own power. If they do not protect their own power and the hierarchical structure of the church, chaos ensues - people will be making their own decision - CHAOS!!

Anyhow, if he does not have such authority (it seems unlikely he would), then he needs to face the music for usurping the authority of the ruling council of the church (which this church, being so lawful, must have, in some form for other).

This paladin, being so charismatic and influential, would probably only get a slap on the wrist. Perhaps the church would even arrange some sort of undated authorization for him to act as he did. This would allow face-saving on the part of the church, while preserving their authority. Of course, he would also be told, in the strongest terms, not to act so unilaterally in the future - except for emergencies when the council cannot possibly be consulted, of course.

 

[Westwind]

I suspect the DM might go the chaotic route, but the answer your 2 questions...

1. No.
2. No.

There is a huge BUT to both of these answers though. The CE church has already been defined as an ememy of the church by teh Archprelate. Those who contribute to their cause knowingly are found to be as guilty as the church. Both carry the stain of sin.
Thankfully, church law when it comes to martial law is pretty direct. There aren't a lot of options to chose from.

And he would be considered "ordained" by Roman Catholic canon, he can legally and rightfully lead mass (eqv.) and grant sacraments (again, eqv.). In terms of church heirarchy, there isn't much distinction between Paladins and Clerics. Paladins tend to die a lot though so Cleric outnumber them by the time they get to administration age (this Paladin is middle-aged under the 3e aging system). Note that not all Clerics and Paladins are "ordained" in this way, it was more a decision on the player's part to roleplay church politics and such more often.

 

[Artoomis]

If the paladin deos get in triouble with the church, he may want to consider having his role in the church carefully spelled out in writing. That would be a very "lawful" thing to do, adn would keep him out of future trouble. I'm sure this very "lawful" church would be only to glad to comply - if fact, they may be regretting not doing it earlier.

 

[Artoomis]

If the paladin deos get in triouble with the church, he may want to consider having his role in the church carefully spelled out in writing. That would be a very "lawful" thing to do, adn would keep him out of future trouble. I'm sure this very "lawful" church would be only to glad to comply - if fact, they may be regretting not doing it earlier.

 

[Dragonblade]

Where is SHARK when you need him.

I can't believe some of the replies here. I don't know the particulars of this campaign world or this deities outlook on things but the paladin was perfectly within his rights.

The paladin has been ordained by his god to bring forth justice to the land according to the tenets of his faith.

To destroy evil without mercy. To bring fire and death to the enemies of the light and all that is good and holy.

These bandits killed good and honorable men for gold. And in service to an evil church. They are filth and scum, deserving of neither an honorable death or burial.

The paladin is within his rights to see that they die in any way he sees fit. This notion that there should be surrender or that they should be tried in some way is ridiculous. If their punishment is death then surrender is pointless, either way they are going down. And trial by who? Before who?

It is the paladin, who as a church leader and champion of the faith who shall pass judgement on these men for their crimes. And if that punishment is death, then so shall the paladin carry out that punishment as he sees fit. For the paladin answers only to his god or to any church elders that may outrank him. He answers to no other mortal authority.

He is judge, jury, and executioner by divine right. Modern tenets of jurisprudence are ridiculous when imposed on a world where the decrees of the gods establish the law of the land. When morality is a tangible force. When dark cults, monsters and demons stalk the land. There needs to be no preponderance of evidence and no jury of their peers.

The law as set forth by the church is absolute, and if by magic these men are guilty of their foul deed then shall the paladin smite them down with all the righteous wrath of his deity behind him.

The code of the paladin is not a strait jacket that hamstrings him in his battle with evil. Rather it is a set of defining virtues that set him above the common man. It is the paladin who is a holy warrior, a champion of good dedicated to the merciless destruction of evil. This is not some gentleman's duel whereby evil may gain some advantage over good because good is subject to silly little rules. The principles that often define good are honesty, justice, compassion, valor, etc.

However, it is not the principle which is in and of itself inherently good. It is the application of that principle that is good or evil. If a merciful act allows a villain to escape and commit more crimes, than that act of mercy was evil even though the application of mercy is generally considered good. If a lie will save innocents, then the lie would be a good act even though truth is normally considered good.

Thus when viewing the actions of a paladin it is always important to keep the big picture in mind. The end doesn't always justify the means. But sometimes the means are justifiable in light of the big picture and the struggle between good and evil.