Paladin Behavior

[GusPorterhouse]

A friend and I recently renewed a long-running debate over what is acceptable behavior for a paladin. We've had variations of this conversation, off and on, for about 15 years. :smalleek:

Situation: Paladin leads an excursion of local militia to flush out, say, a goblin encampment. Some of the goblins are taken alive (through circumstance or surrender) and the militia captain wants to know what the Paladin wants done with them.

Argument 1: Paladin orders the goblins be executed, albeit humanely and without rancor. One of us argues that this is sensible on the grounds that goblins are demonstrably and provably Evil and without contrition, and the Paladin is a martial force of Good. The other argues that this is needlessly bloodthirsty and clearly a violation of honor and the Paladin code.

Argument 2: Paladin orders the goblins be released, albeit unarmed and with assurances that they will leave the area and no longer prey on humans/elves/dwarves/etc. One of us argues that this is sensible on the grounds of compassion and forgiveness, and the Paladin's undying belief that good can be found in the heart of all intelligent creatures. The other argues that this is directly endangers every such intelligent creature in the surrounding area, and that any further murders or other atrocities committed by the goblins will be blood on the Paladin's hands and therefore an indirect violation of the Paladin code.

Argument 3: Paladin leaves justice in the hands of local authorities, particularly for the goblins that have surrendered, and recommends they be transported to the local township to let their fate be decided by the magistrate. One of us argues that the Paladin is a martial force of Good and is effectively judge/jury/executioner in such a situation, and that bringing the goblins to trial is an unnecessary burden on the justice system (and also pointless, since the sentence will surely be death.) The other argues that the Paladin is a servant of the people and is not empowered to mete out justice after battle is concluded.

As you can see, we have very different ideas on how to play out this very simple situation. Thoughts?

[MirddinEmris]

All of them a viable for a paladin and doesn't lead to falling (that wasn't the question, but given the subject of the discussion, it'll probably pop up in not-very-long time). Otherwise it depend entirely on the paladin in question and on which god he is following. For example, paladin of St Cuthbert will probably go with 3rd or even 1st option, while paladin of Ilmater will go with the mercy. Remember that the paladin code doesn't describe every possible outcome and choice and many of them will depend entirely on his character. Paladins doesn't have any predetermined behavior - they are human beings, not a robots, so the question itself doesn't and couldn't have an answer.

[Hylas]

None of those options cause the paladin to fall, so there's no "wrong" answer. It really depends on the paladin, motives of the paladin and goblins, and the god that the paladin worships for which option is picked.

If being lawful good were easy then more people would pick the alignment.

[Gwendol]

All three options are acceptable and essentially being both lawful and good in the terms of the game.

[Pickford]

Situation: Paladin leads an excursion of local militia to flush out, say, a goblin encampment. Some of the goblins are taken alive (through circumstance or surrender) and the militia captain wants to know what the Paladin wants done with them.

Argument 1: Paladin orders the goblins be executed, albeit humanely and without rancor. One of us argues that this is sensible on the grounds that goblins are demonstrably and provably Evil and without contrition, and the Paladin is a martial force of Good. The other argues that this is needlessly bloodthirsty and clearly a violation of honor and the Paladin code.

Depends. There are actually alignment exceptions for even 'always evil' creatures such as the Succubus (There is, for example, a Paladin Succubus in Book of Exalted Deeds, as well as a Lawful Good Mindflayer Monk). Actually wait, it doesn't depend. If these goblins surrendered in good faith, then it's evil to execute them now. If you don't want to be put in this position simply do not offer quarter. Offering it and rescinding after it is accepted is definitely both dishonorable and evil.


Argument 2: Paladin orders the goblins be released, albeit unarmed and with assurances that they will leave the area and no longer prey on humans/elves/dwarves/etc. One of us argues that this is sensible on the grounds of compassion and forgiveness, and the Paladin's undying belief that good can be found in the heart of all intelligent creatures. The other argues that this is directly endangers every such intelligent creature in the surrounding area, and that any further murders or other atrocities committed by the goblins will be blood on the Paladin's hands and therefore an indirect violation of the Paladin code.

Again, if the goblins surrendered in good faith and that surrender was accepted...this or taking them to the local magistrate to answer for their crimes (Assuming they are bandits) or them signing a treaty or whatever are the acceptable alternatives.


Argument 3: Paladin leaves justice in the hands of local authorities, particularly for the goblins that have surrendered, and recommends they be transported to the local township to let their fate be decided by the magistrate. One of us argues that the Paladin is a martial force of Good and is effectively judge/jury/executioner in such a situation, and that bringing the goblins to trial is an unnecessary burden on the justice system (and also pointless, since the sentence will surely be death.) The other argues that the Paladin is a servant of the people and is not empowered to mete out justice after battle is concluded.

The paladin is in the cause of righteousness, part of that is a responsibility to protect the innocent and punish those who would seek to harm them. This however is a two-fold scenario. If the goblins surrendered to the Paladin, then the Paladin is responsible for their safe conduct. If they let the locals murder them, that would be forsaking the code of conduct.

[MirddinEmris]

Aaaaaaaaaand....here we goes.

[hamishspence]

Depends. There are actually alignment exceptions for even 'always evil' creatures such as the Succubus (There is, for example, a Paladin Succubus in Book of Exalted Deeds, as well as a Lawful Good Mindflayer Monk).

Actually it's online rather than in BoED:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a

[BWR]

In short, when alignments are 'always', it's meant to be interpreted as 'there may be one or two exceptions amongst the how many thousands/milliions/billions? in the Multiverse'.

[falloutimperial]

This really depends on the particular campaign. Is it the kick-down-the-door, baby-shaking immortal fight of unquestionable Good against nefarious, born-wrong evil? Is it not?

[SethoMarkus]

Paladin falling or not is irrelevant.

None of these scenarios is "right" or "wrong" behaviors for a Paladin. Each one has logic that a Lawful Good player could follow. It all comes down to the spirit of how the character follows that Lawful Good alignment.

Killing the goblins after they surrender in good faith is not honorable.

Letting the goblins go is not safe.

Handing the goblins over to the justice system is practically the same as executing the goblins yourself (depending on region, setting, local government, etc).

Probably the safest option is to hand the goblins over to the local government, but that is not to say it is the best, the most Good, or the most Lawful choice. It is the most moderate.


Now, there is also the option of enslaving the goblins (if slavery is not banned by the local government or the Paladin's order). Slavery would be lawful in such a state, and if the slaves are treated well it is not necessarily Evil either*. Call it "indentured servitude" or "forced community service" if that will help it sound more Good.

*Note: I do not condone or approve of slavery. In real life, such an act is never morally appropriate, but I accept that it was a part of our world's history and may be used in a fantasy setting for various reasons.

[Hyena]

Why do you hate paladins so much? They won't fall if they sneeze. They can make decisions, and some of them can be hard. As long as paladin is not acting blatantly evil or dishonorable, I say it's okay.

[SethoMarkus]

Why do you hate paladins so much? They won't fall if they sneeze. They can make decisions, and some of them can be hard. As long as paladin is not acting blatantly evil or dishonorable, I say it's okay.

May I ask who this is directed at? I don't really see any hating on paladins in this thread.

And, if it is for my post, maybe it will be better if I worded it in a more positive light:

Killing the goblins will protect the innocents in the area.

Letting the goblins go will be honorable in upholding the good faith of the goblins when they surrendered.

Handing the goblins over to the justice system gives them a chance at life while still protecting the innocents in the area.

[Segev]

One can resolve the "are the goblins evil and likely to do evil again?" question by a combination of Detect Evil (do they ping?) and Sense Motive (are they lying about adhering to their surrender oaths?). If they don't ping, then it's a lot safer to let them go than otherwise. If they aren't lying about adhering to whatever promises are extracted, it's probably okay to let them go if you set the right conditions.

On the other hand, if one does not wish to hold them prisoner nor let them go, accepting their surrender is not honorable. Don't do it. If they surrendered and are now prisoners, executing them should only happen if they committed crimes beyond the immediate battle and its impetus. (If you were planning to execute them anyway, why did you accept their surrender?)

If they surrender, but you believe that they will be such a threat that you can't even guard them appropriately, then, so long as you're not just rationalizing bloodthirstiness, you can execute them on the grounds that they're not really surrendered. If you need proof, you can set such strict conditions on their behavior that, if they even sneeze in the direction of violating their surrender, you reserve the right to execute them on the spot.


Paladins do not have to be kind to those they defeat. It's great if they are, but paladins are heroic warriors of good and justice. Justice is not kind, and can be quite cruel. Goodness will make them not revel in the cruelty, but it won't stop them from inflicting it upon the deserving. Honor will prevent them from accepting surrender with the intent to just kill them when they're defenseless; it would instead call for execution on the spot rather than lying to them. But a paladin is not required to allow evil the chance to arm itself before he will take it down. Some might choose to for a warriors' code, but that is not part of the paladins' code.

[Auramis]

I'd say all of your presented responses are good, Gus. Segev makes good points in their response as well. While they're all good responses, it just depends case by case which response may make more sense.

We've only had a few instances where non-evil characters have seriously fought with intent to kill my paladin and his friends in our current campaign. One was when someone wanted to mug the paladin and got in over their head. He ended up dying after his gang arrived and volleyed arrows on both my paladin (who was out of spells) and his now unconscious body.

The other major instance of non-evils being villains was in bandit camps, and it was all a mix of evil, neutral, and maybe some good. In those instances, my paladin convinced a few bandits to turn from their ways and fight beside him while others stuck to their group and fought us to the death. Some men survived, along with a lot of women and children that had been living in the camps, and we allowed them a chance to live honest lives. If they continued their thievery, we warned them we may need to return.

Beyond that, all the enemies we've faced have been killed on the spot for their crimes (mostly evil dragons, necromancers, and a tyrant and his followers).

[Yuki Akuma]

Goblins are "Usually Neutral Evil", not "Always Neutral Evil".

Just throwing that out there.

[forsaken1111]

As the paladin in the OP faced with several captured goblins, I would take said captives back for lawful justice. If, in the course of that journey, they attempted to escape then they have violated their accepted surrender terms and will be given no second chance. If not, they will be lawfully tried under my supervision by the local authorities, given a fair hearing, and then sentence carried out.

[GusPorterhouse]

Thanks for the input.

Sometimes I think Paladins should just be removed from the game. :frown:

[hamishspence]

4E took the approach of removing Falling. No matter what they do, they won't lose their powers- because they come from a conduit that was established when the paladin was first inducted.

[forsaken1111]

4E took the approach of removing Falling. No matter what they do, they won't lose their powers- because they come from a conduit that was established when the paladin was first inducted.

Which led directly to my first 4e game wherein the paladin burned down a village with 38 people in it because we had reliable intelligence that there were 2-3 cultists hiding somewhere in the village.

For the greater good, and all that.

[Auramis]

The code's in place for a reason. I like the notion of a character that, despite a sense of honor and a set of rules that makes things hard on him, can find a way to effectively save everyone without causing a village to be burned to the ground or a city to be culled. Not to say any game will be perfect and codes are never broken or the paladin's never in threat of losing their power, but there's a lot more interesting story in a paladin dancing between the lines of his code to get things done than the guy burning down a village because it's easy on him.

[hamishspence]

There's ways of making it hard on the paladin without taking away their powers- the disapproval of the paladin's order (if they have one) or of Good beings in general (if they don't).

[ahenobarbi]

I like Gray Guard PrC (Complete Scoundrel) if only they put it's main features in Paladin class it self (since level 1 you can have Atonement cast on yourself without it costing XP if you fell "for greater good", since level 10 you don't all if you violated code for a good cause).

[Grod_The_Giant]

Sometimes I think Paladins should just be removed from the game. :frown:
Paladins don't need to be removed from the game. Overly sanctimonious DMs/Players who turn every decision into "choose right or FALL muahahahahahaha!" should be removed from the game.

[DeltaEmil]

The Paladin code and all those restrictions that cause the Paladin to fall and turn into a Not-Fighter with D10-hit die exist because technically, a Paladin is a better class than the Fighter, and with the greater powers and class abilities, must be balanced out by having a code of conduct and being lawful good.

At least, that's how it was in the former D&D editions.

In D&D 3e, Paladins are not really that impressive like they were in AD&D 2e, and are considered by many to be quite inferior to the Fighter.

If 3e Paladins aren't the superawesome warriors that are better warriors than Fighters like they were in AD&D 1e and 2e, then the code of conduct is not justified, and should be done away.
In 4e, Paladins aren't better defenders than Fighters/Weapon Masters, so they don't need a crap like the code of conduct.

[Telonius]

I'll take option 3 first, since it will determine the answers for 1 and 2. For option 3, it depends entirely on the local customs of the game world. If a Paladin is supposed to be a roving judge, jury, and executioner, passing the sentencing decision on to the town is at best ducking his responsibilities. But if he's not actually empowered (by law or custom) to make that call, he would probably have to send them back to town.

For option 1. Summary execution after a surrender seems ... not very honorable. The idea of somebody (even an Evil somebody) surrendering would only make sense if they have some sort of expectation of decent treatment. It's more or less like a plea bargain: I give up if you promise not to kill me. Otherwise, there's no reason in the world for somebody to give up fighting.

If the Paladin had personally witnessed them committing an act that would be a capital offense, he probably wouldn't accept a surrender without telling them they would be executed. If they give up after that, it's on them, and a "humane" execution would probably be legit. He would either perform it himself (if he has the authority), or send them back to town (if he doesn't). On the other hand, if the Paladin is slightly more merciful, he might take a surrender as an admission of guilt as evidence that they could be redeemed, and go from there. Either lessen the punishment (if he has the authority), or put in a good word for them with the magistrate (if he doesn't).

Capturing and releasing them is only an option if he has the authority to do so. If he doesn't have the authority, he's undermined the local magistrate's, which would be a big no-no. If he does have the authority, release is an option. Paladins are not required to be merciful, and they aren't required to be stupid either. It would depend heavily on Sense Motive and common sense. It's within his authority, risky, and has a potential payoff of a redeemed evildoer.

[elliott20]

I think a lot of this depends on the context of the situation. This is one of the problems with clear behavioral axioms in the paladin code - it's context dumb, where as the best course of action (or morally right) needs to be highly sensitive to the context.

Depending upon the context, the characterization of the action, and the result itself, all three can have various degrees of just, to legal but not really just.

i.e. option 1

are the goblins responsible for many other atrocities that have transpired before? i.e. if said goblins are responsible for slaughtering thousands of people prior to this, and the paladin basically talked them into giving their lives in exchange for something else (i.e. give yourselves up for a swift execution, and I promise to personally protect your young from slaughter), execution would not necessarily be considered unjust. If said goblins were captured, tried, and THEN executed after a fair trial (whatever "fair" might mean), then that too is still just.

So a lot of this needs to take into account the paladin's personal interpretation of the moral code and in context to the larger environment.

I generally try to think of it in these contexts

1. what does the law say about this? who has jurisdiction over this situation?
2. what does the paladin's personal ethics say about this? (assuming that the paladin's personal ethics align with his deity)
3. what are the expected results of the actions?

None of these, by the way, should lead to falling. (At least, not for displeasing the patron deity) This is all just philosophical discussions really.

This is, by the way, partially why I have problem with the way paladins are managed in these games. While I understand the existence of a deity that can strip a paladin of it's powers as a form of punishment, I feel that doing so on the spot requires prescience that no DM can conjure up. It asks too much for a DM to adjudicate something that could have law professors arguing with each other about.

That's why I personally believe that paladinhood and falling should be a personal decision from the player. It should be treated as a narrative device that player can explore and allow his character to grow from, not just another hammer for the DM to swing around and keep his players in line. Personally, I think using the falling as just a simple punishment to the player is pointless and squanders a fantastic opportunity for some good story telling.

[ArcturusV]

Note that like a lot of "what ifs" of this manner, that the answer is generally setting specific. For example, in Forgotten Realms I believe, goblins are described as the personification of Neutral Evil upon the realms. And with knowledge like that in mind, the "mercy" option doesn't really make too much sense for a Paladin in that setting.

But that's hardly universal. It does however highlight that a lot of questions of ethics, morality, and alignment are more setting specific than system general. Like say, Dragonlance, where the god of ultimate good in that setting effectively nuked the world, indiscriminately leading to the deaths of countless mortals, good, evil, or otherwise. Where as in another setting no force of good would ever do that, no matter how much their favored high priests asked them to.