DMing for an Oath of Devotion Paladin in a merciless group

[Maspect]

I'm DMing for a HotDQ campaign, with a lot of flexibility on how I structure some events. I'm trying to figure out how to deal with (or whether to even do anything) about an in-game conflict between party members. The party is a Paladin who's going Oath of Devotion path, a Fighter who plays very mercilessly, a bard, and a trickery domain cleric. The Paladin worships Torm, who I roleplay by sending her "text messages from Torm" that only she can read.

Twice now, the party dealt with encounters by having the Bard put all the enemies to sleep, and then the rest go and stab everyone in their sleep. As Torm is grooming the Paladin to swear the Oath of Devotion, I had him advise the Paladin to show mercy and knock out/tie up the disabled enemies who are no longer a threat. The Paladin player pretty much goes along with whatever I have Torm say to her, so I'm careful not to be too direct with Torm's missives.

However, the merciless Fighter has the flaw, "My hatred for my enemies is blind and unyielding." Amusingly, I wrote this character sheet for the Fighter's player, and I picked that flaw for her because the player tended to play merciless characters anyway; now I gave her an excuse to not have to justify wanting to kill every enemy on the field. So, just I planned, the Fighter refuses to spare the sleeping enemies, and the Paladin and Fighter have an in-game argument every time this happens. The first time, the Cleric and Bard were chasing down stragglers who escaped the sleep spell, so the Fighter ended up stabbing half the sleeping enemies and the Paladin tied up the other half. Afterwards, the Paladin argued that they needed to interrogate the enemies for information, and then the Paladin got them to cooperate by promising to let them go if they spilled the beans on their cultist leaders.

The second time, the Paladin declared they should tie up the sleeping enemies, but then the entire rest of the party shrugged and stabbed them all instead over the Paladin's protests. They didn't give much justification for it other than "No, we want to kill them." Then they went out of the room to eat dinner, while the Paladin knelt among the bodies in grief. Torm said something along the lines of, "Well, at least you tried." The party came back and searched the bodies, and I had the Fighter find a silver locket with a drawing of the dead cultist's family inside. There was an awkward pause, and the Fighter said "well, guess I'm keeping the locket! It's silver, right? XD"

Overall, this thematic question of mercy has gone just as I planned, and it's been a lot of fun. But now it looks like it's going to pop up far more regularly than I expected (the Bard loves her Sleep spell) and I'm worried it's going to get old. On the one hand, I want to encourage my players to roleplay and conflict between PCs is a great way to do that. On the other hand, I don't want to drive them into treating it as a routine "token argument before we murder-hobo everything." Plus, the party is now Level 3, so they're going to start wondering if this mercy-for-sleeping-enemies thing is going to make or break the Paladin's Oath. I'm considering several options:

1. Don't do anything, and see if the players come up with some new direction.

2. Have Torm tell the Paladin that she doesn't have to spare all sleeping enemies. Something like "I once encouraged you to consider mercy, but now that you've sworn the Oath, it's up to you to decide who deserves it."

3. Give the Fighter some in-game reason to consider mercy. I'm not sure how this would work though. Have the Fighter pick up a cursed item that limits # of kills per day? Have NPCs criticize her for killing evil kobolds and cultists? These are pretty heavy-handed, so I would ask the Fighter's player for permission first before trying any of this.

4. As a softer version of #3, I'm considering having one of the village families in Greenest ask the Fighter if she saw their misguided brother, who left to join the Cultists but they're hoping he'll see the error of his ways and return home (too late, it's the named NPC with a silver locket that the Fighter killed last session.) That could be interesting, just to see how she chooses to react. It's quite possible the Fighter would tell them "Too bad, I killed him and he deserved it" right to their faces. Or, maybe she'd give them the locket?

5. Have Torm give the Paladin some magic item with the ability to judge/banish/preserve disabled enemies so that the rest of the party can't kill them.

6. Talk to the Fighter's and/or Paladin's players and see what they want to do.

I'm leaning towards #2 and #4, and maybe #6. Any suggestions?

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm leaning towards #2 and #4, and maybe #6. Any suggestions? #2 and #4 seem a good way forward, but it all depends on how much your players like PvP, or at least intra party conflict.

If they like it, let them take things where they'll go.

[Unoriginal]

6. Talk to the Fighter's and/or Paladin's players and see what they want to do.

This is the firs thing you should do, talk with both of them. Maybe include the rest of the group.



Now, having myself not really read HotDQ, here's a question I think you should consider:

Imagining the PCs do spare the evil cultists and kobolds, what are they doing to do with them?

Bring them to jail? Which one? How will they go there?


Keep in mind that enemies under the Sleep spell are only like so for 1 min, and that they can be woken up. Killing them just 'cause you want to kill them is not something a benevolent character would do, but tying them all up risk to be difficult, too.

Also, keep in mind Sleep's limitations. Not only it has a limited amount of HPs it can put to sleep, it's not the biggest AoE either, so it's likely later fights will leave more people awake. And the enemies won't die with one hit either.


Something I need to know, though is: did the Paladin try to stop the others from killing the bad guys. As in, physically?

[Asmotherion]

Let them play their characters.

It's a Paladin's Ultimate test; Who is a real Paladin? The guy who follows the guys who slaughter everyone, or the guy who tryes to change their world views? Perhaps next time he will need to take some further action or start loosing his paladin levels. After all, you don't become a Chosen of a God by blindly following murderers into killing sleeping foes despite being against your morals, and stay a Paladin to tell the Tale. You act on your Faith or loose your Grace.

[Nidgit]

Definitely talk to the players to see what they're thinking. Paladins need to have standards and murdering helpless enemies who pose little future threat should be a serious no-no for Devotion paladins. Your players need to find some kind of compromise out of character and then work their way towards it in-game. Perhaps the Fighter could be satisfied with stripping or otherwise humiliating/neutralizing their captured foes?

At least Sleep shouldn't be working successfully for too much longer. You'll probably have similar dilemmas anyway, but still.

[scalyfreak]

I'm considering several options:

1. Don't do anything, and see if the players come up with some new direction.

2. Have Torm tell the Paladin that she doesn't have to spare all sleeping enemies. Something like "I once encouraged you to consider mercy, but now that you've sworn the Oath, it's up to you to decide who deserves it."

3. Give the Fighter some in-game reason to consider mercy. I'm not sure how this would work though. Have the Fighter pick up a cursed item that limits # of kills per day? Have NPCs criticize her for killing evil kobolds and cultists? These are pretty heavy-handed, so I would ask the Fighter's player for permission first before trying any of this.

4. As a softer version of #3, I'm considering having one of the village families in Greenest ask the Fighter if she saw their misguided brother, who left to join the Cultists but they're hoping he'll see the error of his ways and return home (too late, it's the named NPC with a silver locket that the Fighter killed last session.) That could be interesting, just to see how she chooses to react. It's quite possible the Fighter would tell them "Too bad, I killed him and he deserved it" right to their faces. Or, maybe she'd give them the locket?

5. Have Torm give the Paladin some magic item with the ability to judge/banish/preserve disabled enemies so that the rest of the party can't kill them.

6. Talk to the Fighter's and/or Paladin's players and see what they want to do.

I'm leaning towards #2 and #4, and maybe #6. Any suggestions?

7. All cultists they meet from here on are elves or half-elves.

[Unoriginal]

Something I wonder, though, is how this Paladin became so close to this god?

I mean, hell, most of the clergy doesn't get that kind of bond.

[Malifice]

I'm DMing for a HotDQ campaign, with a lot of flexibility on how I structure some events. I'm trying to figure out how to deal with (or whether to even do anything) about an in-game conflict between party members. The party is a Paladin who's going Oath of Devotion path, a Fighter who plays very mercilessly, a bard, and a trickery domain cleric. The Paladin worships Torm, who I roleplay by sending her "text messages from Torm" that only she can read.

Twice now, the party dealt with encounters by having the Bard put all the enemies to sleep, and then the rest go and stab everyone in their sleep. As Torm is grooming the Paladin to swear the Oath of Devotion, I had him advise the Paladin to show mercy and knock out/tie up the disabled enemies who are no longer a threat. The Paladin player pretty much goes along with whatever I have Torm say to her, so I'm careful not to be too direct with Torm's missives.

However, the merciless Fighter has the flaw, "My hatred for my enemies is blind and unyielding." Amusingly, I wrote this character sheet for the Fighter's player, and I picked that flaw for her because the player tended to play merciless characters anyway; now I gave her an excuse to not have to justify wanting to kill every enemy on the field. So, just I planned, the Fighter refuses to spare the sleeping enemies, and the Paladin and Fighter have an in-game argument every time this happens. The first time, the Cleric and Bard were chasing down stragglers who escaped the sleep spell, so the Fighter ended up stabbing half the sleeping enemies and the Paladin tied up the other half. Afterwards, the Paladin argued that they needed to interrogate the enemies for information, and then the Paladin got them to cooperate by promising to let them go if they spilled the beans on their cultist leaders.

The second time, the Paladin declared they should tie up the sleeping enemies, but then the entire rest of the party shrugged and stabbed them all instead over the Paladin's protests. They didn't give much justification for it other than "No, we want to kill them." Then they went out of the room to eat dinner, while the Paladin knelt among the bodies in grief. Torm said something along the lines of, "Well, at least you tried." The party came back and searched the bodies, and I had the Fighter find a silver locket with a drawing of the dead cultist's family inside. There was an awkward pause, and the Fighter said "well, guess I'm keeping the locket! It's silver, right? XD"

Overall, this thematic question of mercy has gone just as I planned, and it's been a lot of fun. But now it looks like it's going to pop up far more regularly than I expected (the Bard loves her Sleep spell) and I'm worried it's going to get old. On the one hand, I want to encourage my players to roleplay and conflict between PCs is a great way to do that. On the other hand, I don't want to drive them into treating it as a routine "token argument before we murder-hobo everything." Plus, the party is now Level 3, so they're going to start wondering if this mercy-for-sleeping-enemies thing is going to make or break the Paladin's Oath. I'm considering several options:

1. Don't do anything, and see if the players come up with some new direction.

2. Have Torm tell the Paladin that she doesn't have to spare all sleeping enemies. Something like "I once encouraged you to consider mercy, but now that you've sworn the Oath, it's up to you to decide who deserves it."

3. Give the Fighter some in-game reason to consider mercy. I'm not sure how this would work though. Have the Fighter pick up a cursed item that limits # of kills per day? Have NPCs criticize her for killing evil kobolds and cultists? These are pretty heavy-handed, so I would ask the Fighter's player for permission first before trying any of this.

4. As a softer version of #3, I'm considering having one of the village families in Greenest ask the Fighter if she saw their misguided brother, who left to join the Cultists but they're hoping he'll see the error of his ways and return home (too late, it's the named NPC with a silver locket that the Fighter killed last session.) That could be interesting, just to see how she chooses to react. It's quite possible the Fighter would tell them "Too bad, I killed him and he deserved it" right to their faces. Or, maybe she'd give them the locket?

5. Have Torm give the Paladin some magic item with the ability to judge/banish/preserve disabled enemies so that the rest of the party can't kill them.

6. Talk to the Fighter's and/or Paladin's players and see what they want to do.

I'm leaning towards #2 and #4, and maybe #6. Any suggestions?

As soon as the other PCs stated they would murder the NPCs despite the protests of the Paladin, you should have stopped the game [hit the pause button] and had a chat with your players about what was going on, and the problems this would have on the group dynamic.

An out of game, man to man chat about the situation.

DM: ''Guys; I'm not going to tread on your agency, but if you go ahead with this action, Bobs character is going to have serious issues with your PCs, and would realistically intervene, or leave the party. Im pausing the game here before anyone murders anyone.'

'This is a group game, and you're all here to have fun, so perhaps there is some kind of compromise that can be reached among you as players, via consensus among you all about how to handle this. Other players; you might want to consider tempering your actions somewhat, and agree not to go around murdering NPCs despite your teamates protestations here, and instead roleplay your disagreement, while agreeing out of game not to act in a way that causes party conflict. Bob; you might want to consider playing a Vengance Paladin instead that has no issue with that kind of actions. Im open to other ideas.

The game wont be progressing any further, until you guys work out a group consensus that you are all happy with and agree on, and that I veto going forwards. Have a chat, and let me know how you all want to progress.''

[Kane0]

If Sleep is generating most of the problems don’t worry too much, give it 1-2 levels and it will start to drop in effectiveness.

Otherwise, what is your disposition on hamming up your campaign? Comically evil minions are a lot less conflict inducing than sympathetic goons. The Rise of Tiamat books suit the style better than say cirse of Strahd but it’s more up to how the DM wants to run it.

But definitely have a chat to the players before all else, they might be having the time of their lives with the current dynamic.

[Davrix]

Keep in mind the oath of devotion doesn't always mean mercy flufffy kitty hugs.

If these are bad people killing other people or sacrificing others in the name of evil he should not feel bad nor should his god be calling for mercy really. This is more oath of redemption area.

If they are murdering simple people that are only doing minor things then yes there is going to be some big issues and you need to help not aggravate the rift wider by putting the paladin and fighter at odds in such black and white ways so quickly. Or its just going to lead to party kills or splits.

Oath of Devotion can fully mean I slay the wicked to protect the weak. Is it a bit darker take on it? A little but I think the bigger issue is simply killing them in their sleep and without a honorable death in battle. That should be more of his sticking point rather then they are murdering cultists.

[Malifice]

Oath of Devotion can fully mean I slay the wicked to protect the weak. Is it a bit darker take on it? A little but I think the bigger issue is simply killing them in their sleep and without a honorable death in battle. That should be more of his sticking point rather then they are murdering cultists.

Yeah no.

I certainly dont interpret the Oath of Devotions tenets (show mercy to your foes and act with honor as an example to others) as being: 'Butcher defenceless sleeping people'.

Oath of Vengance? For sure (their tenets include - by any means, no mercy etc).

If a Devotion Paladin went along with the murder of defenceless sleeping people, I'd consider making the PC an Oathbreaker.

Of course, if the Devotion Paladin PC was merciful and honorable and treated the prisoners with respect and courtesy and honor and mercy (as required by the Oath), I'd engineer it as DM so that the NPCs he showed mercy and compassion to occasionaly did actually repent (as many people would be inclined to do), and might even show up later in the campaign as redeemed inividuals, offering aid to the party or otherwise showing him the benefits of doing good.

DMs never do this. What they tend to do is have any NPCs that are captured or released (and not put to the sword) come back to 'gotcha' the PCs.

Which of course is simply encouraging PC murder-hobism.

[Angelalex242]

Could be worse. I'm dealing with something similar. My Oath of the Ancients Paladin is having to let things like the LE rogue taking sex slaves slide. And because it's Adventure League, inter party conflict is forbidden.

[Malifice]

Could be worse. I'm dealing with something similar. My Oath of the Ancients Paladin is having to let things like the LE rogue taking sex slaves slide. And because it's Adventure League, inter party conflict is forbidden.

Lol. Isnt the taking of sex slaves interparty conflict?

AL prohibits the 'undermining of other characters'. The conduct rules also clearly state that players must 'Avoid excessively vulgar, sexual, or overly mature language and themes.'

Pretty sure your DM should be doing something about this, as the taking of sex slaves for me violates those two rules.

[Davrix]

Yeah no.

I certainly dont interpret the Oath of Devotions tenets (show mercy to your foes and act with honor as an example to others) as being: 'Butcher defenceless sleeping people'.

Oath of Vengance? For sure (their tenets include - by any means, no mercy etc).

If a Devotion Paladin went along with the murder of defenceless sleeping people, I'd consider making the PC an Oathbreaker.

Of course, if the Devotion Paladin PC was merciful and honorable and treated the prisoners with respect and courtesy and honor and mercy (as required by the Oath), I'd engineer it as DM so that the NPCs he showed mercy and compassion to occasionaly did actually repent (as many people would be inclined to do), and might even show up later in the campaign as redeemed inividuals, offering aid to the party or otherwise showing him the benefits of doing good.

DMs never do this. What they tend to do is have any NPCs that are captured or released (and not put to the sword) come back to 'gotcha' the PCs.

Which of course is simply encouraging PC murder-hobism.

Yes well your taking only a partial snippet and ignoring the rest of the points I made in it.

But lets take a look at the actual oath from the book

Though the exact words and strictures of the Oath of Devotion vary, paladins of this oath share these tenets.
Honesty. Don't lie or cheat. Let your word be your promise.
Courage. Never fear to act, though caution is wise.
Compassion. Aid others, protect the weak, and punish those who threaten them. Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom.
Honor. Treat others with fairness, and let your honorable deeds be an example to them. Do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm.
Duty. Be responsible for your actions and their consequences, protect those entrusted to your care, and obey those who have just authority over you.

Honesty - Very straight forward.
Courage - Also pretty straight forward though many ignore the wise portion.
Compassion - Here is probably one of the points you could argue but I will point out it says Punish those who threaten the weak, show mercy to your foes but temper it with wisdom. Thus as i said evil cultsits killing people or sacrificing others should probably be smited with righteous fury.
Honor - Another point of contention here possibly with my words however as i said. Its the sleep spell and killing them in cold blood that is the problem. Not the idea that he is killing evil cultists. Because one could argue by killing the cultists the least amount of harm will be done to the local community as a whole. I will add that I do agree with you that most DM's simply do the, I let the bad guys go and they come back to go AHA which is lame. It would depend on the situation and who he is trying to redeem. But I would argue killing is still a valid option as long as its done with good logic of your morals behind it.
Duty - Basically own up to what you do and how you interpret all of the above.

[Malifice]

Yes well your taking only a partial snippet and ignoring the rest of the points I made in it.

But lets take a look at the actual oath from the book

Though the exact words and strictures of the Oath of Devotion vary, paladins of this oath share these tenets.
Honesty. Don't lie or cheat. Let your word be your promise.
Courage. Never fear to act, though caution is wise.
Compassion. Aid others, protect the weak, and punish those who threaten them. Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom.
Honor. Treat others with fairness, and let your honorable deeds be an example to them. Do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm.
Duty. Be responsible for your actions and their consequences, protect those entrusted to your care, and obey those who have just authority over you.

Honesty - Very straight forward.
Courage - Also pretty straight forward though many ignore the wise portion.
Compassion - Here is probably one of the points you could argue but I will point out it says Punish those who threaten the weak, show mercy to your foes but temper it with wisdom. Thus as i said evil cultsits killing people or sacrificing others should probably be smited with righteous fury.
Honor - Another point of contention here possibly with my words however as i said. Its the sleep spell and killing them in cold blood that is the problem. Not the idea that he is killing evil cultists. Because one could argue by killing the cultists the least amount of harm will be done to the local community as a whole. I will add that I do agree with you that most DM's simply do the, I let the bad guys go and they come back to go AHA which is lame. It would depend on the situation and who he is trying to redeem. But I would argue killing is still a valid option as long as its done with good logic of your morals behind it.
Duty - Basically own up to what you do and how you interpret all of the above.

[Demonstrate Honor, compassion and mercy] is not = [murder the defenceless in cold blood as they sleep].

In my games anyway. YMMV.

You do it in my games and I would strongly consider making you an Oathbreaker.


Because one could argue by killing the cultists the least amount of harm will be done to the local community as a whole.

...is what a Vengance Paladin would say.

I have no problem with the trope you're explaining here mate (a dark Paladin that shows no mercy to his foes, resorts to murder, extortion, and even genocide, or justifies his actions as being necessary for the greater good). A Punisher anti-hero type prepared to engage in murder of the defenceless for a greater good, or other cause.

But dont be taking the Devotion oath if you want to play that trope. Vengance is the Oath your looking for.

Oath of Devotion = Superman (LG). Oath of Vengance = Punisher (LE) or Judge Dredd (LN).

[Laserlight]

OP is not actually providing enough information. Two questions arise:
a) what is the likelihood that captured enemies will renounce their evil ways and live peacefully?
If the answer to this is "no chance", then the paladin is justified in killing them to prevent them from posing further risk to peaceful neighbors.
If the answer is "happens all the time", then the paladin needs to go to question B.
I would suggest that you not do "the paladin thinks the answer is one but it's actually the other", because the pally is getting advice from Torm
Note that the answer might be Yes for some and not for others; for example, Hobgoblins might well have the reputation of being willing to honor their parole if you let them give it, but you might as well execute that Orc because otherwise he'll be raiding again by tomorrow night.


b) can the PCs reasonably turn prisoners over to someone else's custody?
Sometimes the answer may be Yes. You're defending the town wall, the attackers break and flee in panic, you capture a few prisoners. There's no reason you can't turn them over to the town sheriff (unless you expect the sheriff will torture them or some such), and if I were playing a paladin, I would insist that we do that.

Sometimes the answer will be No. You're deep in a dungeon, you have to hide from enemy patrols, the nearest town is a week away and you have to take out the enemy warlord in the next two days before the army marches. The paladin shouldn't be expected to drag around a growing column of prisoners who will endanger the party.

[Malifice]

OP is not actually providing enough information. Two questions arise:
a) what is the likelihood that captured enemies will renounce their evil ways and live peacefully?
If the answer to this is "no chance", then the paladin is justified in killing them to prevent them from posing further risk to peaceful neighbors.

No he's not. Hes a Devotion Paladin (show mercy), not a Vengance Paladin (no mercy).


b) can the PCs reasonably turn prisoners over to someone else's custody?
Sometimes the answer may be Yes. You're defending the town wall, the attackers break and flee in panic, you capture a few prisoners. There's no reason you can't turn them over to the town sheriff (unless you expect the sheriff will torture them or some such), and if I were playing a paladin, I would insist that we do that.

Sometimes the answer will be No. You're deep in a dungeon, you have to hide from enemy patrols, the nearest town is a week away and you have to take out the enemy warlord in the next two days before the army marches. The paladin shouldn't be expected to drag around a growing column of prisoners who will endanger the party.

Paladin: 'Sorry, its too difficult to take prisoners. Execute them all'

Good Lord man. If it works in your campaign, go nuts. You'd be an oathbreaker faster than you could say boo in mine.

[Maspect]

Wow, I didn't expect to get so many helpful responses! Either my question was just that good, or this is an impressively active forum.

Sounds like there's a range of opinions both on interparty conflict and how demanding a Paladin's Oath should be. I'll ask my group how they feel about each, and tailor the game to that. My options #2 and #4 both sound fun and got some approval here, so I'll include those.


This is the firs thing you should do, talk with both of them. Maybe include the rest of the group.
Now, having myself not really read HotDQ, here's a question I think you should consider:

Imagining the PCs do spare the evil cultists and kobolds, what are they doing to do with them?

Bring them to jail? Which one? How will they go there?

HotDQ guidebook states that there are different ranks within the Cult of the Dragon, with kobolds encountered early in the campaign near the bottom. The party let them go, with their hands tied and without their weapons. I think it's within reason that three demoralized kobolds who saw their party destroyed by overwhelming force might decide to just leave the area.



Something I need to know, though is: did the Paladin try to stop the others from killing the bad guys. As in, physically?
She protested verbally, but made no physical motion to stop her. The sleeping cultists were all executed within 2 or 3 rounds. She froze from the shock of the situation.


Something I wonder, though, is how this Paladin became so close to this god?

I mean, hell, most of the clergy doesn't get that kind of bond.

I changed the arrangement for the sake of roleplay. The Paladin player likes Kid Icarus, and I like Stormlight Archive, so that inspired us to set this up. If anyone cared, I would have said it's an aspect/agent/WhateverForgottenRealmsMechanic of Torm sending messages, but no one in my group did, so I didn't bother.

[Maspect]

Since we're on the subject of Paladin Oath stringency, I thought of another question. Oath of Devotion includes "Honesty. Don’t lie or cheat. Let your word be your promise." This group snuck into the Cultist's camp by painting the Paladin (who is a silver Dragonborn) with black makeup and claiming she came to join the Cult. The player actually did an impressive job of acting like a haughty warlord, and I rewarded the group by having Cyanwrath conclude that the Paladin was sent by Tiamat and welcome her in as a fellow dragonoid.

Now, would this strategy violate the Honesty tenet of the Oath of Devotion?

[Kane0]

Paladins can he spies too. The point is that they have integrity, not that they are unable to deceive others.

[Laserlight]

Good Lord man. If it works in your campaign, go nuts. You'd be an oathbreaker faster than you could say boo in mine.

Just out of curiosity, let's say you have a Devo pally in a challenging dungeon. You know that orcs don't honor paroles or abide by oaths, and these orcs have been raiding halfling settlements. You capture 20 orcs. What do you do with them?

[Malifice]

Just out of curiosity, let's say you have a Devo pally in a challenging dungeon. You know that orcs don't honor paroles or abide by oaths, and these orcs have been raiding halfling settlements. You capture 20 orcs. What do you do with them?

Orcs do honor paroles and abide by Oaths. Look at the Paladin illustration in the PHB, tell me what race he is, and get back to me.

Orcs just have a tendency not to (an a tendency towards acting with arbitrary violence); but that tendency is (obviously) not absolute. For all you know one of those Orcs could be a Good aligned guy that got caught up in the whole thing, and pressured into raiding the settlements by his father/ tribe.

Not all Orcs are Evil, and not all Orcs are Chaotic.

Orcs also respect force. Cow them into submission (nothing in your Oath says you cant threaten force) and then release them. Tie them up, lock them in a room, and come back for them later.

A good DM will ensure that taking the Good option is rewarded in kind. The Orcs return to their camp, cowed and submissive, and cease thier attacks on the villiage. Heck many game worlds (Krynn) have a cosmic rule that good begets more good and evil turns in on itself.

Personally when I DM, I tend to follow this rule as a cosmic rule (or just common sense) as well. If the PC shows mercy and kindness to a NPC (that he has no reason not to) the NPC can often be swayed by this act of mercy and charity and become a good person (even going to far as to look up the PC and assist or aid the PC). Just like in real life.

DMs should generally ensure that good deeds get rewarded, and evil deeds get punished. PCs only take the 'murder and torture' option because its the easy path and or its more convenient, and/or it gets them what they want (which of course, makes them evil). DMs also enforce this mentality by having released NPCs invariably come back in 'gotcha' moments, instead of genuinely redeeming.

I cant recall Aragorn summararily executing Orcs in LoTR. Batman doesnt summirarily execute people either. He takes the higher ground, knowing that to do otherwise is what seperated him from the bad guys.

Dudes like the Punisher OTOH take no prisoners, and execute and torture people. Of course, Punisher is evil, and (in DnD terms) would be best suited as a Vengance Paladin.

[Malifice]

Since we're on the subject of Paladin Oath stringency, I thought of another question. Oath of Devotion includes "Honesty. Don’t lie or cheat. Let your word be your promise." This group snuck into the Cultist's camp by painting the Paladin (who is a silver Dragonborn) with black makeup and claiming she came to join the Cult. The player actually did an impressive job of acting like a haughty warlord, and I rewarded the group by having Cyanwrath conclude that the Paladin was sent by Tiamat and welcome her in as a fellow dragonoid.

Now, would this strategy violate the Honesty tenet of the Oath of Devotion?

Its a violation (and I would expect the Paladin to be pretty opposed to sneaking in or being part of a dishonorable deception) but it's not a severe enough violation to warrant breaking of the Oath.

Think Sturm Brightblade. He'd oppose the idea, but would go aloing with it with a persuasive enough argument (we're saving lives and avoiding bloodshed doing it this way)

Deliberate murder of a defenceless sleeping person OTOH, for sure.

[Davrix]

[Demonstrate Honor, compassion and mercy] is not = [murder the defenceless in cold blood as they sleep].

In my games anyway. YMMV.

You do it in my games and I would strongly consider making you an Oathbreaker.



...is what a Vengance Paladin would say.

I have no problem with the trope you're explaining here mate (a dark Paladin that shows no mercy to his foes, resorts to murder, extortion, and even genocide, or justifies his actions as being necessary for the greater good). A Punisher anti-hero type prepared to engage in murder of the defenceless for a greater good, or other cause.

But dont be taking the Devotion oath if you want to play that trope. Vengance is the Oath your looking for.

Oath of Devotion = Superman (LG). Oath of Vengance = Punisher (LE) or Judge Dredd (LN).

I wish you would actually fully quote me and not take snippets of what I say to support your views. It’s fine you don’t agree with me but that’s twice now you have ignored certain words in the oaths to justify your point of view.

I already said killing them in their sleep is the problem. And your leaving out the words with wisdom in the devotion oath. Which means yes you show mercy but depending on the person and actions taken. There are some people you do not show mercy to. Even as a devotion oath.

[Nidgit]

Since we're on the subject of Paladin Oath stringency, I thought of another question. Oath of Devotion includes "Honesty. Don’t lie or cheat. Let your word be your promise." This group snuck into the Cultist's camp by painting the Paladin (who is a silver Dragonborn) with black makeup and claiming she came to join the Cult. The player actually did an impressive job of acting like a haughty warlord, and I rewarded the group by having Cyanwrath conclude that the Paladin was sent by Tiamat and welcome her in as a fellow dragonoid.

Now, would this strategy violate the Honesty tenet of the Oath of Devotion?
Kind of depends on exactly how it went down. General lying to villains in the name of good is probably ok, though impersonating a good or chosen being is probably taking it too far. Lying to random guards to get in to some place? That's an infraction.

Any promises or other agreements to do things made to evil characters are still binding. Outright breaking your word, even to evil beings, should cause some serious godly grumbling. Obviously that's scaled to the seriousness of the promise- being late to a meeting is next to nothing while killing an evil envoy you promised safe passage is an oathbreaking-level offense.

[DeadMech]

I'd like to play more campaigns were reforming sentient enemies played a larger role myself.

In one current game our Paladin of Redemption, the one who tried to talk zombies out of a fight, finally succeeded in convincing someone to give up in a fight. The leader of another group of bandits we randomly came across on the road. It looked like the remaining enemies might give up as well. The aasimar ranger immediately put an arrow through his skull... Needless to say the remaining pair decided not to surrender to us. The last one I held action on and told to give up or I'd toast them. They ran instead of surrendering and the rogue and ranger both rushed after to put her down.

In the other campaign enemies are quite willing to give up. Much to my sorcadin's pleasure. The rest of the party likes to bully the captured people though it hasn't crossed over into torture. Through the party was temporarily split while interrogating two different people so I wasn't paying the most attention. Actually it eventually got a bit ridiculous. We came to a fork in a cave bandits were using as a hideout. Taking a path we came to the bandit leader's group, defeating them. Going to the other path with our original 2 captives we come across another group of bandits. Like 5 or six of them maybe. I demanded their surrender telling them we already killed their leader. After rolling a 4 or so to tie them all up I causally mentioned we might have difficulty transporting them all back. So the barbarian declared he was going to start slitting the throats of all the new captives. I kinda expected the group of them to run and scatter into the wilderness but the DM went with it.

With this group I don't think I'm going to push too much on the issue. Both DM's don't seem to want to punish the respective paladins for not being able to control the actions of their parties. And I mean... Ned Stark is a lawful good sort. And well sometimes you have to execute people who break the law and make a living killing the innocent.

[Malifice]

I wish you would actually fully quote me and not take snippets of what I say to support your views. It’s fine you don’t agree with me but that’s twice now you have ignored certain words in the oaths to justify your point of view.

I already said killing them in their sleep is the problem. And your leaving out the words with wisdom in the devotion oath. Which means yes you show mercy but depending on the person and actions taken. There are some people you do not show mercy to. Even as a devotion oath.

The thread title is literally: Oath of Devotion Paladin (who are sworn - specifically sworn - to be merciful) in a merciless group.

I'm not sure you can really spin [be merciful but temper it with wisdom] and [act with honor and compassion] into [stab sleeping defenceless people to death].

Again; for a Vengance paladin [by any means, no mercy for my enemies] sure. A Devotion Paladin, not so much.

[Malifice]

So the barbarian declared he was going to start slitting the throats of all the new captives.

As DM would advise him that should he do so, I will change his alignment to evil, (and ensure that that action had consequences, but this I dont tell him). I would then ask him if he really wanted to go ahead with this action.

Player sooks, he gets booted.


Ned Stark is a lawful good sort. And well sometimes you have to execute people who break the law and make a living killing the innocent.

Ned Stark is bound by the law to carry out the execution.

I highly doubt your campaign has a mapped out legal system, and if it does have one, I also doubt that your random bunch of murder-hobos are in any way shape or form authorised under the laws of the land to execute prisoners without trial.

Can you point me to any classic fantasy or sci fi where the heroes (Flash Gordon, Han Solo, Luke Skywalker, Caramon Majere, Tasslehoff Burrfoot, Drizzt Dourden, Elminster, Sturm Brightblade, Dragonbait, Aragorn, Frodo, Pug the Wizard, Batman, Superman, Daredevil, Harry Potter etc) make a habit of executing defenceless prisoners?

Like Raistlin does it. He lighting bolts a Gnome. Punisher does it all the time. Kitiara does it also. Manshoon and Tzass Tham do it.

But they're all... you know... evil.

[Davrix]

The thread title is literally: Oath of Devotion Paladin (who are sworn - specifically sworn - to be merciful) in a merciless group.

I'm not sure you can really spin and [act with honor and compassion] into [stab sleeping defenceless people to death].

Again; for a Vengance paladin [by any means, no mercy for my enemies] sure. A Devotion Paladin, not so much.

I am well aware what the problem is with the OP but you seem to wish to focus on things I have not said. I fully stated that the problem is them killing the bad guys in cold blood while they sleep. THAT IS a violation of the oath.

What I said


[B]Compassion - Here is probably one of the points you could argue but I will point out it says Punish those who threaten the weak, show mercy to your foes but temper it with wisdom. Thus as i said evil cultsits killing people or sacrificing others should probably be smited with righteous fury.
Honor - Another point of contention here possibly with my words however as i said. Its the sleep spell and killing them in cold blood that is the problem. Not the idea that he is killing evil cultists. Because one could argue by killing the cultists the least amount of harm will be done to the local community as a whole. I will add that I do agree with you that most DM's simply do the, I let the bad guys go and they come back to go AHA which is lame. It would depend on the situation and who he is trying to redeem. But I would argue killing is still a valid option as long as its done with good logic of your morals behind it.

How you responded


[Demonstrate Honor, compassion and mercy] is not = [murder the defenseless in cold blood as they sleep].

At no point in my statement did I condone the idea a Devotion paladin should murder anyone in their sleep. I stated that it is well within the rights of the oath that a devotion paladin can and will kill evil creatures that have proven to be a threat to the local community or kingdom. That is what the oath means by temper with wisdom. Yes you show mercy but you do not always have to. It depends on who you are fighting. The OP does not define who or what they were fighting or what actions they had committed so I cannot give critique on that. But you can play a devotion paladin who smites down evil as his morals and code dictate. But yes the whole deal with in their sleep is bad but if the people they are fighting deserve retribution then all he has to do is tell the group we must face them in combat and charge in before the sleep spell is cast. But as I said i cant know what they were fighting at the time.

[Unoriginal]

Maybe the Paladin would be better off with an Oath of Redemption. Just an idea.

[MxKit]

I think the problem here might be that you, as DM, started trying to push things towards PVP without a)seeing if your players were actually interested in PVP, b)thinking about whether you were actually interested in allowing/encouraging PVP, and c)realizing that it could quickly turn into actual PVP.

You allow many of your players to kinda murder-hobo, and you even wrote the Fighter's current sheet encouraging murder-hobo behavior. If this isn't an issue for you or your players, great! There's nothing wrong with a good murder-hoboing when everyone is on the same page. But then you encouraged the Paladin to fight the party on this. Hell, you didn't bring up before the game started that maybe a Devotion Paladin might not be the best fit for this party and maybe either the party could cool it on the antihero behavior or the Paladin's player might want to go with a different Oath or different class that would fit in better. (Not all classes are going to be suitable for all groups. A party of Lawful Good Clerics, Monks, and Fighters will probably not have a good time with an Oathbreaker in their midst, for example.)

You say you wanted to encourage inter-party conflict, and I get how that's got some great roleplay possibilities, I really do. But without everyone being on the same page from the get-go, this kind of inter-party conflict can go very bad, and/or it can make the odd person out feel frustrated if their character is never listened to and can never do more than token protest, or the people who are getting ICly lectured feel frustrated if it keeps popping up.

I'd say definitely, absolutely go with #6. This conversation with the players should have actually come before the game started, imo, but it should definitely happen now. See how they're all feeling about the party conflict currently, talk about whether they want to take it to a PVP place, talk about what the Paladin might end up doing if it continues, talk about various options and see what they're most interested in. Let them decide how they want this particular situation to go.

[KorvinStarmast]

If Sleep is generating most of the problems don’t worry too much, give it 1-2 levels and it will start to drop in effectiveness. +1. Beyond that, this Paladin is low level, and as such still a work in progress. As the levels go up, so does character growth and thus so will his need to set the better example. I'd not try to demand a paladin be perfect at low levels. Tier 1-4 are described in the book as the characters being new adventurers. Errors will be made. Lessons will be learned.

Keep in mind the oath of devotion doesn't always mean mercy flufffy kitty hugs. Indeed. We seem to have a thread about "good paladin doesn't mean nice" that has great guides on Paladin characters.

Lol. Isnt the taking of sex slaves interparty conflict? Yes, and its the kind of crap AL has rules against as you noted.

AL prohibits the 'undermining of other characters'. The conduct rules also clearly state that players must 'Avoid excessively vulgar, sexual, or overly mature language and themes.'

[strangebloke]

I think you need to have a discussion about what tone the group is searching for.

It is possible that the paladin and the fighter both want to play a myopic swords 'n sorcery kind of game, with the paladin fighting against the dark, unfair nature of the world, and the fighter exploiting it.

Alternatively, the paladin really just wants a light game where the heroes are the good guys and do good guy things.

Maybe if this all ends in bloodshed, the players will all laugh and roll up new characters, and remember it for years.

Once you know what they want, you can get a feel for what to give them.

If the paladin wants to avoid any serious moral conflict, give him divine approval to kill these cultists. Make them acceptable targets. Showcase how beyond redemption the baddies are. No party conflict! Yay! He's called to show mercy, sure, but to also use his judgement. Maybe he wakes them up, 'holds court' as a representative of Torm, judges them for their crimes and then executes them. No one could argue that such a thing is dishonorable, not even good friend Malifice here. He's a divine agent of Torm, if he isn't supposed to be judging people in the name of Torm he shouldn't have signed up for this gig.

If the paladin wants to be the light in the darkness, and the other players want to be dark'n edgy, you've got a harder road. Make sure that Torm's directives are loose enough that he can tolerate his murderous companions, but give him opportunities to subvert the party as well. (IE, by letting go a captive they were going to kill.) Give the murderhobos the fruits of their labors (gold, items, grieving widows.) and give the paladin the fruits of his (someone he spared becomes a willing minion of his, agreeing to scout for the party. He brings back the peasants brother and the story gets out and suddenly he finds himself a folk hero.)

The third option, to have serious, out-and-out interparty conflict, is the easiest. Torm will absolutely not stand for such dishonorable behavior. The greater evil is the cult, but the paladin is warned to prepare in secret for the day when his 'friends' turn on him.

[Laserlight]

Orcs do honor paroles and abide by Oaths. Look at the Paladin illustration in the PHB, tell me what race he is, and get back to me.

:-) Half orc. Which is a different race than orc, according to D&D.

Your answer to the situation I posed is to sidestep it with "It's not really that situation". So let's say that instead of orcs, you've captured a hag. You know she's evil, and going to stay evil. What do you do?
(As a side note, various posters don't want to kill a monster who is magically incapacitated by Sleep. How about Hold Monster? Hypnotic Pattern?)

I am entirely in favor of Malifice's suggestion that the DM needs to make it possible for the paladin to Be Merciful Without Having It Come Back To Bite Us In The Butt. I think it is incumbent on the DM and the paladin player to discuss the paladin's code, and determine workable solutions to "what do we do with an evil monster that we capture?" The DM should not force the paladin to play Lawful Stupid along the lines of "We can't kill this red dragon, because this isn't a fair fight, so we have to let her live even though we know she burns towns and devours people", nor water down the Oath to merely " it's okay to kill everything, being merciful just means I don't torture them first." Somewhere between the gods, the clergy, and the senior paladins, someone should have thought about this situation and not dump it on a L2 paladin-candidate to solve.


Just like in real life In my experience, most of the people we've helped as charity (ie not people who were already friends) don't even say thanks at the time, much less look us up later or change their lives. And those were all humans. :-\

[Angelalex242]

Oh thank god. I thought I had to endure all this sex slave nonsense. I guessed I missed a couple rules when I started.

[Malifice]

So let's say that instead of orcs, you've captured a hag. You know she's evil, and going to stay evil. What do you do?

You don't know that. You can't know that. And who says the hag has to stay evil?

Personally I would expect a devotion paladin (particularly one of lawful good alignment) to take the higher ground.

If you are fighting a hag, and for some weird reason she surrenders and turns yourself over to your mercy, a devotion paladin is expected to show her mercy.

Presuming is not some kind of ploy simply to trick him. He is required to be merciful; but not an idiot.

[Spellbreaker26]

Yeah, and there are ways of preventing a hag from doing stuff, like making sure to cuff and gag her so she can't cast any spells.

[strangebloke]

You don't know that. You can't know that. And who says the hag has to stay evil?

Personally I would expect a devotion paladin (particularly one of lawful good alignment) to take the higher ground.

If you are fighting a hag, and for some weird reason she surrenders and turns yourself over to your mercy, a devotion paladin is expected to show her mercy.

Presuming is not some kind of ploy simply to trick him. He is required to be merciful; but not an idiot.

Is it merciful to let the Hag live? Maybe.

Maybe not. Compassion towards everyone means that you have compassion for her victims as well. There's no way to be sure that she'll stay evil, but there's also no way to be sure that you can stop her from killing others. You can restrain her and take her with you, but that might cause you to fail your quest, dooming everyone (and thereby you fail the 'duty' tenant). You can let her go, but considering what hags are, there's a good chance she'll return to her ways soon enough, and some of that blood will be on your hands.

Sounds to me like a judgement call. Or a 'tempering of compassion with wisdom.'

Now, honor is a consideration. If you promise her a deal, you need to keep it. If the enemy is asleep, personally I would bind them, wake them, and then hold trial. After all you did fight them when their defences were up. That was a fair fight. They lost it. What comes now is not a fight, but judgement.

[scalyfreak]

Can you point me to any classic fantasy or sci fi where the heroes (Flash Gordon, Han Solo, Luke Skywalker, Caramon Majere, Tasslehoff Burrfoot, Drizzt Dourden, Elminster, Sturm Brightblade, Dragonbait, Aragorn, Frodo, Pug the Wizard, Batman, Superman, Daredevil, Harry Potter etc) make a habit of executing defenceless prisoners?

Han Solo should not be on your list.

He executed a guy he was having drinks with (admittedly the drinks and conversation were not Han's idea), because it was quicker and easier than either paying Greebo off or using some other method to prevent him from turning Han over to Jabba for cash.

[SkylarkR6]

Daredevil killed people in the beginning,

[Malifice]

Han Solo should not be on your list.

He executed a guy he was having drinks with (admittedly the drinks and conversation were not Han's idea), because it was quicker and easier than either paying Greebo off or using some other method to prevent him from turning Han over to Jabba for cash.

Greedo was taking Han in to Jabba dead or alive. Dead in this case. He just said as much to Han (Han: over my dead body; Greedo: That's the idea).

All Han did was win initiative.

Unless were talking the special edition, in which case Greedo did (but Han relied on uncanny dodge).

[scalyfreak]

Greedo was taking Han in to Jabba dead or alive. Dead in this case. He just said as much to Han (Han: over my dead body; Greedo: That's the idea).

All Han did was win initiative.

Be that as it may, Han still executed someone you easily can argue he didn't need to execute. If he had drugged Greebo and then slit his throat, he is still killing someone who intends to kill him if necessary. But now he's doing a bad thing?

[Malifice]

Be that as it may, Han still executed someone you easily can argue he didn't need to execute. If he had drugged Greebo and then slit his throat, he is still killing someone who intends to kill him if necessary. But now he's doing a bad thing?

He didn't execute anyone. Greedo had a gun on him! He told Han he was going to kill him. That's clear self defence.

Just so were clear if some assassin pulls a loaded crossbow on your Paladin and tells him he's going to kill him to take his body to a crime Lord, the Paladin can use force (including lethal force) against that assassin.

That's not the same thing as shooting Greedo in the back of the head as he sleeps!

[AHF]

Daredevil killed people in the beginning,

Yeah, this goes for a lot of them. Remember the scene where Aragorn tied up or gave a stern talking to the Orcs or the Uruk Hai and then let them go to lead better lives? Me neither. Aragorn's kill count runs pretty high and he literally tells his companions in a fight against them to show them "no mercy." He even just beheads the messenger from Sauron in the movie even though that type of conversation is typically a scenario where the honorable thing to do is to do no harm to the other person if memory serves. It is not presented in a way that it is a moral failing either. Sometimes good guys got to kill so context is important.

[scalyfreak]

He didn't execute anyone. Greedo had a gun on him! He told Han he was going to kill him. That's clear self defence.

That's not the same thing as shooting Greedo in the back of the head as he sleeps!

Why not?

In either situation he is taking out someone who will kill him or sell him to someone who will kill him, if given the opportunity. The only difference is that in the first situation Han is impulsively taking advantage of an opportunity, in the second situation he is strategically taking advantage of an opportunity. The way you describe it, lack of impulse control is morally okay, while strategically planning ahead would make Han evil?

[Malifice]

Why not?

In either situation he is taking out someone who will kill him or sell him to someone who will kill him, if given the opportunity. The only difference is that in the first situation Han is impulsively taking advantage of an opportunity, in the second situation he is strategically taking advantage of an opportunity. The way you describe it, lack of impulse control is morally okay, while strategically planning ahead would make Han evil?

Dude, you're equating the murder of a defenceless and sleeping person on one hand, with self defence against a person trying to kill you on the other.

No one is saying the devotion Paladin can't use lethal force against someone trying to kill him or others. His sword isn't there just for show.

Han Solo doesn't go around slitting storm troopers throats after stunning them. He doesn't murder the captured imperials on Endor after accepting their surrender for God's sake.

Bonus points if someone posts the video of Peter Griffin as Han solo doing just this in the family guy spoof.

[Malifice]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qanBnogRS0M

Not a Devotion Paladin.

See the difference, or is the point totally lost on you?

[scalyfreak]

Dude, you're equating the murder of a defenceless and sleeping person on one hand, with self defence against a person trying to kill you on the other.

Considering it's the same person in both scenarios, it's really not that clear-cut. When the defenseless and sleeping Greebo wakes up, will he thank Han Solo from the bottom of his heart for sparing him, and allow him to go free?


Han Solo doesn't go around slitting storm troopers throats after stunning them. He doesn't murder the captured imperials on Endor after accepting their surrender for God's sake.

Of course not. They can be trusted not to sell him to Jabba, and they weren't after him for personal reasons.

[scalyfreak]

Bonus points if someone posts the video of Peter Griffin as Han solo doing just this in the family guy spoof.

Loss of both points and credibility for posting it yourself.

I apologize to everyone who was exposed to this conversation for making the mistake of thinking Malifice could be reasoned with.

[Malifice]

Why not?

In either situation he is taking out someone who will kill him or sell him to someone who will kill him, if given the opportunity. The only difference is that in the first situation Han is impulsively taking advantage of an opportunity, in the second situation he is strategically taking advantage of an opportunity. The way you describe it, lack of impulse control is morally okay, while strategically planning ahead would make Han evil?

The context is different.

Its the same as if the Police were tracking you on the strong suspicion you were a mass murderer. They have evidence that clearly shows you to be the perp.

Scenario 1) The Police kick in your door, and see you with a victim tied up, gun in your hand about to shoot her (or the cops). They shoot you.

Scenario 2) The Police enter your home, and find you in bed sleeping. They quietly press a gun to your head, and blow your brains out as you sleep.

Can you see a difference here? Can you see why in scenario 1, the Cop is justified in the shooting, has committed no crime, and faces no sanction for his actions? Can you also see why in Scenario 2, the Cop is not justified in the shooting, has committed the crime of murder (first degree murder) and is not justified in his actions?

From a game perspective your Devotion Paladin (looking at the Oath) follows scenario 2. They are bound (oath bound) to act with honor, show mercy and compassion.

Now a Vengance Paladin on the other hand. They choose scenario 2 (murder the fool) in preference to scenario 1, and are totally within thier Oath by so doing.

[MxKit]

I also want to say that the sleep spell is very different from going up to someone sleeping and killing them, though I don't think the latter is always bad (again, strategically planning ahead; if you can actually sneak up on the Big Bad who's planning on sacrificing a bunch of people to end the world and kill him in his sleep rather than risking a battle where you might lose and doom everyone, why is this suddenly bad?). If you cast the sleep spell against enemies who are actively trying to kill you, it is a battle. They didn't surrender. They are still your enemies. They are temporarily unconscious. You aren't sneaking up to someone's bed in the middle of the night.

IMO, yes, in real life if you have dropped an enemy and can take them prisoner, killing them instead is bad. However, D&D is not real life, and in most games, most DMs present things in a very straightforward way. Gnolls are, according to the MM, always Chaotic Evil. Hags are always evil sociopaths who delight in making people miserable. Demons and devils are actually pure evil. Chromatic dragons are evil. Saying "no, you can't know they wouldn't promise to change their ways and actually mean it and work on actively changing and never be a danger to anyone again" is absolutely not the case in the D&D universe for many enemies, in most games.

The compassion part of the Devotion Paladin's tenet is "Aid others, protect the weak, and punish those who threaten them. Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom." All the focus here seems to be on "show mercy to your foes" without much attention being paid to any other part of it. In the D&D universe, sometimes punishment is execution. And using a sleep spell against a hag, tying her up, refusing to kill her while she's asleep or, now, in your custody, and believing her promises that she won't hurt anyone anymore is nowhere near wise and, in all honesty, is not protecting the weak or aiding others, either.

Of course, a Lawful Stupid Devotion Paladin can always untie the hag and wait for battle to start right back up again to kill her, as will inevitably happen if she doesn't escape and kill more innocent people first, but going "nope, you killed a sleeping enemy, Evil alignment now and you're an Oathbreaker" is ridiculous in the context of most D&D situations, and "nope, you didn't forcibly stop your party from killing a sleeping enemy, Evil alignment now and you're an Oathbreaker" is even worse.

And I want to play a Redemption Paladin and prefer when DMs don't do Always Evil races and give plenty of opportunities to Charisma a solution to the situation. I highly dislike murder hoboism and think the OP's party members need to knock out their "kill everyone!!!" shtick. I still think the "once sleep has been cast no one can attack the sleeping enemies, no matter who or what they are, what their actions, what they plan to do, or the likelihood of them ever changing their ways, because that's not a heroic action" hits ridiculous extremes for most characters given the morality and style of play of most games.

(Also, Batman is a horrible example. He doesn't kill, but he tortures a lot; he's broken into Arkham before to taser one of his enemies in his cell for information, and in the very first episode of BTAS he "interrogated" a captured goon by grabbing him with his flying batmobile and dunking him underwater repeatedly as they flew along until he passed out. But I digress.)

[Malifice]

Considering it's the same person in both scenarios, it's really not that clear-cut. When the defenseless and sleeping Greebo wakes up, will he thank Han Solo from the bottom of his heart for sparing him, and allow him to go free?

Maybe he will. Finn was once a Stormtrooper. Han was once an Imperial himself. Even Darth freaking Vader turned from Evil in Star Wars thanks to Luke not murdering him as he lay defenceless on the ground.

The Star Wars heroes dont go around murdering defenceless or sleeping people. Your hillarious attempts to argue otherwise, are absurd.


I apologize to everyone who was exposed to this conversation for making the mistake of thinking Malifice could be reasoned with.

You're not being reasonable! Your arguing in favor of cold blooded murder for both Han Solo, and a LG Devotion paladin!

Look mate, whatever flies at your table, but at mine your alignment would be changed to Evil, and you would break your oath for doing it.

[scalyfreak]

I also want to say that the sleep spell is very different from going up to someone sleeping and killing them, though I don't think the latter is always bad (again, strategically planning ahead; if you can actually sneak up on the Big Bad who's planning on sacrificing a bunch of people to end the world and kill him in his sleep rather than risking a battle where you might lose and doom everyone, why is this suddenly bad?)

Because he is asleep and defenseless, and that means if you kill him you are evil.

Presumably.

I am in agreement with you, but I have this weird notion that being pragmatic does not equate being evil.

[scalyfreak]

You're not being reasonable! Your arguing in favor of cold blooded murder for both Han Solo, and a LG Devotion paladin!

I'm arguing in favor of using whatever means necessary to defeat an enemy, a.k.a. Evil. A true paladin would do nothing less.

[Malifice]

I also want to say that the sleep spell is very different from going up to someone sleeping and killing them,

The spell puts them to sleep [rendering them helpless and at your mercy]. You then murdering them as they sleep is the problem.


if you can actually sneak up on the Big Bad who's planning on sacrificing a bunch of people to end the world and kill him in his sleep rather than risking a battle where you might lose and doom everyone, why is this suddenly bad?

It is from a Devotion Paladins perspective. Murdering someone in their sleep might be convenient, but it certainly isnt honorable (which is one of their oaths).


If you cast the sleep spell against enemies who are actively trying to kill you, it is a battle. They didn't surrender. They are still your enemies. They are temporarily unconscious. You aren't sneaking up to someone's bed in the middle of the night.

''Blink twice if you surrender! No blinks? Right.. [slits throat]''


The compassion part of the Devotion Paladin's tenet is "Aid others, protect the weak, and punish those who threaten them. Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom." All the focus here seems to be on "show mercy to your foes" without much attention being paid to any other part of it. In the D&D universe, sometimes punishment is execution. And using a sleep spell against a hag, tying her up, refusing to kill her while she's asleep or, now, in your custody, and believing her promises that she won't hurt anyone anymore is nowhere near wise and, in all honesty, is not protecting the weak or aiding others, either.

Of course, a Lawful Stupid Devotion Paladin can always untie the hag and wait for battle to start right back up again to kill her, as will inevitably happen if she doesn't escape and kill more innocent people first, but going "nope, you killed a sleeping enemy, Evil alignment now and you're an Oathbreaker" is ridiculous in the context of most D&D situations, and "nope, you didn't forcibly stop your party from killing a sleeping enemy, Evil alignment now and you're an Oathbreaker" is even worse.

Hillarious you should say this. Tomb of Horrors contains an encounter with a Hag [actually a polymorphed good guy].

Your Devotion paladin would murder her in cold blood.

This is [one of the reasons] why the oath exists in the first place.

Also; not an example of a Lawful Stupid Paladin. You cite an example of a god awful DM.


(Also, Batman is a horrible example. He doesn't kill, but he tortures a lot; he's broken into Arkham before to taser one of his enemies in his cell for information, and in the very first episode of BTAS he "interrogated" a captured goon by grabbing him with his flying batmobile and dunking him underwater repeatedly as they flew along until he passed out. But I digress.)

Batman isnt a Devotion Paladin. Hes a LG Vengance Paladin [greater evil = criminals]

As opposed to Superman who is a LG Devotion Paladin.

Note the differences between the two.

For comparions sake, the Punisher is a LE Vengance Paladin [greater evil also = criminals].

[Malifice]

I'm arguing in favor of using whatever means necessary to defeat an enemy, a.k.a. Evil. A true paladin would do nothing less.

Youre aware there is an actual oath that has this exact working of one of their tenets?

Vengance Paladin. Word for word this is their oath: By any means necessary, no mercy for the wicked.

If you want to be the kind of dude that fights evil 'by any means necessary' play a bloody Vengance Paladin.

Not a bloody Devotion paladin.

[ImproperJustice]

I don’t know of this is helpful, but our devotion Paladin begins each encounter with a plea for the enemies to lay down their arms and know that they will be dealt with in a fair and honorable fashion. She then follows with a warning that once hostilities begin they can no longer be under her protection.

The rest of us will work with her though. If we incapacitated a foe, we would allow her to judge them before deciding what to do.

Our GM seems to think that a Devotion Paladin is perfectly within their rights to execute a foe that committed evil acts and refused to surrender prior to battle.

[KorvinStarmast]

In my experience, most of the people we've helped as charity (ie not people who were already friends) don't even say thanks at the time, much less look us up later or change their lives. And those were all humans. :-\ My experience as well, although some do say thank you.


You don't know that. You can't know that. And who says the hag has to stay evil? Creature type: Fiend. (for a Night hag at least). But depending on the power differential between PC's and hag, maybe there's room to negotiate.

If you are fighting a hag, and for some weird reason she surrenders and turns yourself over to your mercy, a devotion paladin is expected to show her mercy.
Paladins are also supposed to fight against evil.

Presuming is not some kind of ploy simply to trick hi m. He is required to be merciful; but not an idiot. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, when dealing with evil.

All Han did was win initiative. Yeah.

Yeah, this goes for a lot of them. Remember the scene where Aragorn tied up or gave a stern talking to the Orcs or the Uruk Hai and then let them go to lead better lives? Me neither. Indeed.

I also want to say that the sleep spell is very different from going up to someone sleeping and killing them,
Yean, as I read some of these conversations, it appears that somehow, it's OK for a 5th level wizard to toss out a fireball and kill orcs, but it isn't OK for a 3rd level wizard to use sleep and then kill the orcs. Both are area of effect spells meant to defeat the enemy. I guess that Rank Hath Its Privilege.

Weird logic going on in this discussion, from where I sit.
1. Combat as war.
2. Have yet to find a town called Westphalia in the FR (base setting for 5e).


Presumably. I am in agreement with you, but I have this weird notion that being pragmatic does not equate being evil. That too. Apparently, to put someone to sleep and then kill them is evil. So is, I guess, stunning them, and putting them in the incapacitated condition, and continuing to try and kill them.

There are a lot of anachronosims running amok in this discussion, since in our current society the exception is to go forth and kill someone. In the setting of the game, which is Not Real Life, use of deadly force is far more common as a solution set. That's inherent in the game as written.

All of the above considered, there's a lot to be said for evaluating a situation, particularly when humanoids are involved, and some fey, where parley or negotiation is a good first move. Not everyone out there is simply sitting around waiting for combat. Some have goals and deals of their own to pursue, depending upon the campaign you are in. Others, not so much. (I am reminded of the overpowered assassins in the LMoP encounter at this point. Does the party really need to fight them, or get into a fight with them?)

If the DM is running a pure dungeon crawl ... that may not be the case.

[AHF]

For the ethics of killing, there is a difference if the enemy no longer represents a threat (Greedo moving to fire versus coming on him asleep). This is the basis of self defense in every country.

In the middle of a battle, however, enemies being asleep are just temporarily incapacitated. If you can safely subdue them that is the right move for a Devotion Paladin. If you can't, then keep on attacking. You don't pass on stabbing someone in D&D because they slip while trying to stab you. Sleep buys you a single minute's worth of time if there isn't someone else to wake them up. Disposing of a down enemy in the midst of battle when you can't safely subdue them seems no different than smiting them while prone.

For enemies that are subdued, it seems reasonable for the Paladin to try to decide whether they represent a true risk to people or not by making an insight check if they claim they will reform. If that capture hag says she won't go slaughter any more innocents and the insight check reveals she is lying then kill away if you aren't in a position to hand the hag over to the authorities. If the insight check reveals a true desire to cease hostilities or reform then it would be evil to kill a tied up hag. Think of the hags from the coven in MOTB who forced the only one that cared about a human to eat him alive. The ones who would force that would be lying when they ask for mercy and promise to reform and should not be released. The one who cared about the person should not be killed if she genuinely says she won't hurt innocent people anymore.

[strangebloke]

Hillarious you should say this. Tomb of Horrors contains an encounter with a Hag [actually a polymorphed good guy].
.

"temper mercy with wisdom" means "There are times when mercy is not appropriate, or would conflict with your other tenets."

That's all we're arguing. We are not arguing that there is never an instance in which you should spare a cultist or a hag or whatever.

As to heroic characters executing prisoners, well... true. I mean, you can't kill prisoners if you never take them!

You cited Aragorn, who as far as I can tell never took a single prisoner in the entire series other than gollum. Goes for all the characters in LotR, actually. The only instance where anyone takes prisoners that I can think of is when the Rohirrim spare the Dunlendings after the battle of the Hornburg. Faramir, for example, killed tons of haradrim and took no prisoners, and I'm willing to bet that a few did surrender. Almost none of the Haradrim at the battle of Pellenor survived, none of the Corsairs of Umbar survived the attack of the army of the dead, etc etc. Tolkein would agree with you that mercy is a wonderful thing, but his characters could be fairly cold when they needed to be.

Batman, etc, doesn't kill, but he's operating in a city with a working(ish) justice system where he can reliably drop the Joker or whoever off. The sheriff of a small western town might not have that option. He only has so many jail cells, after all, and feeding prisoners isn't a trivial matter. There's a reason so many Western heroes just shoot all their enemies dead, or bring them back and hang them.

War is brutal and taking captives simply isn't practical much of the time. This is particularly true of dnd parties, which spend most of their time operating as spec ops deep in enemy territory. If you take prisoners and are burdened and fail your mission as a result, you have failed your duty tenet, and failed to 'temper mercy with wisdom.' If you start a fight with your party members over the prisoners and fail your mission, same thing.

Finally, it's one thing if an enemy surrenders, and quite another if you've simply rendered them unconscious temporarily. Additionally, you can deal nonlethal damage, so Malifice, would you say that a devotion paladin is always required to do so?

This all seems pointlessly restrictive.

Granted, if I were that Paladin and the party was killing enemies who surrendered, I would probably try to find a different set of companions for the next mission.

[Malifice]

Im kind of done with this debate. Its been done to death here and elsewhere before.

IMG killing a living creature who is at your mercy (asleep, surrendered, a prisoner) is almost invariably an evil act, and equally almost invariably a breach of a Devotion paladins oath.

YMMV.

[Motorskills]

Keep in mind the oath of devotion doesn't always mean mercy flufffy kitty hugs.

If these are bad people killing other people or sacrificing others in the name of evil he should not feel bad nor should his god be calling for mercy really. This is more oath of redemption area.

If they are murdering simple people that are only doing minor things then yes there is going to be some big issues and you need to help not aggravate the rift wider by putting the paladin and fighter at odds in such black and white ways so quickly. Or its just going to lead to party kills or splits.

Oath of Devotion can fully mean I slay the wicked to protect the weak. Is it a bit darker take on it? A little but I think the bigger issue is simply killing them in their sleep and without a honorable death in battle. That should be more of his sticking point rather then they are murdering cultists.

I built my Lords' Alliance DevPal long before Oath of Conquest was available, I might have used that subclass if it had been available at the time.

I play him Lawful Neutral, but honestly I could get away with playing him Lawful Good.

Either way, as a Paladin of Tyr, God of Justice, my paladin is certainly not Lawful Nice.

I describe him as the "mailed fist of compassion".

But I stick to the tenets of the Oath.

I could foresee plenty of situations where silently killing sleeping sentries would be exactly the correct thing to, and other situations where it would be cold-blooded murder.

Make sure everyone - both the DM and the players - is on the same page.


As an aside, nowhere in the Tenets for the Oath of Vengeance does it say that murdering people in their sleep is A-OK. It isn't. Ruthless =/= psychotic.

It might be necessary and sensible - those considerations apply to both DevPal and VenPal alike.

[Malifice]

As an aside, nowhere in the Tenets for the Oath of Vengeance does it say that murdering people in their sleep is A-OK. It isn't. Ruthless =/= psychotic.

The Vengeance Oath is literally: By any means. No mercy.

Vengeance Paladins (evil ones) can engage in flat out genocide and be following their oath faithfully.

My current Vengeance Paladin is LE (patron Bane). He was once a worshipper of Torm, but now sees Torm (and his deluded followers) as being faithless and evil (his parents were 'killed' by Torm during the Time of Troubles in order to defeat Bane, and the PC was brought up in the Church of Torm as one of the Martyrs Progeny and a Paladin of Torm.

Since turning my back on Torm (and ironically joining the Church of Bane) I have 'seen the light' that Torm is weak and false. He killed my parents, and abandoned me (not the other way around). I seek to destroy the church of Torm, and eventually even slay the False God himself. I see Torm (and his church) as the 'greater evil' I am sworn to destroy and wreak my vengeance upon.

They get no mercy. Prisoners are executed. Churches are razed. Worshipers put to the sword as infidels.

I do what I do for the greater good. I intend to unite Faerun under the tyrannical fist of the Black Hand. There will be one god, one nation, one people. Wars will cease. There will be unity, and there will be Law.

And there will be peace. Under the watchful eye of Bane.


It might be necessary and sensible - those considerations apply to both DevPal and VenPal alike.

Both Oath's are not [do what is necessary]. Thats the Vengeance Oath [by any means necessary].

The Devotion oath requires one to act with Honor (not killing unarmed and defenseless people is widely considered dishonorable), and show mercy and compassion.

I could definitely see a LN Devotion Paladin (of Torm) executing a prisoner, if such execution was lawfully conducted, he had a duty to do so, and the crime was blatant, severe, and the accused had a fair trial.

That should still be tempered (in the case of a devotion paladin) with mercy, and compassion though.

[Davrix]

I built my Lords' Alliance DevPal long before Oath of Conquest was available, I might have used that subclass if it had been available at the time.

I play him Lawful Neutral, but honestly I could get away with playing him Lawful Good.

Either way, as a Paladin of Tyr, God of Justice, my paladin is certainly not Lawful Nice.

I describe him as the "mailed fist of compassion".

But I stick to the tenets of the Oath.

I could foresee plenty of situations where silently killing sleeping sentries would be exactly the correct thing to, and other situations where it would be cold-blooded murder.

Make sure everyone - both the DM and the players - is on the same page.


As an aside, nowhere in the Tenets for the Oath of Vengeance does it say that murdering people in their sleep is A-OK. It isn't. Ruthless =/= psychotic.

It might be necessary and sensible - those considerations apply to both DevPal and VenPal alike.


It really does all depend on the situation and how one views his or her oaths.

Not to mention some people forget how easily home-brewing in 5th is. you could simply take Paladin of devotion and re-write the oaths. I could see many way someone could be devoted to a cause by their oaths while sticking to the main themes behind the original published oath, such as Honor, courage and protecting the weak. For example a Devotion paladin of the Law or Devotion to ones lord or simply Devotion to one god's ideals, all of which could have different effects on how they view and interact with the world around them. 5th specifically allows for this with the idea that a paladin draws his power from his oaths and not a god if they so choose. But i am sure Mal will find a dozen way's to disagree with me, though I have come to realize we will simply never see eye to eye on this matter. Which is fine he is entitled to his view though god help us if we ever show up at the same table somehow. :)

[Motorskills]

The Vengeance Oath is literally: By any means. No mercy.

Vengeance Paladins (evil ones) can engage in flat out genocide and be following their oath faithfully.

My current Vengeance Paladin is LE (patron Bane). He was once a worshipper of Torm, but now sees Torm (and his deluded followers) as being faithless and evil (his parents were 'killed' by Torm during the Time of Troubles in order to defeat Bane, and the PC was brought up in the Church of Torm as one of the Martyrs Progeny and a Paladin of Torm.

Since turning my back on Torm (and ironically joining the Church of Bane) I have 'seen the light' that Torm is weak and false. He killed my parents, and abandoned me (not the other way around). I seek to destroy the church of Torm, and eventually even slay the False God himself. I see Torm (and his church) as the 'greater evil' I am sworn to destroy and wreak my vengeance upon.

And that's all well and good, very Bane.


They get no mercy. Prisoners are executed.

But this? It doesn't necessarily follow. A paladin of Bane might well spare prisoners to send a message to the next town that surrendering the walls is viable.

A second paladin of Bane might execute the first paladin for killing the prisoners, he having made the assault on the next town all the harder.

Ruthless =/= psychotic =/= stupid

Now a Chaotic Evil paladin of a God of Destruction? Burn them all.

[Angelalex242]

And that's all well and good, very Bane.



But this? It doesn't necessarily follow. A paladin of Bane might well spare prisoners to send a message to the next town that surrendering the walls is viable.

A second paladin of Bane might execute the first paladin for killing the prisoners, he having made the assault on the next town all the harder.

Ruthless =/= psychotic =/= stupid

Now a Chaotic Evil paladin of a God of Destruction? Burn them all.

Well, Chaotic Evil starts getting into Oathbreaker, as the classic 'Blackguard.' A paladin of Bane, though, you'd think that guy would be Conquest, not Vengeance.

[Malifice]

Well, Chaotic Evil starts getting into Oathbreaker, as the classic 'Blackguard.' A paladin of Bane, though, you'd think that guy would be Conquest, not Vengeance.

I actually have a lawful evil paladin of Bane.

Conquest fit the theme generally, but vengeance fitted his particular theme better.