[3.5] Paladin Executed Surrendered Foe, Did Not Fall

[Crow]

Last night, our Vow of Poverty Paladin was escorting a boy-king through an elven forest, on the run from marauding hobgoblins and men, when they came across a fleeing elf-woman and her children. They rescued the woman and her children from their pursuers, and while speaking to the woman afterwords, found out that they had been prisoners and escaped from a human-hobgoblin encampment a few miles away where more prisoners were being kept.

The Paladin wanted to avoid the camp, as his job was to get the boy-king to safety, but the boy-king basically pulled rank, and told the Paladin that they have a responsibility to those people, and that they should attempt to rescue them.

In any case, following a map captured from one of the men they'd killed earlier, they made their way towards this encampment. Enroute, they came accross a hobgoblin patrol. Catching them by surprise, the Paladin and the boy make short work of the patrol. The last hobgoblin, knocked to 0 hitpoints, drops his weapons and surrenders. At this point, the boy is watching very carefully to see what the Paladin will do. At this time, the Paladin raises his morningstar, and brains the surrendered hobgoblin, attempting to make the death as humane as possible given the conditions.

We stopped and spoke OOC for a bit about this. The Paladin's player explained that they did not have any reliable way to detain the prisoner at this time (they had no rope or manacles), and due to their proximity to the man-hobgoblin encampment, could not risk letting the hobgoblin get a chance to warn his buddies. He still had an obligation to protect the boy, and also did not want to further endanger the prisoners kept at the camp (which they were attempting to rescue). He ended his argument by stating that he felt he had no choice.

Being the DM, a took note of his argument, and told him that I felt he was justified in the decision that he made, but to watch out in the future in case this was the beginning of a slippery slope situation.

Does this sound like the right choice in this situation?

[Beelzebub1111]

I think you made the right choice, there. Paladins don't fall because of one action of circumstance. He couldn't let him off with a warning, because he couldn't trust the prisoner wouldn't go all Die Hard on his ass...

Sometimes you need to take prisoners and sometimes you need to bust heads.

[Jack_Simth]

Idiot paladin. That situation is what nonlethal damage is for. If he's exactly at 0, just knock him out. He'll recover a few nonlethal every hour, and eventually wake up... but by that time, your mission will be done, one way or the other. Mercy (you didn't kill him after he surrendered), and all obligations met.

However, most people don't think like that, so yes, letting him off with a warning is fine and dandy. It's not like Paladins are forbidden to kill, after all, and it's not like Lawful governments don't occasionally execute someone.

[Mr.Moron]

Sounds like he didn't stop to consider any other options at all. Natural materials around that could make for improvised restraints? Talking to him (Diplomacy) into being cooperative, while being sure he's on the level (Sense Motive)? Heck, as someone else mentioned nonlethal damage? It was just "No Rope? No way! *SPLAT*"

I have a certain dislike for alignment "Traps" but this seems like a really extreme case. You've got the execution of a surrendered prisoner, by not just a good character, not just a paladin, but by an exalted paladin. I certainty can't say letting him off with a warning was a bad move but it was a generous one.

[Bibliomancer]

According to the BoED, executing prisoners is irrevocably evil, regardless of the situation, and would probably make the paladin fall (although a normal atonement would return his powers, given the trivial nature of the act itself, ASSUMING he actually repented).

Given that knocking someone unconscious is always a (rather obvious option), not killing the prisoner was, pardon the pun, a no-brainer.

Other alternatives involve carrying rope (what sort of adventurer doesn't have rope? and a paladin should have rope for situations like these, especially if in the wilderness) and stowing the hobgoblin in a extradimensional carrying case (if the paladin didn't have one of these, he was too low level to be guarding a boy king).

In any case, there is a large difference between executing someone after due process in a court of law* and killing them for racially motivated reasons in the wilderness. The paladin should fall, even perhaps retroactively.

*And a lawful good government would often opt for life imprisonment, unless the prisoner was a demon or other person of irredeemable evil.

[Milskidasith]

*And a lawful good government would often opt for life imprisonment, unless the prisoner was a demon or other person of irredeemable evil.

Not all Lawful Good is created equal. Not only that, but long term imprisonment is not always an option of the prisoner is of sufficient power.

[2xMachina]

Stupid dice. If it has knocked to -1, this wouldn't have happened.

Meh, Paladin = suck. Go Crusader. Kill what you need to kill without need to justify.

[QuantumSteve]

Being a Paladin is not a trivial thing. He has a terrible responsibility to live up to. (One he very well might not be able to live up to.) Furthermore, he's Exalted on top of that. Killing a helpless creature = Bad Stuff.

I'm kind of a softy and wouldn't make him permanently fall, but there's now way he'd keep his powers without atoning after a stunt like that.

[Bibliomancer]

Not all Lawful Good is created equal. Not only that, but long term imprisonment is not always an option of the prisoner is of sufficient power.

True. However, a government run by, say, paladins with exalted feats (and thus access to the BoED), like the character in question, would almost certainly operate like this.

Most things can be overcome. Casters can be put in anti-magic fields, etc.

There are implicit exceptions for evil outsiders, undead, and aberrations.

[Mike_G]

According to the BoED,

I really hate that book.

executing prisoners is irrevocably evil, regardless of the situation, and would probably make the paladin fall (although a normal atonement would return his powers, given the trivial nature of the act itself, ASSUMING he actually repented).

I don't thinks it's all that black and white. Sometimes, you can't assure the safety of the party and, in this case, the elf woman, the children and the remaining prisoners.

If they could have guaranteed the prisoner wouldn't have been a threat, sure, keep him alive, but enemy prisoners are lower on the food chain than your own guys.

Given that knocking someone unconscious is always a (rather obvious option), not killing the prisoner was, pardon the pun, a no-brainer.

A metagame option. Realistically, knocking somebody out without killing them is very uncertain, and the player might not have wanted to rely on metagame knowledge of "I do subdual damage, since I know he's at 0 HP." Hitting a guy is hitting a guy. People die from "nonlethal" weapons all the time.

Other alternatives involve carrying rope (what sort of adventurer doesn't have rope? and a paladin should have rope for situations like these, especially if in the wilderness) and stowing the hobgoblin in a extradimensional carrying case (if the paladin didn't have one of these, he was too low level to be guarding a boy king).

He has the Vow of Poverty. He's got zip for extrademensionsal storage.

In any case, there is a large difference between executing someone after due process in a court of law* and killing them for racially motivated reasons in the wilderness. The paladin should fall, even perhaps retroactively.

*And a lawful good government would often opt for life imprisonment, unless the prisoner was a demon or other person of irredeemable evil.

If you are guarding a boy king in the wilderness, chances are you don't have a big ol' support system to guard, feed, transport, imprison, try, convict and punish the prisoner.

In this case, keeping the prisoner might threaten the mission, the King, a noncombatant woman and children, and more captives of the enemy.

I'm no Paladin, but I might just whack him.

[Mr.Moron]

Realistically, knocking somebody out without killing them is very uncertain, and the player might not have wanted to rely on metagame knowledge of "I do subdual damage, since I know he's at 0 HP." Hitting a guy is hitting a guy. People die from "nonlethal" weapons all the time.

Narratively, it always works. A swift knock to the back of the noggin' is almost certain to knock someone out for exactly the period of time the plot demands. At least in the majority media dealing with heroes & villains I've seen.

[Snake-Aes]

I'm no Paladin, but I might just whack him.

That's pretty much the point :p
You know how some super heroes simply don't kill their enemies, knowing they probably will cause trouble later?
Goodness is like that. Arguably you don't even have to be that much obscene on the Good side to do that.

[Runeclaw]

Paladins don't fall because of one action of circumstance

Actually, Paladins do fall because of one willful evil action.

Was the action willful? Yes.

Was it evil? That's a harder question. I'm prepared to grant even Paladins a little "ends justify the means" wiggle room - but only a little. In this case, I think he might have overstepped it.

Taking prisoners (particularly known evil prisoners) when away from anyone who can incarcerate them for you is always a bit of a pain and can endanger you and your mission. But those are the breaks. For a Paladin, especially an exalted Paladin, this kind of convenience killing is stretching it.

Note that just because something is "the right thing to do given the circumstances" - meaning it will result in less total suffering, less total harm to innocents, etc - does not necessarily mean that it isn't, still, in and of itself, an evil action - unless you want to really open up the doors to "ends justify the means" defenses.

Forcing a decision like that on a Paladin is often considered poor form, but this doesn't seem like a trap - a clearly outmatched evil foe surrendering is a standard type of occurrence.

I think I'd go with the "falls but can be redeemed" side of things, frankly.

[2xMachina]

And there is a problem of him alerting the presence of the boy-king to the rest when he wakes up.

Do I hear a ransom demand?

[Snake-Aes]

And there is a problem of him alerting the presence of the boy-king to the rest when he wakes up.

Do I hear a ransom demand?

Again, an epitome of Good wouldn't put convenience above the Morally Right Thing. If an exalted paladin falls under such a pitfall(which I do not believe was this OP's case), then he does what he must do and falls, and later redeems for it if it can be done.

[Runeclaw]

Sometimes, you can't assure the safety of the party and, in this case, the elf woman, the children and the remaining prisoners. If they could have guaranteed the prisoner wouldn't have been a threat, sure, keep him alive, but enemy prisoners are lower on the food chain than your own guys.

Paladins do not have the luxury of avoiding evil actions only when doing so is guaranteed to not have bad results.

[Bibliomancer]

I really hate that book.

YMMV. It mainly exacerbates the problems inherent to the alignment system.

I don't thinks it's all that black and white. Sometimes, you can't assure the safety of the party and, in this case, the elf woman, the children and the remaining prisoners.

Actually, it is. Alignment works on black and white. Doing evil to cause good is still evil. If you don't like the alignment system, don't use it. Otherwise, you're stuck with its definitions.

If they could have guaranteed the prisoner wouldn't have been a threat, sure, keep him alive, but enemy prisoners are lower on the food chain than your own guys.

Yes, but good does not choose the lesser of two evils. Good tries to save everyone because everyone is of equal worth. In any case, how much of a threat would a 0HP hobgoblin be? Besides, hobgoblins are usually lawful (which was how he knew to surrender in the first place), so if you extract an oath to remain silent, he'd remain silent (probably).

He has the Vow of Poverty. He's got zip for extrademensionsal storage

Fair enough, I overlooked that. I'm a bit surprised that the king isn't traveling around in a lavishly appointed portable hole, though.

If you are guarding a boy king in the wilderness, chances are you don't have a big ol' support system to guard, feed, transport, imprison, try, convict and punish the prisoner.

Not right there, no. However, assuming a kingdom exists at all (which it presumably would) a jail and justice system can be jury-rigged once you return to civilization, or the prisoner could be swapped to the hobgoblins in exchange for some of their prisoners/slaves.

In this case, keeping the prisoner might threaten the mission, the King, a noncombatant woman and children, and more captives of the enemy

Very true, and yet that doesn't justify murder. It isn't easy being good.

I'm no Paladin, but I might just whack him.

As would many people in the real world. However, we don't have an all-encompassing alignment system, and so can approach things from a purely rational means and ends viewpoint.

[Math_Mage]

A paladin should be trained in the art of nonlethal subdual, for exactly this kind of situation. Killing for convenience ("oh, I don't have rope, so it's inconvenient to keep this prisoner alive") is evil. And that is the explanation the player gave for his actions, so it is fair to attach that motivation to the paladin.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Not knowing the full circumstances of the events I can't say for certain, if it was to dangerous to leave the prisoner alive and take them with him he was probably justified. Leaving him unconscious and badly wounded in the wilderness would probably be more cruel then simply killing him. Especially after slaughtering the main camp and freeing the prisoners there.

While a paladin should not execute a prisoner that doesn't mean he has to accept all surrenders.

Had I been the Paladin I would have asked the boy-king. There is little point in keeping the prisoner alive if the Boy King is just going to order him executed as soon as the escort mission is over.

[hamishspence]

Not right there, no. However, assuming a kingdom exists at all (which it presumably would) a jail and justice system can be jury-rigged once you return to civilization, or the prisoner could be swapped to the hobgoblins in exchange for some of their prisoners/slaves.

Very true, and yet that doesn't justify murder. It isn't easy being good.

Some people solve that by giving paladins the moral (and legal) power to hold impromptu trials on the spot- question the witness under detect lies, assess whether he's guilty of crimes that can warrant the death penalty- if he is- find him guilty and execute him.

Others might not like this kind of "Judge Dredd" paladin.

[2xMachina]

But you're lawful! You must follow protocol!

[Pechvarry]

Step 1: knock guy unconscious and run away.
Step 2: unconscious guy wakes up and wanders back to camp to alert his band.
Step 3: AN ENTIRE ARMY TELEPORTS AHEAD OF YOU, CUTS YOU OFF, KILLS YOUR BOY-KING.

I'm with the Paladin. His charge was simply too important for any risk. If it were just the Paladin's neck on the line, or even the rest of a PC party, OK. But a king is the top of the hierarchy of law, which is at least half of what a Paladin runs on.

[Quirp]

The big problem with having the paladin fall is not that he could have problems fulfilling his mission and get redemption. Since he is an exalted charakter THERE IS NO REDEMPTION. That´s exalted: you fall and never get your feats/powers back. That can kill a campaign. I would let him keep his powers, but have a divine emissary (angel or something) manifest in front of him and tell him that, when he does anything like that again, he will be stripped of all his powers and may never rest in celestia when his time has come.

[hamishspence]

Not true- BoED specifically states you can get Exalted feats back after Falling.

Page 20- Sin and Atonement.

"With all these criteria met, the powers of good welcome straying sheep who return to the fold, and an atonement spell subsequently cast can have its full effect: restoring a paladin's class, restoring a cleric or druid's spell powers, or restoring the benefits of exalted feats to any character"

Intentionally breaking individual Vow of X feats might permanently lose them- even if breaking the vow wasn't evil.

But losing exalted feats because of Evil acts- can be reversed.

[Quirp]

strange
I always thought lose it once=lose it forever

[Math_Mage]

Step 1: knock guy unconscious and run away.
Step 2: unconscious guy wakes up and wanders back to camp to alert his band.
Step 3: AN ENTIRE ARMY TELEPORTS AHEAD OF YOU, CUTS YOU OFF, KILLS YOUR BOY-KING.

I'm with the Paladin. His charge was simply too important for any risk. If it were just the Paladin's neck on the line, or even the rest of a PC party, OK. But a king is the top of the hierarchy of law, which is at least half of what a Paladin runs on.

Step 1 is flawed. The paladin's planning on going into the camp.
Step 2 is flawed. The band will find out about the paladin when he rescues the prisoners.
Step 3 is flawed. This is a band of hobgoblins, not a city of armies and mages.

Conclusion: since the king was already determined on the risk of freeing the prisoners, there was no additional risk to knocking the goblin unconscious instead of killing him.

[Mike_G]

I think we have to look at the paladin's hierarchy of duty.

In this this case, to fulfill all his obligations, he should:

1. Guard the King. This is his assigned mission, he's presumably given his word, and this is presumably his rightful lord.

2. Protect the innocent. This is what Paladin's do. They champion those who cannot defend themselves from evil. In this case, the elven woman and kiddos.

3. Free the Other Prisoners of the Hobgoblins Innocent, defenseless, in the hands of evil captors, sure to suffer a hideous fate. Clear obligation on the Paladin to rescue them if at all possible.

4. Accept Honorable Surrender. Part of the code. Because, while we may be out mashing sentient beings with a big, heavy club with nails in it, we are, after all, civilized.


Now, do we toss numbers 1-3 in importance to satisfy number 4?

[hamishspence]

strange
I always thought lose it once=lose it forever

Thankfully, no. The writers of BoED were smart abourt that, at least.

Paladins in 3.0 and earlier editions, could lose their paladinhood forever if they intentionally committed an Evil act.

But in 3.5, they dropped that, allowing you to atone for Evil acts.

[Snake-Aes]

Step 1: knock guy unconscious and run away.
Step 2: unconscious guy wakes up and wanders back to camp to alert his band.
Step 3: AN ENTIRE ARMY TELEPORTS AHEAD OF YOU, CUTS YOU OFF, KILLS YOUR BOY-KING.

I'm with the Paladin. His charge was simply too important for any risk. If it were just the Paladin's neck on the line, or even the rest of a PC party, OK. But a king is the top of the hierarchy of law, which is at least half of what a Paladin runs on.

I do believe if someone can even pull off teleporting an entire army, one surrendering hobgoblins prisoner is your smallest problem. Please keep to the context.

Yes, the paladin had options, yes he should pursue them. Even if they aren't the best options, no one told you Good is easy. It's in fact the hardest alignment to consistently attach yourself to.

It doesn't matter that we know through meta that nonlethal damage doesn't kill. It's know well enough in-game that there are entire spells, classes and feats dedicated to it. He would know he could conk a couple dozen points of subdual damage that would keep the hob down for a few hours, more than enough for him to get away with mr king.

[Bibliomancer]

Some people solve that by giving paladins the moral (and legal) power to hold impromptu trials on the spot- question the witness under detect lies, assess whether he's guilty of crimes that can warrant the death penalty- if he is- find him guilty and execute him.

Others might not like this kind of "Judge Dredd" paladin.

This isn't a bad impromptu fix, although it doesn't match the spirit of an exalted paladin perfectly. However, being Judge, Jury, and Executioner could have interesting roleplaying consequences for the paladin, and might make him feared in civilized areas.

Step 1: knock guy unconscious and run away.
Step 2: unconscious guy wakes up and wanders back to camp to alert his band.
Step 3: AN ENTIRE ARMY TELEPORTS AHEAD OF YOU, CUTS YOU OFF, KILLS YOUR BOY-KING.

I'm with the Paladin. His charge was simply too important for any risk. If it were just the Paladin's neck on the line, or even the rest of a PC party, OK. But a king is the top of the hierarchy of law, which is at least half of what a Paladin runs on.

Wait, the paladin told the hobgoblin that his escort was the king? Good is not always stupid. If he didn't (and one would like to think that he didn't), the hobgoblin would only report that he was accosted by a wandering paladin. Hardly something to call out the cavalry for, assuming that the hobgoblins even have an arcane detachment in their puny base camp.

Alternatively, he could have knocked the hobgoblin into next century (there is no cap on the amount of non-lethal damage you can deal to someone, and it heals at a fixed rate). As a further safeguard, he could carry the hobgoblin, given that he would have very high strength with the boost that he's getting from the Vow of Poverty.

The big problem with having the paladin fall is not that he could have problems fulfilling his mission and get redemption. Since he is an exalted charakter THERE IS NO REDEMPTION. That´s exalted: you fall and never get your feats/powers back. That can kill a campaign. I would let him keep his powers, but have a divine emissary (angel or something) manifest in front of him and tell him that, when he does anything like that again, he will be stripped of all his powers and may never rest in celestia when his time has come.

This would be a good solution, then, since it a) can occur now without any retcons on the DMs part, and b) gives the paladin a warning to avoid this in the future.

However, to ensure that the paladin doesn't get an inflated sense of his own importance, make the messenger a lantern archon. Heck, you could even leave it there as his tiny illuminated floating conscience.