D20: Paladins On the Edge: "Pick up the knife."
Gabriel_Pitt
(effective against Russian warships)Registered User regular
(effective against Russian warships)Registered User regular
I'm going to be playing a paladin on a vendetta soon in a d20 game. A botched operation by a crime syndicate killed his wife and son, and connections possessed by the perpetrator prevented him from being punished, and the paladin was humiliated when he tried to push the matter.
So now he's on a semi-quixotic vendetta to bring the syndicate down, to cut out the rot, but you can't knock down a building by kicking the battlements and you're just going to flatten yourself trying to charge headlong through the wall. So he's going to dig from the foundation upwards.
He's still a paladin, and he still abides by his beliefs and code of honor, but he's going to be running the razor's edge of falling. He's going after those he knows are guilty, if not of the specific crime against him, than of being agents of rot and injustice. While he would never attack an unarmed man, he would throw them a knife and then charge them as soon as they picked it up.
So, what happens when someone goes, 'hell no I'm not picking that up! You'll fucking kill me?' He's not going to kill anyone in cold blood, no matter how much he feels they personally deserve it.
So now he's on a semi-quixotic vendetta to bring the syndicate down, to cut out the rot, but you can't knock down a building by kicking the battlements and you're just going to flatten yourself trying to charge headlong through the wall. So he's going to dig from the foundation upwards.
He's still a paladin, and he still abides by his beliefs and code of honor, but he's going to be running the razor's edge of falling. He's going after those he knows are guilty, if not of the specific crime against him, than of being agents of rot and injustice. While he would never attack an unarmed man, he would throw them a knife and then charge them as soon as they picked it up.
So, what happens when someone goes, 'hell no I'm not picking that up! You'll fucking kill me?' He's not going to kill anyone in cold blood, no matter how much he feels they personally deserve it.
Gabriel_Pitt on
0
Posts
The character's deal is that he's been forced to turn vigilante in order to get justice, but he doesn't want to cross that line into 'Punisher' territory and I'm trying to think up problem scenarios and solutions so that if something similar happens in game, I'm not stuck there with my jaw hanging open, slowing down the rest of the game while I try and figure out what my character does next.
Also, not high enough level to have reliable access to dimension hopping stuff.
Unless you really really want to stay a paladin its just going to be an interesting branch of the story.
Either that or play a Paladin of St Cuthbert. Or get your party members to kill him.
Man
I'd probably strip him of his paladinhood right then.
Then multiclass to barbarian. 8-)
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
I would also strongly suggest having Cuthbert or maybe Tyr as your deity. Cuthbert probably fits best.
In my opinion, a paladin would operate within the laws of the authorities, even if they were corrupt. He would seek to expose the corruption on a broader scale. Depending on the campaign, I'm sure you can work with the DM for some more social situations, maybe. Or hell, maybe he is seen as a vigilante in the eyes of the authorities, who routinely find criminals rounded up for them. Is there not an honest man of the law, trying to do his best despite the corruption? Maybe your paladin should seek an NPC like that out, and work from there.
Also, becoming an ex-paladin might be an interesting, natural progression for the character. I'm not saying he'll become the Punisher, but maybe he kills someone in an act of cold blood, like the criminal overlord or something. He might be unwilling to let the villain live, rather then atone for his crimes. This could lead for some more character development, as he's now achieved his goal. The syndicate is gone, but in the process, he's lost his paladinhood. Maybe the DM could work on a side quest in which your character regains his class levels?
Just say you're obeying a high authority. If you cross that line, then yeah, he should probably get smote.
I feel like people love trying to screw paladins with technicalities. It makes so much more sense to look at the spirit of the class.
And let's face it, retribution is a component of justice whether we like it or not.
I know you meant the FR god but haw that makes me giggle like none other
to be more helpful and ontopic, I agree with the reasoning in that post; switch to a deity who cares more about his bottom line. it'd help if your DM takes a more liberal view of alignment (f'rex Eberron requires a more modern, malleable take on alignment to run properly; one can be a lawful good villain in eberron simply by virtue of opposing goals)
Stealing the above from the 4th Edition thread because it fits here. Use the Bats as a role model, don't kill, but nothing says you have to be soft, ineffectual, and obey the wishes of the corrupt authorities either.
What about a speech like Samuel L Jackson's from the end of Pulp Fiction, all the while with a sword on their throat?
Maybe try to find an underground movement in the city that does support justice, to which to deliver the bound bad guys.
Throwing them a knife they may or may not be able to use while holding a sword you're well-trained in and wearing a full set of armor is very much a violation of Paladin principles.
You'd need to either drop your OWN sword and use a knife yourself, offer them a sword, or something similar to "even" things up. Mind you, that doesn't mean dropping your blessed weapons...
"My god has graced my blade with His might. May your god have the mercy to grant you the same."
But throwing them a simple dagger wouldn't work. Especially if, again, they're unarmored and armed with nothing BUT that knife, and you're fully decked out in your Plate Of Paladinhood and whatnot. Sure, they're "armed" now, but it's still murder, and almost any god of justice will see it that way.
So the answer is simple. You CAN'T kill them if thye won't pick up the knife, not and retain your Paladinhood. Unless they present a clear and present danger to others, that is. Also, a spellcaster cannot be considered "unarmed"... ever. Anyone who can kill you with their brains is only unarmed if you take the brains out of their skull and splatter it under your boot.
I feel like I'm wandering. So let me try again.
To retain your Paladinhood, you not only must retain a Lawful Good alignment, you must adhere to a certain code of ethics as laid down by the god granting you power. I don't care WHAT god is making you a Paladin, you're going to have to adhere to some strict rules. As Vogonity below mentioned, that DOESN'T mean "following evil laws because they're laws". It does, however, mean that you cannot go murder someone and claim it's a "good" act so you don't lose your Paladinhood. You can subdue them, take them to an authority you know WILL prosecute them (The church of your god, might suffice), or find somewhere to keep them incarcerated. You may have to act as jailor yourself, or else hire someone else to do it for you, but you can't kill them just because they're corrupt, not if they're utterly helpless.
Imprison, yes. Incapacitate, yes. Kill, no.
On the other hand, if you're in combat with a foe, and you kill him in the heat of battle, that's different. But you can't justify to your god that you threw him a knife and then ran him through. That arguement might work in a court of law, but it won't work with a deity, who KNOWS your acts were unjust. Their Wisdom scores range into the 50s and higher, 'member? You're not going to fool them. Plus, remember, it's their system you're working with. When your god created the rules that you have to follow, you can't argue to them that the "spirit" of the law isn't the letter... they'd be offended that you think you know their will better than they do.
So, in short. You can't kill the guy if he won't pick up the knife. If you're going to insist on trying, you're going to stop being a Paladin. Which makes sense, because at that point, you AREn'T playing a Paladin anymore, you're playing an ex-Paladin who doesn't understand why he's lost his powers. Which would make him, honestly, the dumbest Paladin in history.
I think I'll start a new thread on the subject of Paladins somewhere. I want to see what people think of my Paladin's Code.
If you want to... I just hope it doesn't degenerate into an alignment flame war.
The Paladin's Code from the PHB:
1) If you knowingly commit an evil act, you lose your paladinhood forever.
2) If you unknowingly commit an evil act, or if you commit a chaotic act knowingly or unknowingly, you lose your paladin abilities but can regain them with an atonement.
Everything else you posted is personal interpretation and flavor, and nothing more. If we're talking Core paladins (as indicated by the OP), we should keep it to the Core RAW.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
"This blade has been wielded by a hundred foes who have fallen before me. Are you a bad enough dude?"
Or maybe you have a Crouching Tiger / Kill Bill2 style Rack of Holding with an assortment of options for your foe.
"Pick one."
Worship Tyr/Cuthbert. Attain an audience with a Cardinal (or similar), and explain to them the situation in this city, that the law has been perverted and made corrupt. Ask to be named Justicar, that you may carry out the Law in Cuthbert's most holy name.
Then go back to town and become Judge Dredd. Someone doing something illegal? Subdue them, bring them whereever, and hold an ad-hoc trial. Then judge. It's perfect for what you're looking for. I honestly really really want to play this now.
This is of course subject to what your group wants to do. No one likes the Paladin-as-storyline-determinant.
He's playing in a Core Rules-only game though, and so that advice may not be feasible.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
See, the problem you run into here, is this:
Defining a "chaotic act" or an "evil act" is also just personal interpretation and flavor.
Honestly, you don't think murdering an opponent who cannot fight back effectively is either chaotic, evil, or both? And how is it not a violation of the LAwful Good mindset to challenge opponents to fights they cannot possibly win for the sole purpose of justifying killing them?
Mind you, this wasn't anything D&D related.
But, the gist was that, as a warrior priest of said god, every life was absolutely sacred, and you weren't allowed to kill. There were other things, but that was the really big one.
But, said guy thought nothing of crippling his opponents or otherwise beating them within an inch of their life before healing them to a more stable state if it were necessary.
That's not what I am inferring at all, but the problem is that in 3.5, there cannot be a gray area. So where do you draw the line? At what point does an opponent cross from helpless to legitimate threat? If they have a dagger? A sword? Armor?
Also, Lawful Good does not necessarily mean you are opposed to killing things. The crusading paladin, for example, specifically searches out evil to DESTROY it, not to slap its wrist and put it in prison. This is a completely legitimate outlook for a paladin to have, especially considering a paladin's innate ability to detect evil at will.
Now, if that is too nasty for you, there are other ways of handling it, like the Judge Dredd thing above. Perhaps you grant your opponent a trial, allowing his accusers to prove his guilt. "Eye for an Eye" is not Lawful Good, true, but it is Lawful Neutral, which means it is not a violation of the CoC, and as long as it is being used for "the greater good", the paladin should be okay.
See how things become complicated the closer to the line you get?
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Maybe "Has an intention to do me harm" and not "Well he has a weapon that I just handed him, obviously he means to attack me (?)"
Playing a Paladin in these circumstances is very difficult.
Thinking about it, taking a couple pages from the book of Batman seems like a very good idea. Whenever in a tight spot, I'll ask myself, 'what would Bats do?" and go from there.
But what if the unarmed man is a pedophillic serial killer? What if he is of an irredeemably evil race? I hate to use this analogy, but what if your paladin happens upon the campaign equivalent of Adolf Hitler, who just happens to be unarmed? Now the situation is not as clear-cut.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
I've also pondered that he might let them get the first blow in, but some of these guys are going to ne nasty rogues, and I figure doing something like that would lead to an unpleasant number of sneak attack dice being rolled against me.
Ah, but here's the rub... I didn't say killing someone who's evil was wrong.
My statement was that throwing them a knife and then running them through was.
Let me provide a better explanation.
Yes, a Paladin has a mandate to destroy evil. He does not have a mandate to commit murder. If a foe surrenders, it's an evil act to murder them. If a foe refuses to engage in combat, it's murder, and thus an evil act to kill them. MURDER is the key word, and the difference between murder and killing.
I'm not going to go into lengthy definitions here, but let's for the purposes of this conversation assume that killing can be justified, acceptable, or required, while murder is not.
Now, let's remmeber the original question.
"So, what happens when someone goes, 'hell no I'm not picking that up! You'll fucking kill me?' He's not going to kill anyone in cold blood, no matter how much he feels they personally deserve it."
This particular bad guy has, OBVIOUSLY, either surrendered or been beaten. He knows that if he accepts a weapon, he will die. The Paladin has, in full knowledge and acceptance of his actions, attempted to manipulate his foe into accepting a weapon, and thus giving the Paladin a "justified" reason to murder them. He and his opponent both OBVIOUSLY know that the bad guy's no match for the Paladin. EVerybody involved is well aware that the guy has no chance, and will die if he accepts the weapon.
Thus, if he does accept the weapon, the Paladin is, effectively, attacking a helpless opponent and murdering them. Evil act. Why is it evil? Not because he can't kill, but because he DELIBERATELY set up a situation whereby he would then commit MURDER, which he KNOWS he should not do (since he's too honorable to do it WITHOUT justifying it first!), and then acted on his personal anger. He took the "justice" part out of the equation. It doesn't matter how evil the bad guy is, it doesn't matter what else is going on. All that matters is that the Paladin in question deliberately undertook to commit an act he knew full well was antithetical to being Lawful Good.
The question of expediency doesn't enter into it. It doesn't matter that the local authorities are corrupt. It doesn't matter that the bad guy might escape. It doesn't matter that the Paladin doesn't see other options. Other options exist, he's just refusing to look for them. Mind you, I'm NOT insulting his player... Gabriel Pitt went out of his way to explain his Paladin's mindset. But the Paladin himself is refusing to look for alternatives to murder. He can probably get away with it as long as he sticks to smiting evil forthrightly. It's when he resorts to trying to justify murder, and then committing the murder under false pretenses, that it's a problem.
Now, you asked, "what point do you draw the line"?
in THIS case, the line isn't drawn until the Paladin commits the murder in question. Because it is murder. Not because the opponent is unarmed, necessarily, but because the enemy already said "I know you'll kill me if I take it." Thus, the enemy is surrenduring. That means he is no longer an enemy, but a prisoner. And it's absolutely a violation of both a Lawful atittude AND a Good attitude, not to mention both together, to kill someone who clearly surrendered.
So the real question isn't "how many weapons do you give him". The question is "what happens if he refuses to take them." In which case the answer is, "If you kill him anyway, you fall. Period."
And if the player can't accept that... then they shouldn't be playing a Paladin. As a Paladin, you do things the "right" way, after all.
Upshot? killing isn't always going to be the answer.
Find a nice good hole somewhere. Set up a makeshift jail. hire some people to watch for breakouts. Lock people up in there until justice can actually be dealt.
You don't need to murder someone to stop them from committing evil, and (unless you're Judge Dredd) you don't usually have to legal authority to hand out summary executions.
Why not just carry a sap?
You should come up with a set of Miranda rights.
You have the right to surrender, face redemption, and atone.
Barring this, you have the right to surrender and face eternal imprisonment for your deeds.
Barring both of these, you have the right to single combat for your freedom, to the death.
If you cannot afford a weapon, one will be appointed to you.
You would need your own Betty Ford clinic and Really Deep Hole to exercise A and B though.
To reiterate from the first post I made in this thread, I think that the weapon you provide should be an important factor. Every time i read the thread title, I picture a corrupt moneylender picking up a dirty kitchen knife out of the gravel in a back alley somewhere
At the very least (if DM) I would want the paladin to keep the weapon on par with his own in terms of enchantment. It makes it feel like you genuinely want to offer them a fair fight.
I wouldn't play in a DND game where I have to deal with pedophilia. Not my idea of a good time.
Irredeemably evil? No such thing. Fall-From-Grace is proof enough.
Killing someone evil just 'cause they're evil is evil itself. If the Paladin isn't making any effort to handle a non-aggressive someone in a non-violent manner, that's probably grounds to fall. They're not assassins.
If you are meant to follow the code of Lawful Good conduct, it is clear cut.
If he attacks you and you throw him down to keep yourself safe and he cracks his skull open on the desk, that is still within your rights as a Lawful Good character. You defended your life without killing someone for no reason.
If you charge and cut his throat, you're beginning to teeter towards Chaotic Good, or even "Evil" depending on how you killed him and how you handled it. (You might stay Lawful Good if the Paladins thoughts were regretting letting his emotions get the better of him).
In the end, how far you go depends on your GM, too.
I once had a GM who let me play an atheist Paladin, only I could not invoke divine favors, or use any divine spells that I could not justify "scientifically" (i.e Heal Light wounds was "Increasing the rate of regeneration in the wound", and Turn Undead was "Rapidly increasing the rate of decay in the corpse.")
Then I got one who asked me to just drop that part out of the RP or reroll (And I did, as I felt the atheist part was his charm. A paladin who doesn't believe in the being he serves.)
If only because that would imply criminals have a unique physiology compared to normal members of their respective races.
That said, I've always wanted to play a bounty hunter with his own race as a favored enemy.
Tell that to my 11th level RPGA Living Greyhawk paladin who kicks all sorts of ass. If it's evil, or if it's disarmable, I have its ass stomped.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
I've never thought the Paladin was terrible, but maybe I'm weird. That and I tend to view my fighting-type characters in DnD as 'everything tastes better with Fighter 2'
One of my most successful DnD characters was Fighter 2/Paladin X in Eberron; he was a veteran of the war who discovered his faith near the end after a period of heavy disillusionment
as has been said many times, this character can work if you use nonlethal means of subduing and/or have a god who thinks the answer to most questions is hit them til they stop moving