PDA

View Full Version : Yet another paladin allignment call (long)



Reltzik
2009-04-14, 11:45 AM
A while back I had to make a call about whether a paladin lost his class features. I've been wondering about that ever since, and I'd like everyone's input. The background's long, but hopefully interesting.

We'd reached the climax of a long-running adventure. The PCs had come across an orphanage in the middle of nowhere, with a few adults supervising a few hundred children and teenagers that never spoke. As time went on, the PCs learned that the orphanage was actually a slave farm, with the final "products" sold to mind flayers, evil cultists in need of willing sacrifices, and so forth.

For a long time the PCs wanted to strike at the orphanage itself and liberate the bulk of the children, but they were kept running around the countryside chasing one shipment or another to keep them from becoming, say, a mind flayer's banquet.

Along the way their patience with taking prisoners waned. First they captured two cats-paws who under threat of death (but also for monetary reward) had kidnapped children for the orphanage and also accompanied them to the buyers. Those two they redeemed, but they proved quite a handful for a long time.

Then there was the cleric of destruction who specificly worshipped the civilization-ending power of disease and pestilence. He used the placement of a dozen children with gentry families as a vector to introduce a plague of blood fever into the capital city. The first time they caught him (before they knew of the plague) they left him with local law enforcement, and when the militia fell too ill to stop him he simply Shattered his lock and walked out. The second time, with thousands dead to the plague, the party invaded his stronghold in the capital, where he was giving out potions of remove disease "cursed" to only work for people who acknowledged pestilence as a power greater than mortal agency. This time around, they bound him, gagged him, and broke both his legs to keep him from running, before eventually turning him over to the king for execution.

During all this, three hags associated with the orphanage had been sending out a variety of assassins and other friendly types to harrass the party.

So at the point they finally went for the orphange, both the players and the characters were in quite a furor and not prone to mercy. In addition, they'd learned that the orphanage had some sort of connection with the ultimate villain of the campaign. Their adventures had one-by-one eliminated most of the heavy villains connected with the orphange, until only the rector managing the orphanage was left.

The rector in charge for disciplining the children and maintaining order at the slave farm was a psion Telepath. His prefered form of discipline was repeated use of the Ego Whip power for even slightest violations of the most severe rules (such as no talking). He took perverse pleasure from the psychic abuse of children, ultimately breaking their minds and recreating them as the perfect slaves. He had no greater plans than enjoying the feeling of compleate dominance over the weak and wanting to defend the nitch he'd made for himself.

The rector knew the party was coming and harrassed them, long-range, as they moved overland. He contracted a priest to summon devils to slow the party down (providing "material components" for the sacrifices necessary for the long-term summoning rituals the villains use in this game), then mind-controlled the two redeemed NPCs. When the party reached the orphanage, they encountered waves of children and teenagers armed with crude farming implements ready to defend the rector to the last.
Despite all these challenges, the paladin managed to charge the rector and dealt half his hit points in a single power attack. The rector five-footed back, dropped his weapon, and surrendered, saying he would submit to being taken back to civilization for trial. On his next action, the paladin killed him.

On the one hand, the guy was evil, evil, evil. I'd designed him as a monster in human flesh, irredeemably evil. He was meant to be hated and loathed, someone the party would feel no remorse for killing. This was the natural, and expected consequence of that setup.

On the other hand, the paladin had just executed an unarmed man who had honorably surrendered for trial. This smacked of fallsville.

I asked the paladin's player why his character hadn't accepted the surrender. He answered that the character didn't think that they could bring the rector back to trial. It was a week's journey to the nearest outpost, and even they weren't magically equipped to deal with a trial defendent who could mentally control both judge and jury. The level of trouble a Telepath prisoner could cause during the journey couldn't be calculated. He was simply too dangerous to let live.

I decided that it wasn't an evil act, though it came close. They were still in battle, after all, and though the rector had dropped his weapon his powers meant he was still dangerous. And there wasn't much question about the level of wickedness the man would perpetrate if allowed to live. It came close to murder, but I ruled it didn't quite cross that line. I had more trouble with the sheer vigilanteism of the act, though. It might not have been an evil act, but it was a chaotic one.

In the end I decided not to take his powers away. Partly because the villain was MEANT to provoke that kind of response, partly because he did have a point about the dangers of bringing the rector in for trial, partly because the paladin's lawful traits were more about justice and retribution and a personal code than about society's laws, and partly because to punish him like that would sour the long-desired, hard-fought victory they'd been working for for months. Instead I simply warned him he'd come close to a fall.

Still, I fret about it. What would you have done in my place?

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-04-14, 11:58 AM
Justified. The court system couldn't handle a mid-level Cleric, dealing with a high-level Psion who can hide all signs of his powers and mentally compel anyone to obey him is far beyond the capabilities of just about anyone. Yes, in a perfect world, the Paladin should have captured him, interrogated him under a Zone of Truth, then executed him, but given that the battle was still going on and his brainwashed slaves were still fighting, an action taken in the heat of the moment is understandable. I think you did the right thing. Warn him that this came close, and if something similar happens in the future maybe make him fall, but this alone isn't fall-worthy.

SolkaTruesilver
2009-04-14, 12:00 PM
First of all, I think you are 100% right to bring the Paladin's personnal belief system, his religion, etc... to the issue. A paladin's limit of actions may not be the same of another's, and I think the religion the paladin represents plays a major part in determining what is allowed and what isn't.

(On the other hand, you should please also try to remember that your paladin should choose retribution over benevolent actions when the choice is available)

I think your Paladin has done a limit act, should go to a priest whenever possible to ask forgiveness for this act, but wouldn't loose his Paladin status. Even if he has done the right thing, it wasn't necessarely an act that should reflects his religion, and he needs to defer the jugement call to another authority.

tyckspoon
2009-04-14, 12:00 PM
Frankly, I would have thought trying to take the guy in would be the Lawful Stupid act. Paladins should choose Good over Law when the two are in conflict (ie, follow the more Lawful route of attempting to subdue, secure, and transport a man you have no means of actually securing, and then turn him over to a justice system that he can subvert at will [see? Lawful Stupid to the extreme.] ... or just execute him for his crimes now, which rids the world of a monster, provides a modest measure of justice for his sins, and is what the 'official' justice system would do anyway provided it wasn't being bent in half by a moral-less Telepath.) Sometimes the expedient path is the Good path. Perhaps not Exalted Good, but Paladins are no more required to be Exalted than they are to blindly flagellate themselves by always taking the most difficult possible choice. They are allowed to be human from time to time.

Keld Denar
2009-04-14, 12:03 PM
Would it have been less chaotic or whatever if the paladin had at that point knocked the telepath unconsious and then repeatedly rained subduing blows upon his head to keep him unconscience for the duration of the trip. In D&D, there are no consequences for that, but if you think in terms of RL, repeated blows run the risk of brain damage and/or internal injury.

Really, I don't think its a problem. Even in surender, a telepath is never unarmed. The paladin was looking out for his personal safety and the safety of his companions. If he hadn't done as such, and the telepath later commited more evil, would the paladin feel responsible for not ending the threat when he had the chance? "What If" games are a paladins worst enemy, not any mortal foe.

elliott20
2009-04-14, 12:17 PM
please also see: Max Lords vs. Wonder Woman.

Shadowtraveler
2009-04-14, 12:35 PM
This shouldn't be an issue. He's not unarmed, and believing he's honestly repentent with all the evidence stacked against him is dumb.

Lapak
2009-04-14, 12:42 PM
The paladin was justified. First, Keld Denar makes the extremely valid point that a telepath is never unarmed. Trying to cart him around would be like handcuffing an Old West bank robber but leaving his gun in its holster when you bring him to jail, only worse. Paladins don't have to leave an armed and dangerous enemy free to act because the bad guy offers a largely meaningless surrender; in fact, it endangers a great many innocent people to do so. So I can't imagine a situation where the paladin would fall as a result in this act. The same is true of most class-leveled enemies, in fact, or high-HD monsters. Except in magic-as-technology settings or settings with a very high NPC power level, most enemies that PCs are called in to face just can't be contained by normal authorities. Unless the PCs have their own super-prison and justice system, there's not much that can be applied in the way of legal penalties except a death sentence, and any kingdom that tried as a matter of course to lock up Disease Priests or telepathic sadists would collapse in short order.

Depending on the context, the paladin may even have been fully empowered to do as he did. There are a number of settings where paladins are or can be fully acknowledged agents of the law, with full legal justification to act as judge and, if necessary, executioner. I doubt it in this case, or the issue wouldn't have arisen, but it's not out of character for the class.

hamishspence
2009-04-14, 12:47 PM
Well, there are antimagic shackles and the like. How capturable a monster/NPC is can vary a lot.

High level campaign cities, like Union in the Epic Handbook, have Temporal Stasis as a useful way of handling very dangerous prisoners.

That said, the combination of knowledge of the crimes and the extreme difficulty of taking the target properly prisoner, could reasonably be held to make on-the-spot execution justifiable in this case.

chiasaur11
2009-04-14, 01:34 PM
I agree with the not falling crowd.

The guy was a clear and present danger, a complete monster, and not in anyone's jurisdiction.

And really, trusting his surrender? What kind of moron would trust the word of a mind ccontroling sadist psychopath?

elliott20
2009-04-14, 01:43 PM
Question Not The Moral Integrity Of Hypnotoad!!

chiasaur11
2009-04-14, 01:56 PM
Question Not The Moral Integrity Of Hypnotoad!!

Great. Now I want to play a cleric of Hypnotoad.

elliott20
2009-04-14, 02:09 PM
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/hypno-toad/hypnotoad.jpg

Tsotha-lanti
2009-04-14, 02:19 PM
Considering how incredibly Evil the villain was, the execution wasn't Evil as such (well, no more than any killing, and certainly leaning more to Good than most), especially in the difficult circumstances. Probably Neutral overall. So it becomes a matter of Lawful vs. Chaotic, which is a much less dangerous area - only Evil acts cause paladins to fall. Neutral (non-Good or non-Lawful) don't. Alignment changes from Lawful Good will cause a fall, too, but alignment's don't change based on one action, since they describe patterns of decisions and actions.

Note, too, that an unarmed psionic is not actually unarmed, and remains incredibly dangerous. Unless there's a reliable way to immediately KO him and then disable his psionic powers, killing is pretty much the best choice for neutralizing them as a threat. When you can't trust your own thoughts, perceptions, and decisions, the danger is far greater than having a hundred swords pointed at you, pretty much. This isn't so relevant, though; generally, paladins should strive to "do better" and go the extra mile and make the extra effort beyond what is expected or even possible, but leaving an opponent like this alive is just stupid and asking for trouble. (Of which the players are even more acutely aware than the PCs.)

Paladins, as Lawful Good characters, are generally expected to at least obey the laws of civilized nations, if not uphold them. So, what's the local legal stance on dealing with thoroughly evil psychic villains who drop their weapons? I find it unlikely that any local court would have found the paladin guilty of any crime, assuming the world is generally medieval- or renaissance-styled.

However, paladins have an even greater responsibility to either the idea of Good itself, or to a specific deity. A lot depends here on the specific paladin code, or the specific deity's dogma, but generally, I don't see D&D Good and Good D&D deities who support fighting paladins as being very likely to judge the paladin here. Indeed, a Faerūnian paladin of Tyr, for instance, would act as judge and executioner (jury? lol, not in feudalism), enacting "divine law" to execute the villain. Paladins - especially where they are actual knights - should have the ability to enact justice, either earthly or divine, on the truly Evil.

Also, as far as honorable combat goes: unless you're working off some bizarrely idealistic system, only very specific people are afforded the protection of "honorable" combat. Neither a knight nor a samurai would deal "honorably" with a peasant in combat; they'd ride down and kill a man on foot without thought for ransom or the like, because that's how it works. If the opponent is of their own class, or otherwise a noble, clergyman, or the like, they're afforded certain protections by honor. Generally, guaranteed safety in the case of a surrender was reserved for knights and other nobles, and even then it was ensured more by the extensive traditions of ransom than by honor. But a vile, child-enslaving, murderous, sadistic villain who uses the power of his mind to control and harm others? Yeah, no, sorry - it's not a duel, and the paladin is not obligated by honor to accept a surrender. It's one of those "no quarter" situations. (Really, the paladin should probably have declared that at the start, and it should have been an acceptable way to cover his ass. "You are so evil I won't give you quarter, so don't try.")

So no - it's not an Evil action at all, and it's not an alignment change. At worst it's a single Chaotic or Neutral action. It's probably not dishonorable. It may be a violation of codes or dogma, but probably isn't or shouldn't be. Expecting paladins to deal idiotically with enemies who are far more dangerous than anyone with a weapon is unnecessarily crippling them. In all likelyhood, no fall should happen.

Khanderas
2009-04-15, 01:57 AM
I support the result that you did. What could be redeemed was (the two minions mentioned) and that guy was way too untrustworthy and dangerous to even try and pull back though a weeks trek with pretty much only his word to not escape / mindcontrol people (and running a child slaver ring pretty much puts him in the "untrustworthy" category).

Even if he could be easily restrained to trial and unable to mindcontrol etc during the trial, I would have a hard time putting even a dark mark on the Paladins record, let alone fall. With paladinhood comes responsibility to fight, and kill, evil something this guy was guilty of without the "shadow of a doubt" as they say.

Edit:

This shouldn't be an issue. He's not unarmed, and believing he's honestly repentent with all the evidence stacked against him is dumb.
Short and very true. Dropping his weapon and claim to be unarmed is like dropping a sock and claim to be unarmored.

golentan
2009-04-15, 02:13 AM
Seems perfectly reasonable to me. The paladin was justified for all the reasons listed above. The only slightly preferable thing would have been to say "You'll get your trial," hit the baddie with Zone of Truth, and spend five minutes proving he did everything he did. Taking him back to civilization would have been stupid. The paladin probably should feel guilty, because that's how paladins feel, but shouldn't lose powers and should be fine after five minutes of prayer.

Jade_Tarem
2009-04-15, 02:28 AM
I'll pitch in with the majority here. In fact, I'm not even sure that I would count that as "close to falling." It is... regrettable. But several people have pointed out that this guy didn't have to hold a sharp object to be armed and dangerous, and as a child enslaving, demon summoning, human-slave trading, mindflayer-and-evil-outsider consorting, plague spreading, tax avoiding, draft dodging, jaywalking, puppy kicking SERIOUSLY EVIL DUDE, his surrender is completely meaningless. In killing him, the paladin saved the lives of all the children the party would have had to kill had the fight continued, as well as all of the telepath's future victims - including the ones he would have hurt after he escaped punishement at the hands of the law.

Fishy
2009-04-15, 03:51 AM
Good call asking the paladin why he did it. It's always more interesting when you make your players think about their inner lives.

If his response were, "Because he's really, really evil," (like mine was for a minute), that would be fallworthy. It's not nice to kill someone's character and games with paladins in them aren't Fall Races, but if you handled it right, that could be a growing experience.

"This is literally the only way anyone on earth can stop him," especially when they legitimately have tried everything else... that gets a bye.

KIDS
2009-04-15, 04:42 AM
I think the paladin did fine. Yes, theorethically, he could have made the trip back while watching for his prisoner to not escape and etc. etc.... by the books and all that. But given the extent of evil that the villain commited and they witnessed.

I'd say that in modern warfare, surrender is probably a right, and there are adequate resources everywhere to see it through. In the Wild West-like D&D world (which I think D&D is by default, no matter how many courts you stuff into it), sheriffs captured the criminals, made the decisions and executed them themselves, and no one thought that they were evil people for that.*

* = in the possible case of sheriff deciding the guilt of and executing an innocent person, where his negligience to carry out a complete investigation caused him to overlook clues that the man was innocent, that would have been his mistake and then he would not be considered so good anymore (equivalent to a paladin falling for not overlooking the whole situation). So in this case, I don't think the Paladin did anything wrong, nor you should worry about it.

Thrud
2009-04-15, 04:44 AM
Yeah, tricky one but I have to agree. Lawful Good doesn't mean Lawful stupid, and there is no reasonable way to permanently disarm a telepath. Or rather, the only way, removal of the brain, is functionally the same as just killing him. Also much ickier.

:smallbiggrin:

Farlion
2009-04-15, 05:32 AM
Ah, I can imagine the scene in my head! Awesomly epic for a paladin to handle this situation like he did! Even paladins cannot keep hatred from their heart if one works hard enough to induce it!

In this situation I'd have asked the paladin if it was his intention to let the anger not the paladin guide his weapon. If this were the case, you'd disappoint your player not noticing his RP dilemma he tried to creat. I'd remove his paladin powers, but let him go on a quest to get them back (since what he did was unlawful, but not actually "evil").
On the other hand, if your paladin just wanted to rid the world of the evil creature and didn't want to creat the above dilemma, leave him the powers, honor the epicness of his kill and enjoy playing further!

Cheers,
Farlion

Cheesegear
2009-04-15, 05:50 AM
He was meant to be hated and loathed, someone the party would feel no remorse for killing. This was the natural, and expected consequence of that setup.

On the other hand, the paladin had just executed an unarmed man who had honorably surrendered for trial. This smacked of fallsville.

In the end I decided not to take his powers away. Partly because the villain was MEANT to provoke that kind of response, partly because he did have a point about the dangers of bringing the rector in for trial, partly because the paladin's lawful traits were more about justice and retribution and a personal code than about society's laws, and partly because to punish him like that would sour the long-desired, hard-fought victory they'd been working for for months. Instead I simply warned him he'd come close to a fall.

I think you did exactly the right thing. Not an Atonement-worthy act, but definitely an act the Paladin himself should feel suitably bad about. He should at least see a mid-high level Cleric (or another Paladin) and confess his 'sin'. Yeah, "Don't Do It Again, But You Should Still Feel Bad" is the best approach.

I think the best solution I've ever done was;

"By the power vested in me by (God Here), and the authority granted by (High Cleric/Paladin Here), I (Name Here), hereby take it upon myself to serve as your judge, jury, and executioner. By your intent and deeds; I declare you guilty of (Crime Here). And for that, the sentence is death. Die."
*stab*

The DM couldn't fault me.


Originally posted by Farlion
Or rather, the only way, removal of the brain, is functionally the same as just killing him.

Rule of Adventuring: There's a 35% chance that any Brain-in-a-Jar houses the mind of an Epic-Level Telepath. Stay away from all Brains in Jars.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-04-15, 06:06 AM
I'd say that in modern warfare, surrender is probably a right, and there are adequate resources everywhere to see it through. In the Wild West-like D&D world (which I think D&D is by default, no matter how many courts you stuff into it), sheriffs captured the criminals, made the decisions and executed them themselves, and no one thought that they were evil people for that.

Forget "Wild West" and sheriffs. In your basic feudal system, both nobility and clergy have a certain right to distribute justice. If a paladin is part of any sort of official order, he'd likely have the right too. Moreover, non-nobility had no right to surrender or guarantee of mercy; even nobility were afforded such things only because they were landowners and able to pay ransoms.

I seriously can't see by what logic the action was even vaguely questionable. The enemy was not, in fact, unarmed and harmless, and by all likelihood was just trying to get the paladin to drop his guard - he's not obliged to do that in the middle of combat just because someone yells "uncle!" He's also almost certainly not obliged to follow some bizarre standard of nonviolence where he can swing swords at people, but if he happens to kill one (pretty likely when you swing swords at them) it's an Evil action. If that were true, all paladins would be required to only deal nonlethal damage, all the time.

If the opponent had been a knight or noble, protected by honor and tradition and codes, it'd have been a different issue, but even if the paladin had, for some reason, been obliged to accept the surrender, delivering justice in the form of an execution in the field (pretty damned common in any vaguely medieval setting, I should think!), backed by the fact that he's a martial champion of divine Good-ness acting against an Evil-doer, seems perfectly acceptable. There's very likely no "right to trial" in any medieval-ish D&D setting, especially when your offenses aren't just against laws but Good itself (which is not adjudicated by laws to begin with).

Paladins are not champions of local law; they're champions of Good who are obliged to obey, but not automatically wield, uphold, and assist, local laws, provided that they are Good and just and righteous. I would think that most champions would see divine justice, as adjudicated by themselves as the instrument of a deity, as far superior to worldly, mundane justice (and it is, in a setting where deities of Good exist - obviously!).

Nightson
2009-04-15, 06:18 AM
I can't imagine ever making a paladin fall because he kills somebody who would have been executed had he brought him to justice.

Killer Angel
2009-04-15, 07:13 AM
I think the best solution I've ever done was;

"By the power vested in me by (God Here), and the authority granted by (High Cleric/Paladin Here), I (Name Here), hereby take it upon myself to serve as your judge, jury, and executioner. By your intent and deeds; I declare you guilty of (Crime Here). And for that, the sentence is death. Die."
*stab*



Man, i LOVE that paladin! :smallbiggrin:
Once, i've made a rogue lawful neutral, who worked side by side with a paladin. My rogue had the same attitude... but without declaration before acting. I've always given the loots to the church of St. Cuthbert. :smallwink:

Telonius
2009-04-15, 09:33 AM
I'll throw my 2cp in with the majority: not evil, not fall-worthy.

Though I will say that there is one further action the Paladin might have done to make it a completely sure thing: a single Sense Motive check. At that point the DM should have enforced some truly ridiculous situational penalties (such that the Paladin wouldn't have believed what the psion said regardless). From an RP perspective, taking that one last second to at least consider the possibility that he's wrong, would be important. But that's really going above and beyond, into Exalted territory.

Thrud
2009-04-15, 09:55 AM
Rule of Adventuring: There's a 35% chance that any Brain-in-a-Jar houses the mind of an Epic-Level Telepath. Stay away from all Brains in Jars.

Who said anything about putting it in a jar? I just meant removing it and destroying it so that it could be of no further danger. Thus the ick factor as you have to scrape the mashed brain off the bottom of your boot, where it got to after you ground said offending brain into the dirt.

Can you tell I dislike psionics?

:smallbiggrin:

Kurald Galain
2009-04-15, 10:00 AM
Paladins aren't contractually required to be idiots. I'd insert a Lien smiley if I knew where to find one.

Leliel
2009-04-15, 10:03 AM
I don't think there's an argument for him falling.

The man was a complete pyscho.

Even if he wasn't a telepath, killing him would be completely understandable, if slightly Chaotic Neutral.

As it is, not only is it justfiable on moral grounds, it makes perfect sense on legal ones-a telepath is dangerous no matter how helpless he seems, and it requires specific magic items to supress his abilities, and frankly, what were the chances any party member had them.

In the end, the only sanction against the pallie-if could be even called that-should be, at worst, a divinely inspired warning against doing that except as a weapon of last resort-and frankly, that situation qualified.

Mando Knight
2009-04-15, 10:17 AM
Another one for the not-fall. A psion is a psion. He is never unarmed without taking mental damage first. A system that is incapable of taking the proper precautions when dealing with magical and psionic prisoners is not the proper authority for such criminals. The paladin also had several witnesses to the psion's misdeeds and was attacked by the psion. Thus, it was fully within the rights of the paladin to judge the psion a threat to the pre-existing court system should he be taken into custody and had sufficient evidence to convict the villain then and there.

Roderick_BR
2009-04-15, 10:56 AM
Agreed. The paladin could justify himself, saying his act was an execution, as everyone involved could attest that the villain was both guilty AND a constant danger to the party AND the children.
For RP purposes, he could seek a high level cleric to repent for his bolt of anger and for bringing justice by himself, but no need to make him fall.

Rhiannon87
2009-04-15, 11:55 AM
Yep, not fall-worthy. I agree with the idea that perhaps the Paladin should pay a visit to his local temple and discuss what happened with a superior cleric/paladin, but other than that, he's fine.

And I'd like to just say that that sounds like a pretty friggin' cool campaign arc you had going there. Especially if the party tends toward lawful, which is what it seemed like.

hamishspence
2009-04-15, 12:07 PM
I kinda liked Quintessenial Paladin 2's scale- if act is evil but minor break of code, it may incur something less than a full fall- nightmares, a temporary loss of 1 power, a temporary loss of several powers, running all the way up to Fallsville.

With aggravating and mitigating factors- like breaking a minor tenet of The Code in order to keep a major one.

when handling things like this, it might be important to have an idea of what authority to execute, a paladin has, what counts as a justification for immediate killing, and what doesn't.

Major list could include:

Paladin has witnessed serious crime committed by target
Target has already done at least 1 "I Surrender- Suckers"
Target detects as evil
Target is extremely difficult to render physically harmless
Target has powerful political connections, making them extremely difficult to try successfully
Target has the Evil subtype and/or is a member of race with Always Evil alignment description
Target is a "monster" as opposed to an "NPC"

Paladin is under orders to arrest and bring target in for trial
Target has been taken prisoner by another party member

Etc.

Not all these make for justifications on their own.

chiasaur11
2009-04-15, 12:42 PM
Yep, not fall-worthy. I agree with the idea that perhaps the Paladin should pay a visit to his local temple and discuss what happened with a superior cleric/paladin, but other than that, he's fine.


Sounds about right.

I mean, it does seem worth mentioning on the next report, and since Paladins are held to higher standards, it's worth confirming the details, just to be safe.

Shadowtraveler
2009-04-15, 06:17 PM
I don't believe the paladin needs to apologize for anything. It doesn't sound like the telepath actually stopped using any of his powers when he surrendered. They don't seem to have readily available means to restrain him and the nearest place to try him is a week away.

So again: He's not unarmed, and he's not honorably surrendering. There's nothing to apologize or atone for.