Ok, so were playing kingmaker and the following situation occurs.
I'm playing the paladin of the group, I walk upon a campfire in the afternoon hours, not completely dark yet and there are two ruff looking guys there. Thinking they may be bandits, I detect evil on them. Theyre evil.
As I continue to approach they ask who I am and tell me to come no closer. I make an intimidate check, state my name and the I am exploring this region. One moves off into the brush out of sight. I ask where he's going and get no reply So I move closer to the campfire, about fifteen feet from the other guy. He fails an intimidate check against me and tells me to get out of here. I say charge...and am met with protests from the DM saying they were doing nothing wrong and that I may need an atonement spell if I do charge them.
Do you think my intended action was justified or not?
The Dm and I argue for a minute, I decide not to charge and am attacked by the guy I was about to charge. Turns out they were werewolves.
My main question is, was it unreasonable for me to act that way when a NPC I know is evil fails an intimidate check and acts hostile.
It sounds like you are the one that provoked this by trespassing after the werewolves asked you to stop. Being evil is something a paladin should be wary of when interacting with another creature but it is not an excuse for a Paladin to be hostile. Not sure if this was enough to lose your paladin-hood over though.
Do you think my intended action was justified or not?
Not. Being evil is not carte blanche for a Paladin to kill someone. Actively DOING evil is good start.
Werewolves or not, evil or not, you came upon THEIR fire. Civil or not they said don't come closer and you ignored that. You entered their camp, obviously unwelcome. You were the transgressor and aggressor.
Now, if they attacked you first, this would be a whole different discussion. If they had people they were actively threatening or harming, then charge away.
But simply being evil is not a License to Kill for a Paladin. They have to be DOING something for you to step up to lethality.
Just because you don't like them doesn't mean you can kill them. Even if they failed an intimidate check, YOU intimidated first. They were meeting aggression with aggression, something any good aligned adventuring band would do if an unknown armored person walked into their camp unwanted and after being told to leave.
Paladins are held to a higher code than your simple fighter or other adventuror. You need to have correct moral reasons for your actions, much like a modern day policeman.
Much like they police you cannot act on suspicion. You can only act on proof or actions. Of they were harming others you can step in. If you had done an investigation and/or had information that they were actively harming the region, then you can act.
But barging into anyones camp after being told to go away and then intimidating your way around would be a rather unpaladinly thing to do.
You should have left with the knowledge of their faces and evil alignment and observed them with you party to make sure they were not up to no good. Or you should have conversed with them and told them your pupose and task and tell them you knew they were men of dark intent and that you would allow no ill to befall anyone in the region.
But going from hello I am a badass to attacking them is not good. Your ref was right in his reactions.
I have to agree with the others. Because it's evil does not give you OK just to attack everything. It was there camp, you trespassed and started on them.
I don't think ya should fall over it this time, but it is something you need to keep in mind. Because they are Evil is not an ok to just murder folks
Not sure if this was enough to lose your paladin-hood over though.
Agreed. While it is definately a wrong move, bad judgement, it is not an act of crass, wonton evil. You did not string them up and torture them to death for example.
It is definatley a step toward losing one's status though but by itself probably not enough to lose it altogether (depending of course on the deity served and their tenets of course, which could make a big difference).
Still, a bad step to take.
Hmm, I see. It's why I asked, I'm used to playing around neutral and chaotic characters and this the first lawful character Ive played.
Thanks for the advice.
It's not that your lawful or even Lawful good. Your a paladin on top of that which is way more restrictive then being just Lawful good. Your held to a very unrealistic code and expected to follow it.
But your Gm did give ya a warning, which is a good thing. Some have told stories where the GM does not give ya a warning and just makes ya fall.
Whenever you play a paladin, you should always ask yourself: What Would Michael Carpenter Do? Or WWMCD?
Just a question that has that relates to the flip side of not attacking non-hostile evil enemies. Is it alright for a paladin to slay a hostile enemy and it turns out that they were good but just misguided?
Whenever you play a paladin, you should always ask yourself: What Would Michael Carpenter Do? Or WWMCD?
+5 for the Dresden Files reference. Love that series.
Whenever you play a paladin, you should always ask yourself: What Would Michael Carpenter Do? Or WWMCD?+5 for the Dresden Files reference. Love that series.
Yeah. I ust got the Dresden Files RPG. It is awesome. But yeah Michael really IS the shining example of a paladin in his outlook.
A paladin's job is not to slay evil. It is to try to save and redeem evil...from themselves.