I think one of the hardest parts of playing and GMing a Paladin is that the strictness of the code of behavior is such that it lends itself to interpreting only one correct course of action in any situation, when with any other class: the joy comes from making choices with their character. I think as a GM, you have to provide SOME latitude for your player to make choices. We struggle with the concept of passing judgment all the time, in part because we look through our (often) Judeo-Christian lens in regards to not casting the first stone. Additionally, our culture is one that wouldn't support vigilantes. But particularly in that moment, he is confronting an evil being from a bygone era in a wilderness frontier. There is no laws that would pertain to Malfeshnekor. The adventurer, and particularly the Paladin is (imo) the right person to make that call. I think that the character acted within a reasonable spectrum for a Lawful Good paladin.
A paladin thread is an awful thing to start, but for a paladin of Iomedae, this is pretty easy:
- ALL evil outsiders are abominations that must be killed. It doesn't matter whether or not they surrender. You CANNOT show them mercy. Every god or goddess has a "fundamental enemy". For Sarenrae it's Rovagug and his spawn. For Torag it's any enemy race of the dwarves. For Iomedae it's evil outsiders.
So it was far more dangerous for the paladin to even consider releasing Malfeshnekor. As a paladin of Iomedae, killing him was a no-brainer.
EDIT: As a GM, I strongly prefer paladins who consider their actions instead of just declaring, "Favored enemy! I get to kill him!" But if this paladin carefully considered his actions and then executed the helpless Malfeshnekor, I wouldn't have had an issue with it.
Yep, NobodysHome nails it. A LG paladin of Iomedae would be sworn to destroy Malfeshnekor on sight. There's no way around that.
And, as NH also said, a paladin thread is an awful thing to start, however, it is important to note that in Pathfinder (at least as far as the rules are concerned) there is no such thing as subjective morality. In this scenario, in order for the paladin to maintain his alignment, he must kill the evil creature.
|
Yeah, evil outsiders pretty much get a pass on the paladin threads. Demons, devils, and so on, with one or two notable exceptions, are irredeemably evil. Demons are made from the souls of the damned! Even Sarenrites might be forgiven if they don't try to stop and redeem every dretch that they come across.
Malfeshnekor's a pretty open and shut case. Nualia's journal shows that he's been in psychic contact with her, and she'd agreed to release him from his prison in exchange for becoming a full demon. There's no bargaining with a creature like him - death's the only possible way to ensure he won't cause more evil. I wouldn't blink an eye if a paladin wanted to put him to the sword.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to be careful with paladin threads or I'll slip off into a rant.
And I'm late to the game here, and the replies already given were very good. But...
The most important thing is for the DM and paladin player to agree on the basic code and moral structures ahead of time. Try a few of these questions and agree on what the answers are before dilemmas arise in play and even agree on the level of moral quandaries the DM might be planning on introducing.
A bold assertion: while the answers to these types of questions can provoke debate and you can probably make an argument for either position (though in this thread the preponderance of replies makes a very good case for one side) one thing is absolutely true: to the paladin himself, the morality would not be ambiguous. If there is one character blessed with moral certitude, it's paladins.