So we have a dragon disciple in our party with two levels of paladin (basically a dip taken to gain the benefits of Cha bonus to saves and the opportunity to smite).
In our last session the party was doing recon and beginning infiltration of Jorgenfist.
Later in the session they entered into the guard tower during the night (A1). The rogue killed the taiga giant while she was sleeping with a coupe de grace. Then they went into the lower level where the two rune-scarred hill giants were sleeping. The party was under the cover of a silence spell. The paladin manifested her fangs (dragon disciple) and bit the throat out of one of the sleeping giants (another coup de grace). In this case the giant was evil, but once again the paladin didn't bother to check with detect evil to actually confirm this was the case before performing the coupe de grace.
I'm thinking that these may count as evil acts or at the very least "dishonourable" and violations of the paladin's code of conduct. FYI the paladin is a follower of Imodae, who I don't think would approve of murdering sentient creatures in their sleep- even nasty giants.
What do people think, would I be out of line in calling this character out on this and stripping her of her paladin powers?
I'm under the impression you've been reading my thread, but I really don't care for the "nothing-nothing-nothing-fail" approach to paladins. Raesh's armor dimmed or brightened as she did actions pleasing or displeasing to Sarenrae.
A quick Google of Iomedae's displeasure reads, "She shows her displeasure by flickering lights, damaging weapons against inferior materials, and causing gold or silver items to become dull and heavy."
The initial ambush was bad. Very, very, VERY bad. After the paladin's first attack, I would have had his sword and armor become heavier (-5' to move, -1 to attack and damage) and noticeably dull. This gives a PC fair warning that the group is doing something wrong. If the PC proceeds, depending on how you feel about it as a GM, you can do insta-fall or 10', -2 and keep going until he clues in.
Proceeding to CdG the taiga and personally biting the throat out of a sentient being of unknown alignment, I'd say your player really doesn't have a clue as to what Iomedae's paladin code is.
(1) You absolutely MUST call out this player, and have a discussion as to YOUR expectations of playing a paladin in your campaign. Dipping into paladin means the PC is lawful good. What kind of lawful good character goes around ripping the throats out of sleeping victims of unknown disposition with his or her own teeth? Wow. Just. Wow. Paladin? Heck, I'd be asking about that LG!
(2) On the other hand, I am *very* hesitant to retcon a paladin fall. "Oh, by the way, I thought about it during our down time and you've fallen," is not a good way to start a session. Did you warn him at the end of last session that you were going to discuss his actions and come to a decision?
At all costs, avoid silence-silence-BAM! It's the kind of thing that starts all the WONDERFUL venom-filled paladin threads in the Advice section.
I only really considered this issue after the game session, and I've mentioned my concern to the player via e-mail to get his thoughts, and not have it be some sort of surprise if next session I decide there should be consequences.
The character in question has an interesting lineage. She is an aasimar paladin/sorcerer/dragon disciple with both draconic (silver) and demonic bloodlines. So she has demon, celestial and draconic blood all in her. We both agreed that this was an instance of her demonic bloodline gain a hold on her for a moment and causing her to do something that she shouldn't have.
The characters were aware that there was an army of giants camped at Jorgenfist. They had followed the Kreeg ogres from Hook Mountain to Jorgenfist, but that didn't actually know what the giants were up to when they ambushed the stone giant lumberjacks.
I think there should be a consequence, but I too am not a big fan of the all or nothing approach for paladin code of conduct. It puts the GM in an awkward spot because you come off as a jerk if you ever take a paladin's abilities away unless they are really asking for it.
On the other hand the player dipped into paladin very much for the synergy granted by having a high cha as a sorcerer (i.e., a nice +6 bonus to all saving throws from two levels of paladin).
So part of me is of the opinion that you should take paladin levels unless you are prepared to accept the possible consequences of failing to live up to the high standards of paladinhood.
I think that pretty much anyone playing a paladin of the course of a campaign should at some point or another have to deal with a fall and redemption.
|
I'd say they should definitely be faced with the fact that they murdered some folks that didn't deserve death. That needs to be laid out in front of them clearly somehow, possibly through interactions with Conna? There shouldn't be any room for denying or rationalizing what they did.
If they're really playing good characters, that should be punishment all on its own. How they react to that revelation might inform what else needs to happen. And hopefully it will make them think about what they're doing before jumping in with intent to kill.
Coming face to face with a child or spouse of one of the murdered lumberjacks might serve as a wake-up call.
We have LG monk in the party and a LG paladin. I think the rest of the characters lean more toward neutral alignments.
Have I mentioned how much I love it when Mikaze shows up on a thread?
"You killed daddy, you monster!"
It's a bizarre dynamic, then. You know your players. But they're really screwing up even the notion of LG with their behavior.
LG != Murderhobo
Get that tattooed on their foreheads...
Back to the OP, I would say if the player is OK with roleplaying it out, I'd definitely do the fall.
As a player, if my GM said, "Oh, that group of giants that were coming at you through the woods? They were lumberjacks. They were neutral. Did you notice that they didn't attack you and tried to run away as you slaughtered them? Er, yeah. I think I'm going to make you fall for that,"
I would be OK with it, because I really screwed up.
But some players just get uppity about things like losing their paladin powers and all...
EDIT: And yes, I just intentionally posted three times in a row. It's three different topics. So sue me.
I think they have a bit a "the end justifies the means" kind of attitude. Their cleric is a neutral, battle cleric that was once a member of a mercenary company, and he certainly doesn't have qualms about using whatever tactics are necessary to get the job done. Though he does try to abide by his word if he gives it.
It's really only the paladin and the monk that are goody goody types, and the monk is a dwarf, so he can kind of look at "good" through the lense of dwarven culture, which is generally pretty merciless when it comes to races like orcs, goblins and giants.
They also used a similar ambush tactic on a group of ogres from fort Rannick earlier in the campaign, but in that case I didn't have any real issue with it since the ogres were clearly evil and had clearly done horrible things. This was a bit of a different situation.
|
I'll echo NobodysHome - the paladin needs a talking to. Explain what Iomedae's standards for her paladins are, and why they shouldn't be doing what your paladin did last session. Let the player know that you won't rule that they've fallen, but all future actions will be judged by those rules. This is a one-time look askew, and future infractions must be judged appropriately.
And even if they fail, and fall? Atonement exists for a reason. The life of a paladin is not an easy one.
Were the players aware that the giants of the Storval Plateau have been mustering for war against the human lands?
If the answer is yes then I think that this falls under the category of "tragic mistake" (or possibly just "mistake") rather than an evil act. Without a way to determine the difference between a combatant giant and a non-combatant (not that there is much difference since an ordinary giant is still very dangerous), and being aware that giants overall at at war with mankind makes actions against them neutral rather than evil.
Stone Giants, despite being neutral usually, are also generally enemies of humans. You can be enemies of Good folk without being Evil. Attacking someone who is your enemy is not in and of itself evil (though it is not Good either - it is simply neutral).
However, if this was an encounter where the giants had not noticed the players and were going about their ordinary business it is unclear why the party would attack them. If they posed no threat to the party then it makes the actions more questionable morally.
Peet
The idea was to do hit and run strikes on the army.
We're just a small band of fighters and had followed a group of ogres here, finding a large army. Talking together we determined that we could not attack such a large force head on, it would be suicide. Rather it would be more prudent to attack small parties on the outside, scatter their forces from the center then find an opening and hit their leaders. One of their allies also included a Red Dragon.
We assumed that the giants working in the woods were not just 'innocent lumberjacks' but soldiers conscripted to do the menial jobs (being so close to the army itself). We killed all of them so that they could not report back and then used the attack to frame the Red Dragon that was allied with them to attempt to sew distrust by marking the bodies. We then covered our tracks as best we could and made our escape.
We watched the armies movements waiting for the cover of night and it was decided that we needed information. We found an opportunity when we passed the tower, hearing snoring inside. If anyone had woken up or escaped the entire army nearby would have been alerted to our presence and slaughtered us and we would have gotten nothing. It was close quarters, an awake giant would have been dangerous and cost lives. Again it's assumed these are soldiers. Their deaths were clean and quick. We interrogated the last Giant.
When we were done it was then that the Dwarf and the Paladin questioned killing their captive. The man questioning him had offered him his life if he answered all his questions. The giant had to the best of his ability and honoured his end of the bargain. It would not be honourable to kill him after that. We were unsure what to do. Our safety lied in secrecy. The Cleric said he had an idea. He used Bestow Curse to give him a -2 Intelligence and put him in a comma then we left.
NobodysHome has it right - it should not be a mystery to the paladin that his action will cause such trouble prior to taking it. If you didn't warn him beforehand it seems a bit draconian to impose a penalty now. It's all good to further define expectations going forward but applying a penalty retroactively when such expectations hadn't been already set isn't fair.
I would also ask a few questions:
I am unsympathetic to the giants' plight. Active participation in an army of obvious ill-intent (as perceived by the other races of Varisia) is not a neutral act. And the encounters at Fort Rannick, etc. should make it pretty clear what such an army would do if unleashed on Sandpoint or any other town or settlement. Any pretense of moral ambiguity should be gone by the time the pc's get to Jorgenfist.
And what exactly did you expect the paladin to do differently? March out in the open, bang his sword against his shield and challenge the giants to single combat? The structure at Jorgenfist forces the pc's into stealth mode - they cannot hope to stand against the collective force of giants. Stealth insertion requires a ruthless approach to prevent the raising of an alarm. You need to offer the paladin alternate options that aren't suicidal.
Well there hasn't really been any time passed since they killed the giants in the tower, as that was the last thing that happened in the session, so applying a penalty to the paladin wouldn't really be retroactive in my opinion. I also think that if you are playing a paladin you shouldn't be surprised if you are penalized for violating your code of conduct when you kill someone in their sleep.
@Latrecis
#1. No, #2 No, #3 Yes
I agree the party needs to use stealth and subterfuge in this adventure, but that doesn't mean a paladin needs to be going around biting out the throats of giants while they are sleeping.
As for what a paladin should have done. In the case of the stone giants out cutting wood. I think a paladin should have first checked to see if they were evil. Upon discovering they weren't evil. I think the paladin should have confronted them directly without attacking, possibly giving them a chance to join up with the heroes or abandon the army. In all likelihood the giants would have attacked without much or any provocation, and then the party would be perfectly justified in defending themselves.
In the case of the giants in the tower, waking the giant up and giving the giant a chance to defend itself would have been the "honourable" thing to do- but obviously not the tactically smart thing. However, they had it pretty much trapped in the tower in the area of a silence spell, and the tower is a fair distance from the camps, so the chances of it escaping and warning their enemies was fairly slim.
P.H. Dungeon has already replied, and I was going to let it go, but it shows up so often I feel it needs to be reiterated: The notion that every single giant at Jorgenfist must be slain in order to ensure lasting peace does not pass muster with any paladin creed outside of Torag's.
- It is antithetical to Sarenrae's approach. But we have no paladins of Sarenrae here, so no problem.
- It is in keeping with Torag's approach. If this were a paladin of Torag I would have to accept the, "Every enemy of my people must die," approach.
A paladin of Iomedae is in a very gray area. She's a military goddess, so she understands the need for tactics, but she's also not a slash-and-burn kind of girl. Making the assumption, "There is an army of giants nearby, so every giant nearby is part of the army and can be killed," is definitely NOT a gray area. Every military commander knows that combat arenas swarm with civilians. It's a paladin's job to determine whether or not someone's a civilian before slaughtering them.
As has been said on many a thread, paladins are provided a free, silent ability to determine whether or not creatures are evil. OK. There are a group of stone giants. Are they part of the army? How can we tell?
Latrecis asks an EXCELLENT point that should come up in all paladin threads: Was there a way for the paladin to achieve the same goal without slaughtering the giants?
Unfortunately, the answer is, "Yes." The group of giants could have been subdued rather than killed. At the level of the PCs, nonlethal damage isn't that much of a penalty, and one or two nonlethal hits would have ensured the giants' survival. Similarly, gathering around the sleeping taiga and hitting for nonlethal in a Silence field would have been easy, quick, and not resulted in needless slaughter.
Almost as importantly, LIVING giants can provide tactical information. It's not only bloodthirsty to kill every single one, it's bad tactics.
"We couldn't risk letting them get away so we had to kill them all," completely ignores rules dedicated to nonlethal damage, stealth, and keeping enemies alive. It's convenience, not necessity, so I don't accept it as an argument that they *had* to die because it was the right tactical decision. They died because no one wanted to take a -4 penalty to hit on one attack.
EDIT: And I apologize if I sound uppity. I'm honestly trying to be helpful and informative, but reading up I do come across as a bit rude. Sorry for that!
EDIT 2: Amusingly enough, one of my players disagrees with me. Iomedae's a military goddess, there's a declared war between the giants and the humans, and therefore everyone in the camp, civilian and soldier alike, is fair game. So obviously opinions will vary on this.
I don't think killing the giants is a clear fall. The known issues are
1) The giants are part of an army which is planning to attack and destroy the human settlements
2) In the attacks so far the giants and their allied dragon have deliberately targeted civilian buildings likely to cause many deaths
3) The Giants are combatants, all giants are capable of fighting and they have no organised military given their social structure
4) The Players are in Guerilla warfare mode, they cannot engage in stand up combat and have no secure bases or rear area to fall back on.
This means that they cannot reasonably take prisoners, they have no resources to secure them without compromising their mission. If they release the enemies after combat they have no way of preventing them raising the alarm and rejoining the enemy army.
Their objective is Just the enemy have not been provoked by human attacks they plan a merciless campaign against human lands. These giants by being present with the army have volunteered to take part in this war.
As there is a degree of coercion to the gatherings of the giants it is better to end the war with the elimination of the directing leadership rather than mass slaughter, which is good as mass slaughter is not practical anyway.
Iomedea as a practical goddess will probably (your view may vary) recognize that combatants in this situation cannot take prisoners and allow some leeway to her paladin so long as he concentrates on the primary objective of protecting the humans settlements.
It could also be argued that the giants are actually the ones fighting for the just cause. After all, it was the Chelaxian settlers and armies that drove them out of their lands and have forced them to eke out a living on the Storval plateau. Now the giants are merely gathering together to reclaim their ancestral lands, which were unjustly taken from them. At least this is how I see the typical stone giant warrior in the army viewing the situation.
@ John- I don't really see killing the giants as a clear fall either, but I do take issue with a paladin killing an opponent while it sleeps (I wouldn't hold this view about all foes- for instance a sleeping vampire would certainly be fair game for a paladin, but I don't think a giant quite qualifies as justification for resorting to such underhanded tactics). Remember not only does a paladin have to be LG and not commit evil actions, a paladin also has to adhere to a strict code of conduct that forbids them from doing dishonourable things like using poison in battle. I count killing a sleeping enemy as dishonourable (in most cases).
Also the party didn't know when they ambushed the stone giants that the army was planning on attacking human lands. They kind of assumed as much, but for all they knew the giants could have been gathering to go to war against some ancient evil that had emerged on the plateau or going to war against a frost giant army invaded from the north. Like I said above the paladin could have approached them and talked to them, and possibly given them the option of joining up with the heroes. In all likelihood the giants would have responded by laughing at the heroes and attacking them, and at that point the PCs would be in the clear because the giants would be the aggressors and they would be defending themselves. Even when the paladin murdered the giant in its sleep the party still had no information about why the giants were gathering or what they were up to. That was part of the reason they were killing the giants- they wanted to leave one of them alive for interrogation and kill the others.
After discussing the issue with my player. I decided that he would basically get off with a warning. I took a suggestion from Nobody's Home and decided that for the next day or two Imodae will express her displeasure by making the paladin's gear feel heavier (mechanically it will translate to being encumbered). She will also grant the PC a dream that will give a bit more insight about the situation and set forth some goals that the character to can work towards to atone for his dishonourable action (killing a giant in its sleep).
Going forward I'm trying to more clearly lay out what Imodae's code of conduct would be in terms of conducting one's self honourably in battle and war.
I think that's a really fair call. Shiro's player and I spent around half an hour arguing about it this morning, and it boils down to, "When you're hopelessly outnumbered and you're working on subterfuge, what constitutes a war crime and what is just sound tactics?"
I think as long as I stop there everyone who's posted is in agreement that that's the question we're looking at. If not, I'd love to hear an alternative question.
I have no issues with other party members using these sorts of tactics. It's just that a paladin has to hold herself to a higher standard, and sometimes doing what is honourable means not doing always making the best tactical choice or at least trying to come up with alternative but equally effective courses of action when one course seems like it might violate the paladin's code.
I have no issues with other party members using these sorts of tactics. It's just that a paladin has to hold herself to a higher standard, and sometimes doing what is honourable means not doing always making the best tactical choice or at least trying to come up with alternative but equally effective courses of action when one course seems like it might violate the paladin's code.
Fixed that for you. :-P
But yes, as I mentioned in my spoiler above, I've read perhaps half a dozen RotRL campaign journals (probably more) and run one of my own, and only twice have I seen the, "We need to kill every single giant in Jorgenfist approach," once with your group and once with a group that decided the odds were too ridiculous and quit the AP. (Seriously. It was a GM complaint thread because the party had taken one look at Jorgenfist and quit because the "fight was impossible".)
So the fact is, I'm looking at it with a biased eye; I've seen many groups get past Jorgenfist without using slash-and-burn, kill 'em all tactics. So watching a paladin resort to that as a first recourse is probably what's making me bristle the most. Not so much, "I need to do this out of necessity," but the impression of, "It's the first thing I came up with, and they're only giants, so who cares if I kill a few I might not need to?"
It's the kind of thing that always spawns paladin threads. It's effective, (almost) tactically sound, and you're killing people who would otherwise attack innocents so the short-sighted view is that it's for the Greater Good. But your bolded statement above is the key for me: "Is there a way to do this that would be equally effective but would result in less overall loss of life?"
That's the question, Horatio.
the character is an aasimar silver dragon disciple, but also has the demonic bloodline (due to the feat that lets you have two bloodlines).
This is a code of conduct for paladins of Iomedae that my player found on the web
he paladins of Iomedae are just and strong. Their mission is to right wrongs and eliminate evil at its root. They are crusaders and live for the joy of righteous battle. They serve as examples to others, and their code demands they protect the weak and innocent by eliminating sources of oppression, rather than the symptoms. They may back down or withdraw from a fight if they are overmatched, but if their lives will buy time for others to escape, they must give them. Their tenets include:
• I will learn the weight of my sword. Without my heart to guide it, it is worthless—my strength is not in my sword, but in my heart. If I lose my sword, I have lost a tool. If I betray my heart, I have died.
• I will have faith in the Inheritor. I will channel her strength through my body. I will shine in her legion, and I will not tarnish her glory through base actions.
• I am the first into battle, and the last to leave it.
• I will not be taken prisoner by my free will. I will not surrender those under my command.
• I will never abandon a companion, though I will honor sacrifice freely given.
• I will guard the honor of my fellows, both in thought and deed, and I will have faith in them.
• When in doubt, I may force my enemies to surrender, but I am responsible for their lives.
• I will never refuse a challenge from an equal. I will give honor to worthy enemies, and contempt to the rest.
• I will suffer death before dishonor.
• I will be temperate in my actions and moderate in my behavior. I will strive to emulate Iomedae's perfection.
|
|
• I will learn the weight of my sword. Without my heart to guide it, it is worthless—my strength is not in my sword, but in my heart. If I lose my sword, I have lost a tool. If I betray my heart, I have died.
“I do not aim with my hand; he who aims with his hand has forgotten the face of his father.
I aim with my eye.I do not shoot with my hand; he who shoots with his hand has forgotten the face of his father.
I shoot with my mind.
I do not kill with my gun; he who kills with his gun has forgotten the face of his father.
I kill with my heart.”
Those tenets are from Inner Sea Gods, which has another very pertinent quote:
p.77 She is a righteous knight, fearless in fighting for her beliefs, and a missionary and crusader on behalf of the benign sovereignty of good and merciful justice for evil. She would rather convince evildoers to lay down their arms in honorable surrender than cut them down...
She loathes...those who abuse good in the name of "greater" good...
On the other hand, reading it through, it is VERY clear that Iomedae is a pragmatic goddess, and understands that sometimes evil's just got to be stomped on.
Makes me feel even more strongly that a warning is in order along the lines of, "Hey, you! Try to think of a way OTHER than genocide FIRST."
So definitely not a fall after reading the whole section on Iomedae from Inner Sea Gods. Much more a, "Wake up and at least THINK about other possible tactics!"
Though that whole, "Ripping my enemies' throats out with my teeth instead of using a sword," makes me wonder...
Iomedae really seems like the wrong deity for this character. He may want really want to consider swapping over to Ragathiel the General of Vengeance. He's a LG "All Evil Must Burn!" style god and the general of the armies of Heaven. Also he's a Half-Devil so he could relate to the Pally's mixed heritage.
This plot hook is a bit forced, but Iomedae's current herald, Hand of the Inheritor, used to serve Ragathiel. Hand could pop up in a few visions "suggesting" the Pally consider giving Ragathiel a test drive.
For a "paladin should fall" thread, this discussion has been astonishingly rational and well thought out.
In particular, the DM and player found a code and agreed on its use and interpretation - that is at the heart of solving any paladin conundrum.
It was a bit unclear (at least to me and my assumption jumping mind) what the tactical situation was that drove the pc's to kill the giants, but if as it seems the giants were actually helpless, one good answer would have been to do nothing. Let sleeping giants lie as it were. Indeed in a completely pragmatic sense, killing the giants increases the chance the players will get discovered. The players have no idea when the slain giants may be discovered and their presence revealed, putting both the army and fortress on alert, driving a search for intruders, etc.
With all this goodness however, I would offer a couple contrarian observations:
1. A few posts up thread, P.H. Dungeon wrote: "I have no issues with other party members using these sorts of tactics." Okay you (as DM) may not. But the paladin darn well better. A paladin's companions had better be able to live within sight if not the strict boundaries of the paladin's code or they can't be his companions. I fail to see how a paladin should be able to argue - "It's against my code to slit the throat of sleeping enemies. But, it's A-OK for me to travel with Slinky, the CN assassin so he can do the throat-slitting for me."
2. I remain bitter about the level of defense the stone giants receive on RotRL threads. Neutral alignment is not diplomatic immunity. The pc's have encountered a whole series of increasingly worse and more dangerous evil throughout the AP including...
The entire chain of misery and suffering points inescapably to Jorgenfist. The pc's are entirely justified in assuming they are at war with the giants and that a giant victory will lead to the most calamitous and EVIL of outcomes. It's all well and good for the war to be conducted according to the paladin's code and for good tactical and strategic decision (we can't take the army - we need to take out the leaders) but the stone giants are directly and overtly supporting evil - no one should shed a tear over their fate.
Sorry. Had to delete my reply at my wife's request. She said it was too inflammatory.
My point is much weaker without a specific example, but it was this:
Throughout history we have seen atrocities committed by human armies that make the stone giants' activities seem tame.
Throughout history, we have seen that removing the leadership ends these threats.
So the question is: How complicit are the soldiers in these armies?
And my argument was: It varies greatly. Some are as complicit or even more so than the officers, and would have a big bright shiny E on their alignment.
But many, many more are indoctrinated into the cause. Fighting from misguided patriotism, or fear of standing out, or a youth's excitement to see "action", or honest plain-and-simple brainwashing. And those soldiers would definitely have an N by their name.
And history has shown that if you allow those soldiers to live but remove their leaders, they will mostly go on to live normal lives.
So it's not so much shedding a tear for the poor stone giant (though I admit my campaign had a downright love-fest with them). It's accepting that complete extermination of them is not necessary, so for most paladins it's their job to find an alternative.
Genocide should never be an option for any good person.
And Holy Iomedae would never accept evil done in the name of the "greater good".
I don't think I really mentioned this, but the party had followed the Kreegs from Hook Mountain to Jorgenfist. They knew the Kreegs had been making weapons. On their way they had a random encounter with a powerful white dragon. The dragon could have killed them but they managed some diplomacy and it let them live for the moment. It told them of the fortress with the gathering army. It also told them that the area was the territory of a red dragon named Longtooh, and that Longooth was a rival. In exchange for sparing their lives earlier the dragon has demanded that they loot gems and other valuable from Longtooth's horde and bring them to the white dragon.
Part of the PCs goal has been to make it look like the Longtooth has turned on the army, so they have intentionally left burns on the giants (scorching ray spell) and made wounds resemble claw marks, as well as notes carved into the giants' bodies that are supposed to be from Longtooth.
So they had reasons for attacking the band, but at the point when they did they had no actual intel about what the giants were up to.
im so glad my players hate paladins:)
Sorry. Had to delete my reply at my wife's request. She said it was too inflammatory.
My point is much weaker without a specific example, but it was this:
Throughout history we have seen atrocities committed by human armies that make the stone giants' activities seem tame.
Throughout history, we have seen that removing the leadership ends these threats.
So the question is: How complicit are the soldiers in these armies?
And my argument was: It varies greatly. Some are as complicit or even more so than the officers, and would have a big bright shiny E on their alignment.
But many, many more are indoctrinated into the cause. Fighting from misguided patriotism, or fear of standing out, or a youth's excitement to see "action", or honest plain-and-simple brainwashing. And those soldiers would definitely have an N by their name.And history has shown that if you allow those soldiers to live but remove their leaders, they will mostly go on to live normal lives.
So it's not so much shedding a tear for the poor stone giant (though I admit my campaign had a downright love-fest with them). It's accepting that complete extermination of them is not necessary, so for most paladins it's their job to find an alternative.
Just to be clear, I am in no way advocating the wholesale slaughter of the stone giants. I think I directly advocated for ignoring/avoiding patrols and the watchpost entirely. And I believe I also explicitly called out the best strategy - take out the leaders. But...
Page 198: "Deprived of the stabilizing influence of their elders, and with little but fear and awe to lead them, these giants have grown
cruel and violent."
Page 199: "With these tactics, Mokmurian has turned his giants further and further toward evil—and all his resources will soon be directed
toward the utter destruction of all of Varisia."
I mean, really, the entire litany of awful and evil the pc's have encountered from the very beginning of the AP point directly at Jorgenfist. The Stone Giants aren't miscreant teenagers out past curfew, they are aggressive soldiers in a force that's on the precipice of inflicting what might be the worst calamity to befall Varisia since Earthfall. Should the pc's kill all the stone giants on sight? No. But are they particularly worthy of mercy or tolerance especially if that puts the pc's survival or victory at risk? No. To make an omelet some eggs have to be broken.
Curse you and your rational responses! Now we can't argue any more!
For the record, how much does he actually lose with only 2 levels of Paladin? CHA bonus to saves, detect evil, a minor lay on hands ability, and a low level smite evil once per day. He keeps the HP, skill ranks, saves, and BAB.
Stripping these powers is not the end of the world for this character. It's only a 2-level dip we're talking about. If the character was full paladin all the way then it would be a bit different.
The character's abyssal bloodline may be an explanation for his behaviour, but this excuse would not prevent the paladin from losing his abilities if you deem that his actions violate his code.
The fact that he failed to detect evil before attacking really isn't relevant. A paladin doesn't have the right to simply kill people because they are evil - only if they actually DO evil. Just having evil in your heart isn't enough.
On the other hand, he does have the right to attack people who are his enemies, regardless of their alignment. Fighting in a wars and battles is defined as a neutral act (if it wasn't many adventures would require the party to be evil). It won't necessarily earn the paladin any brownie points for doing it but it won't get him in trouble either.
To make it clear I also agree that the best strategy for a Paladin in this case is clearly to go for the head and then let the army scatter, this is what my group did.
I would just be reluctant to punish the Paladin for militarily necessary killings done while trying to reach the goal.
My general viewpoint for Paladins falling is that if the Player can come up with a reasonable justification based on their faith and Paladin code then they should not fall unless they were warned in advance that they would. However they may receive signs of their Gods displeasure and fall the next time they are pushing the same limits after a fair warning from their god
Iomedae is a particularly unfortunate choice, given this scenario.
"I will guard the honor of my fellows, both in thought and deed, and I will have faith in them."
The way I read that, the Paladin is also responsible for reigning in his fellow party members IN THOUGHT AS WELL AS DEED. So it's not just the Paladin who is signed up to this code - the group must abide by it in his presence or there will be trouble. The Paladin would be honour-bound to stop them.
"I will suffer death before dishonor"
Iomedae is not of the "that's ok, just do better next time" school. Second chances should be pretty much off the table without some exceptional deeds to balance them. I'd highlight that too.
"also has the demonic bloodline"
I suspect that would mean this Paladin has to be DOUBLY careful to be an absolute exemplar of the faith.
All that being said, if you and the player have an accord then roll with it.
Oh, and for reference the Paladin Code you found on the web is also in Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Inner Sea Gods Hardcover along with a bunch of other info on Iomedae and the other gods:
(edit: linkified the link)
Unfortunately, I don't have that book as of yet, and I'm not sure if it's one I'll bother to pick up.
it is also found in Faiths of Purity (player companion) it is a very good book and a lot cheaper then Inner Sea Gods (i also will not be picking it up, mostly just a re-print of everything i have anyway)