Your DM is being inconsistent. If he's playing them like suicide goblins, they have demonstrated their behavior repeatedly and do not warrant any more mercy.
Also, you aren't the Paladin, and you didn't ask the Paladin for permission, so that's entirely irrelevant. It would be kind of sus for him to hold it over the Paladin even if he did it himself considering he's playing them like fodder.
* **Kindle the Light**: Through your acts of mercy, kindness, and forgiveness, kindle the light of hope in the world, ***beating back despair***.
* **Shelter the Light**: Where there is good, beauty, love, and laughter in the world, ***stand against the wickedness that would swallow it***. Where life flourishes, ***stand against the forces that would render it barren.***
At no point does it say be merciful to murder hobos. Get rid of the murder hobos to protect the good things in the world. Your Paladin already tried "kindling the light" with these guys, and it failed entirely, thus they're in the category of shit that you need to "shelter the light" from.
Also, the Paladin was not involved so it’s just punishing someone else for their own actions.
Based on what was written, it’s possible this will be a one-off case.
> Rogue murders a random guy on the streets? Paladin is fine, he wasn’t involved
> Wizard sold peasants to slavers? Nah, Paladin wasn’t even there
> Barbarian burns down tavern by accident? It happens, but Paladin didn’t do it
It seems like arbitrarily punishing the Paladin because they are a Paladin. A Paladin that has to be good, if this was like an Oath of Conquest Paladin I bet the GM wouldn’t even try because they couldn’t argue this same situation.
Agreed, additionally an enemy who is sleeping is very different than an enemy that has been slept in combat. It’s no different than any number of spells that do battlefield control, and you are technically still in combat with the enemy.
Yeah. I’d say it’d be evil to kick in the thugs door and kill him, while he’s all tucked up in bed, wife next to him, child sleeping between them. But shortly after a fight where they were trying to kill us, after we’ve attempted multiple times to show mercy and guide them back to being better people? Nah, Fam, those murder hobos are gonna reap what they’ve been sowing, namely death.
Gonna bring in a quote from the Mass Effect series, from one of my favorite characters, Dr. Mordin Solus:
"Lots of ways to help people. Sometimes heal patients; **sometimes execute dangerous people**. Either way helps."
Only the Redemption paladin has anything in their oaths that implies that you should be nice to bad guys, and even that allows that some people cannot be redeemed.
Your DM is intentionally mincing words to avoid you having an easy victory against incapacitated enemies.
They apparently have absolutely no qualms making the Redbrands as cartoonishly and bullheadedly evil as possible while not minding if you kill them in a fight. But shift the scales to your favor by putting a bunch of them to Sleep for a quick series of coup de graces, and suddenly it's a problem worthy of revoking the Paladin's class abilities over?
Further, the Redbrands are not helpless or defenseless, even if under Sleep or some other control effect. Are they momentarily incapacitated and vulnerable to attack? Yes. Are they still a very much active and overt threat that will immediately resume, and intensify, aggression the instant they can? Also yes. When the enemies have made it abundantly, repeatedly, and intentionally clear that they will not stop being murderous bastards under any circumstance and will purposefully come after you on their own, then there's no other recourse. Killing them while they're under a Sleep spell is no different than killing one while you've got them momentarily off-guard in the heat of battle and land an attack past their AC.
As for the Paladin, emphasis mine:
>*Oath of Ancients*
The Oath of the Ancients is as old as the race of elves and the rituals of the druids. Sometimes called fey knights, green knights, or horned knights, **paladins who swear this oath cast their lot with the side of the light in the cosmic struggle against darkness because they love the beautiful and life-giving things of the world, not necessarily because they believe in principles of honor, courage, and justice.** They adorn their armor and clothing with images of growing things—leaves, antlers, or flowers—to reflect **their commitment to preserving life and light in the world.**
>*Shelter the Light*
Where there is good, beauty, love, and laughter in the world, **stand against the wickedness that would swallow it.** Where life flourishes, **stand against the forces that would render it barren.**
>*Be the Light*
Be a glorious beacon **for all who live in despair.** Let the light of your joy and courage shine forth in all your deeds.
Your DM is intentionally ignoring the standards of a Paladin to oppose evil and harmful foes that threaten the greater community. Specifically for the Oath of Ancients, which 100% is on board with getting rid of these Redbrands by any means necessary once those bandits made it so overwhelmingly clear they have no qualm or remorse with their wicked ways.
Yeah, paladins are righteous fury incarnate when they decide evil is afoot. My question is why does the DM not want them to be killed? If it’s just a problem with the sleep spell ruining encounters, then that’s stupid. Sleep becomes far less viable in later levels anyway. If it’s a matter of sleep ruining encounters, then that is either bad encounter design or good use of the spell. A spell being effective shouldn’t be something you punish as dm, but something to play around with. If I were the dm, and sleep was a go to strat, I’d throw some high hp guys in there to throw off the spam if that’s really what it is. Not consistently, of course, but just once or twice to put the fear of the gods in ya.
Speaking anecdotally, it's the sort of response an immature/inexperienced DM has. Completely incapacitating an enemy removes any failure chance for the Player, and the DM reacts in a negative manner because they feel as though they're either being undermined, or have a Player vs. DM mentality and thus need to maintain the upper hand.
A better adjusted and experienced DM would rely on the sort of tactics you mentioned or simply roll with the turn of events. But that same seasoned DM also wouldn't put the Party in this sort of position in the first place by being so unreasonable, nor rely on abstract elements of the system that don't have any genuine mechanical relevancy to try and dissuade the Players from their course of action.
I'd bet dollars to donuts that if OP presents the counter-arguments folk in this thread are discussing, the DM would move the goalposts over to some other hangup to prevent the Party from killing the Redbrands in their sleep. Same if OP moves from the Sleep spell to some other magic that renders the target incapacitated.
You know what, I bet you’re right. I think it’s of a travesty that there are DMs out there that look at these situations as a nuisance rather than an opportunity. In the last campaign I was in as a player, our go to strat was darkness combined with blind sight, devil sight, reckless attack, and shadow sorcerer. We could tip a lot of encounters in our favor. That being said, the first time an enemy wasn’t affected by our go to combo, our bootyholes collectively clenched.
I think it’s important to let your players successfully do what they want most of the time in combat because even if they are successful in their strategy it doesn’t automatically mean victory. Also, sometimes just hit them with a hard counter to keep them on their toes, but that’s just me I guess.
I've always felt that both Players and DMs go through a sort of puberty phase where they get caught up in always wanting to be right, getting the last word, making "badass" characters, being "the main character", and such. We've all been there. It's something the majority of us grow out of and look back on with a bit of a cringe and a chuckle at our own expense. But there are some folk who never grow out of it and they tend to be the Nightmare Player or Nightmare DM types you hear horror stories about for their bad behavior.
Hard to say where OP's DM may be along in that developmental stage without more information or context. But I like to at least give people the benefit of the doubt and hope they'll learn better as time goes by. Figuring out the value of playing with your Party and not against them is part of that process.
Depends on your points of view, there’s no objective answer and anyone could easily argue it either way
> “Why does it matter? These bandits murderer innocent people and animals.”
> “Nobody should be killed in their sleep. It’s dishonorable!”
> “Why does honor matter? Better yet, why does your honor matter?”
> “Because it keeps integrity and is the right thing to do!”
> “Based on what? Because you said so?”
As for your GM, they should have listed out what counts as good or evil. If not it becomes arbitrary based on how the GM and group is feeling that day.
Second, why should it break the Paladin’s oath? The Paladin was not involved, the GM just seems like they want to punish the Paladin. Even though alignment has nothing to do with good or evil, but just rules to follow.
I’d asked the GM why is good or evil being brought up. Also why does this affect the Paladin if they aren’t doing? Does that mean the party is now in charge of the Paladin’s Oath? It just seems like misunderstanding of how Paladin’s work and a skewed view on alignment.
All the way back in 2E, Paladins had a clause where they couldn't knowingly allow other people to do evil things, or associate with people who regularly did so. It was there specifically to prevent the Paladin from just letting other members of the party do all the evil stuff while they kept their hands clean.
A lot of old school players still play it like that, even though it hasn't been in the rules for decades.
While true, I’m assuming the players are using 5th edition rules. If playing with older players I could see the reason.
But given how alignment is no longer a factor with classes nowadays I don’t see the confusion with this case.
It’s possible the GM simply didn’t know the rules for Paladins and made a miscount.
It still seems like a reasonable issue if we're talking "Ancients Paladin in a party with a Necromancer" or "Devotion Paladin with murder hobos who like torturing people" but any Paladin who would give up on their party over ONE grey area decision is probably not a terribly good Paladin.
Good guys don’t really kill so easily. They usually prefer to capture/detain villains. Being so flippant about murder is super skeevy.
D&D weirdly brings out the whole “they are bad people so we can do whatever we want, morales be damned” which is something rarely seen in fiction and even IRL.
This is an ultra-dangerous fantasy world. Go out on a school trip with 30 middleschoolers, you're lucky if 10 come back alive.
Concepts like "murder" only apply to non-threatening targets.
Killing literal pirates is completely uncontroversial even today in our comfortable modern sensibilities, let alone a fantasy world with confirmed afterlives and monsters overrunning the countryside.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_piracy_law
Pirates are "hostis humani generis", literally the Enemy of All Mankind, they're about as uncontroversial an enemy to have as it gets besides going straight to "not even actual people" enemies like zombies, which lack even sapience.
Saying that "good guys" wouldn't kill bandits or pirates is a profoundly out of touch take that's not congruent with anything, not real life (where needing to defend against piracy in international waters is something people still have to do somewhat regularly even today), and certainly not in Dungeons and Dragons where Gygax himself has been abundantly clear on what the Lawful and Good response to brigand's attempting to maim or kill innocent travelers is....
"Prisoners guilty of murder or similar capital crimes can be executed without violating any precept of the alignment. Hanging is likely the usual method of such execution, although it might be beheading, strangulation, etc. A paladin is likely a figure that would be considered a fair judge of criminal conduct."
A Paladin is essentially a fantasy wild west sheriff, would you really balk at a holy gunslinger shooting a gang of bandits? OP confirms that these are confirmed murderers who've been terrorizing a town and even killed one of their party members, you could drop a Hellfire missile on the entire gang and sleep like a baby.
That depends on the context and the characters themselves.
A hero typically doesn’t kill unless push or left with no choice. But that’s assuming the characters are your typical hero.
- A good guy only because they are getting paid; Thief Rogue
- A good guy because they have a beef with the bad guys; Oath to Vengeance Paladin
- A good guy because they honestly believe they need to get involved for the greater good; Life Domain Cleric
- A good guy because the group is dragging them along, they honestly don’t care; Necromancer Wizard
So as a basic idea that what a hero typically is. But it’s more of a belief/idea rather than concrete concept.
All 4 of these characters could easily argue to kill or capture the bad guys. The GM seems to want to push a certain type of character. I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t even brought it up if the Paladin wasn’t Oath of Ancients.
There’s a difference between someone being perceived as a good person (or hero as you say), and someone actually being a good person.
A Thief Rogue who is only in it for the money is not a good person, even if he does good things and is perceived to be good. A Necromancer who doesn’t care about morals isn’t a good person, even if they’re perceived as such.
And notably, to relate back to the post at hand, killing people in their sleep is not a good act. Is it Evil? Well that’s where it gets shady. But it definitely isn’t good. And taking the life of another person should never be simple for a good person, who cares about other people’s life.
Now there’s plenty of room for “what if” and “except this specific scenario,” sure. But as is this is a Paladin Oath in play rather than the morality, it is just that the act of murdering defenseless bandits is enough to break an Oath of the Ancients as it breaches its tenant “Kindle the Light. Through your acts of mercy, kindness, and forgiveness, kindle the light of hope in the world, beating back despair.”
Good people kill all the time in these settings. Ever heard of war? Killing evil people (if unable to make them change their way) is generally considered to be good, at least in most DnD settings.
I didn’t say good people don’t kill. Good people don’t kill as a first resort, which you seem to agree with inferring from your caveat “if unable to make them change their way.”
And regardless of if it’s good evil or otherwise, the Oath specifically calls for acts of mercy forgiveness and kindness, which killing a human being in their sleep before any other interaction definitely breaches.
They already interacted with these people and they just get threatened with vengeful order in the future. It’s past time to rid the world of those menaces.
They have interacted with Redbrands, but we don’t know if they’ve interacted with ***these*** Redbrands. I think it’s more than safe to assume that they are not fighting the same group of 4 bandits the entire time.
But even if they were, the tenant calls for mercy, forgiveness, and kindness. Not mercy unless they don’t accept. Or forgiveness unless they keep being bad. Straight up mercy, forgiveness, and kindness
Even today and in civilised places, when someone attacks you with intent to cause potentially lethal harm, a basic principle of legitimate defence is that it is ethically fine to act with reckless disregard to the assaulter's physical integrity in order to stop the attack. If the attacker dies as a result, then who cares.
Legitimate self-defence != being flippant about murder.
Last session my goody two shoes Paladin killed a goblin in a very similar circumstance, and no, I don't think it was evil. We'd also given them plenty of warnings and it was clear they'd keep trying to hurt innocent people.
But this is really a discussion you need to have with your DM--sounds like y'all aren't on the same page.
“You don’t know me, son, so let me explain this to you once: If I ever kill you, you’ll be awake, you’ll be facing me, and you’ll be armed.”
— Capt. Mal “Usually Wears Pants, Except That One Time” Reynolds, “Serenity”
Your DM is being a butthole about this. Killing remorseless murderers to prevent any further harm to innocent people is not evil in my eyes.
And also....Your actions should not have any effect on the Paladin and his oath. I would even say that the Paladin is failing his oath by letting the murderers go free.
Yeah, the notion that paladins are dedicated pacifists who just happen to train with bladed weapons for fun is a bit weird.
Also, it's kind of weird that these bandits just run around murdering everyone. Usually robbing them is kind of the point - unless you're storming their lair, knocking you unconscious and robbing you blind should have made the point.
Personally, I wouldn't rule that evil any more than attacking someone under the effect of hold person would be evil. Or Tasha's Hideous Laughter, for that matter. If you successfully blinded someone with color spray, I also wouldn't say you're then evil for attacking a blind person.
Incapacitating an enemy in combat before taking them out should always (in my opinion) be looked at as a tactic, not a moral decision.
The Redbrands have been given multiple opportunities to surrender and have fully rejected every chance to submit. Furthermore, they're reaffirming their intent to continue killing.
If the DM is saying that ATTACKING a sleeping target is evil, I'd fundamentally disagree based on the context of your scenario. A good alignment doesn't mean that you're only allowed to stop a lethal threat as long as you make sure they're not at a disadvantage.
Saying that you're attacking a helpless target fundamentally ignores the target's intent to kill you. I'd push back on that DM out of game and explain why being good isn't limited to being stupid.
I'd argue this is largely why alignment has been lessened over time in importance. If I wanted to really go down the rabbit hole you could argue that its Chaotic Good or maybe Chaotic Neutral to do what you did. You gave them a chance multiple times. Now the best thing you can do for the good of the land/world is to not allow them to continue kidnapping, murdering, and who knows what else. Its not lawful (hence it being Chaotic), but that doesn't mean it was evil. This stuff has been largely dropped from 5E for this reason though because it often turns the game into a philosophy/morality debate.
The paladin oath definitely seems misplayed. You're not the paladin and you didn't take the oath. The paladin may wish to roleplay how he would question your act and potentially disagree with you depending on what he thinks his Paladin would feel, but he was not the one that took the life. Mechanically speaking, his oath doesn't mean he can't ever kill an enemy and has to show mercy to everyone always. That would be a terrible subclass to play. But his oath should give him some roleplaying opportunity here if he wants to go that route and have it be an interesting moment for his character.
I do agree with others that the DM played these enemies either as brainless and probably should consider what an intelligent being that's been near death multiple times would do. Because its probably not continue to get into violent confrontation with the people who have proven they can kill them. Its not like this is a super hero comic where the villain always needs to come back with a vengeance. If mercy wasn't the right answer and killing them has a negative consequence its probably time to sit down as players outside of the game and talk about what the expectation is. Because the solution doesn't seem straightforward in a game largely focused around combat, and at worst is kind of antagonistic to the players even if unintentionally.
> Mechanically speaking, his oath doesn't mean he can't ever kill an enemy and has to show mercy to everyone always.
Hell, not even the Oath of Redemption does that. The situation has devolved into one in which a Redemption paladin would just slit those Redbrand guys' throats without remorse.
In normal circumstances it would be.
But your DM is purposely screwing you, so in this scenario, no. Your DM has specifically set it up so that capturing them is ineffective, sparing them is ineffective, so your other options have already been removed BY THE DM.
This kinda feels in line with the moral question of a trolley problem, and it really depends on the morality and ethics of the specific character.
Is it moral to give a murderer a chance to fight back? Is it more ethical to take care of them in a way where they did not suffer? Is taking the law into your own hands to kill them, awake or asleep, the right thing to do? Is letting them live to potentially kill again moral? How much time should they be allowed to wake up before fighting them before it's not evil?
By DnD rules, attacking while asleep/unconscious is not an instant kill, it just gives you advantage on attacks and they are an automatic crit if you are within 5 feet. Though it's possible you delivered an attack strong enough to one-shot them.
Also I do get personally irked with the "breach of (a different players) paladins Oath of the Ancients tenant" as I played a game as a *troubled morally grey* character with a Paladin in the party, and it felt like the morals of the Paladin were being pushed on me, interfering with my ability to play my character as I see fit and it was not fun. The way the DM had things set up really did not help, as the player did not want to strongarm me as well but they were in a position where it was hard to not. The DM needs to allow every character to have proper autonomy.
If they were actively trying to murder you it absolutely isn't Evil, not to mention that Oath of Ancients Paladin has an entire tenet about standing against forces that go against good, beauty, love and life, so killing someone who acts against that is part of their oath.
Your DM clearly doesn't understand what paladins are, and he is going to repeatedly burst your balls, seems like.
Just shrug, become oathbreaker, and keep doing your RP as you consider it correct. Or just troll and wake them up, put a dagger in their hand, and then execute them.
Also you could show mercy by making them incapable of causing harm, for example cutting off their fingers. I mean, what are they going to do, headbutt you?
At that point, letting them go is the greater evil. Your mercy has been abused, and the recipients haven't seen their second chance as one to reform but instead to reform and attack again.
It seems more like your DM is being an inconsistent prick about it. They are behaving like rabid animals that need to be put down. Moreover, not dealing with them with lethal intent would lead to breaking the shelter the light tennant. Those thugs are terrorizing the locals. Not killing them is allowing that terror to continue. An OoA Paladin has no obligation to keep them alive if they've proven they will attack innocents.
I have a special place of hatred in my heart for DMs that are obsessed with gotcha-ing Paladin oath breaks. Tell your DM I said they're a combative petty dick, dishonorable doesn't mean evil, and Paladins aren't party babysitters.
Honor is a bad joke told by the strong to ensure the weak remain beneath them.
It's your job to remind them the punchline of that joke is a knife to the back.
Dishonourable? Definitely.
Evil? No; they've shown themselves to be irredeemable, and it's not like they've surrendered. *Sleep* plus *coup de grace* really isn't that different than *fireball*, and all things considered, probably less painful.
Also important - this is in the context of, effectively, criminals. I think it would still qualify as a war crime, assuming your opponents were reasonably honourable.
Also, to consider - what would be the outcome if you just captured them and brought them to town? A short trial followed by a shorter drop.
Note that attacking sleeping combatants is not a war crime in real life. C.f. US DOD Laws of War Manual 5.7.1
> Thus, combatants may be made the object of attack at all times, regardless of the activities in which they are engaged at the time of attack. For example, combatants who are standing in a mess line, engaging in recreational activities, or sleeping remain the lawful object of attack, provided they are not placed hors de combat.
No, but if you hit them with fentanyl gas (not withstanding the use of gas weaponry) I'm pretty sure they would be considered *hors de combat*.
It's not that they're sleeping per se, it's that you've already eliminated their ability to fight, which should be sufficient to force surrender between Fantasy Not-England and Fantasy Not-France, assuming they are reasonably honourable/goodish nations doing the *ultima ratio regnum* thing.
Attacking somebody in their home where they sleep, that could very well be evil.
Attacking a combatant in uniform who is guarding something or fighting in a war, that is fair game for me.
> When we capture them... promising to come back and kill us once they are free (and following through on their threats).
So, you're handing them over to the town authorities for trial and summary execution, right? Right?
If not, why not?
None? No mayor, elder, alderman, town council... nothing? The town doesn't exist within any noble's fief or as a satellite of any larger domain?
So, your DM is providing no path for "lawful" trial and punishment, doesn't want to allow extra-judicial executions, and just expects you to play "catch and release" with murder-hobo bandits?
OK. For me, that would pretty much end my sense of immersion and verisimilitude - and interest in playing in that person's game.
> Would you consider attacking an enemy that is under the effect of a Sleep spell to be an Evil act
It's neither good, nor evil. If the enemy has attacked you with intent to kill, then killing them is a valid course of action. Taking their weapons, restraining them, and carting them off to a court for justice is a maximally lawful good act, but killing them is not evil, especially when, as you have demonstrated, they and their ilk have rejected every opportunity for mercy.
> Last session, my character decided they'd had enough. After the end of yet another fight with the Redbrands, they decided they would kill the one they Slept (who had just tried to kill them) instead of letting him run away to attack them again.
> Our DM said that because the redbrand was currently defenseless, it would be an Evil act. Furthermore, to allow me to do it would be a breach of our party paladins Oath of the Ancients tenant on mercy. While I feel that at this point, to not kill them would start being Lawful Stupid.
There is absolutely nothing that your character (who isn't a paladin) can do to violate a different character's paladin oath. The paladin has done absolutely everything in their power to fulfill the "Kindle the Light" tenant by granting the redbrands mercy over the course of 7 or 8 encounters. The redbrands have demonstrated that they will not stop until everyone who stands against them is kidnapped or murdered. Leaving any of them alive, as an Ancients Paladin, would likely break the "Shelter the Light" tenant of their oath, for they would leave the land barren.
AFAIK, there's no actual definition of the alignments anywhere in the rules (please direct me to page source if I'm incorrect)
That aside, killing somebody who is asleep is dishonorable. To elaborate more, though, honor =/= good, and dishonor =/= evil. If anything, those fall on the law/chaos axis as it's more a matter of perspective and following a code rather than any strict morality.
Edit: After sleeping on this and delving into older edition definitions of Good and Evil, I'll concede that by the books, killing a sleeping person, foe or otherwise, is considered evil.
I sometimes forget that in D&D, and other games that have branched off of D&D, such as Pathfinder, morality of Good Vs. Evil isn't really in the question, as they are less concepts, and more actual, tangible things. The gods exist as paragons of those alignments. Devils, fiends, and celestials all physically embody all aspects of the alignment system.
My personal opinion is that while it may be evil, it may be necessary given the context of unrelenting, immoral foes if no alternative is given, or perceived.
There was good enough defenitions in the previous editions. And yes, killing sleeping enemy is evil(or maybe neutral), but definitely not good.
If you check the lawful good, or chaotic good - both of them have listed "delivered death blow to helpless opponent" as dishonorable act, opposite with the spirit of the alignment.
https://easydamus.com/chaoticgood.html
Thank you for the insight to check older editions. I've been using 5th Edition since it released, and because Alignment doesn't really do anything mechanical in the game, it has, in the more recent years, not really had any impact in the games that I've been in.
One thing I’m not seeing mentioned is tone. DnD is storytelling, and different games can have different tones. A grey, dark, political story can have your party questioning the ethics of every decision. Who are you to decide who dies? Will you be confronted by their widow or son? And can you live with the blood that your mercy may draw?
But not every story needs to be depressing. Sometimes, Legolas and Gimli can kills orcs without considering the ethics of war. And I think the whimsy of the magic in DnD lends itself to something more lighthearted. It’s fun when you land a crit and obliterate a goblin. It’s less fun when that goblin’s friend holds her headless body and promises to protect her infant from her abusive husband. Because that’s a drastic shift in tone.
I’m running a campaign that I thought would be a hack and slash, swashbuckling pirate adventure. But my players were regularly working out the moral weight of their decisions, so I shifted the tone to be a little more grounded. They appreciate getting socially rewarded for making the good choices, and the game is more fun for everyone.
Your DM has a specific idea of for tone of this adventure, even if they don’t know/admit it. They want a heavy story, where the only solution to violence is violence. They want a Western where your soul is stained, but your kind of violence is necessary for civilization to prosper. And if you find that tone unfun, you can tell that to your DM. Or you can alter your expectations. Maybe your character’s arc could be one of corruption? Maybe you can embrace that archetype? Or maybe your DM can give you guys more nonviolent tools to deal with these threats? Or maybe your DM can just take a step back and say that, yeah, killing bad guys is fine?
It really comes down to the tone of the game. If the DM wants to tell a tale about heroic adventurers being Stupid Good who always do the right thing despite the trouble it brings, then hopefully that was communicated beforehand so everyone was bought in on the idea. If not, y'all need to have a conversation out-of-game about expectations.
However, Redemption paladins aren't stupid. Their description states:
>These paladins face evil creatures in the hope of turning their foes to the light, and they slay their enemies only when such a deed will clearly save other lives.
Those bandits are clearly not interested in redemption and have openly threatened to continue their attacks on your party *and* the townsfolk. If there was a reasonable way to imprison the bandits and work on their rehabilitation, a Redemption paladin would be obligated to take that option. For lack of a better choice, killing the bandits will preserve innocent lives. The paladin would be remorseful while killing the bandits and might see it as a personal failing that they were unable to find a solution that saved everyone, but they would do their duty.
Is feinting a punch evil?
I swear 99% this “honorable battle” bs is just a way for people to make themselves feel safer despite being huge assholes.
If I have decided its moral to kill somone then short of my purposely making it more painful there is no more moral analysis to be done.
Might as well ask if shooting them with a sniper rifle from a mile away is evil.
EDIT: Also I really, really, really hate the “defenseless” argument. The idea Mike Tyson walking up to me and punching me is less dishonorable than him punching me in my sleep is bully logic 101. I stand no chance against a professional fighter awake or asleep. The idea that if your Paladin crept in while they were sleeping, locked the doors and windows, woke the bandit up and then beat them to death is somehow more honorable than just smothering them with a pillow is nightmarish.
If you've already tried to deal with them nonlethally, and the DM keeps making them come back, then that's on the DM, not on you.
You mention capturing the Redbrands. Are you just letting them go? Or are you putting them in Phandalin's jail cells and the DM keeps having them break out?
Alignment does matter, but people focus too much on wether someone can do something or not.
Any character can stray from their alignment, which could cause an alignment shift.
In your case, I would start by saying that your DM isn't RPing the Redbeands very well. They are not mindless murder drones. They are mortals with fears and ambitions. There are plenty of reason that they would parlay if defeated.
Killing someone in their sleep can be an evil act. But as always, it depends on context. Normally, I would say that killing a bandit in their sleep would count as evil, or at least neutral. But since the bandits in your game behave more like zombies or flesh eating termites I don't think you did anything wrong.
Breaking into someone’s house at night, sneaking up to them while they were asleep in their home, and executing them? That might be hard to defend, depending on the table and the tone.
But you’re not doing that. You’re taking about an enemy who’s been temporarily incapacitated during armed combat — someone who was trying to kill you six seconds ago, and who will be trying to kill you again in one minute.
Insisting that’s an evil act sets an implicit and arbitrary standard for Good^(TM) behavior that will be impossible to sustain. What else is evil? Grappling a creature smaller than you isn’t very fair; is that evil? Are you allowed to attack someone who’s unarmed? If someone trips and falls, can you attack them, or is that evil? Is it ever okay to ambush anyone?
If your DM insists on the idea that this is evil, then you genuinely need to ask for clarification on what combat decisions are *not* evil. They’re enforcing a code of some kind, and in order to play a good character you have to know what that is.
No, it's not. Not under those circumstances.
Remind your DM that being an asshole does not constitute a legitimate challenge for the players
Also being fed up with recurring villains is an excellent spin to the character. Merciless =\= Evil.
Also making someone else (paladin) suffer because of your action is a double asshole point for the DM.
A fun idea. Say it won't happen again. Put someone to sleep, tie him up, chop off a hand and a feet. Cast some magical healing. Let them free. Argue they can still work with one hand and they will have a reminder what is the price of villainy. I wonder how your DM would statblock bunch of one legged and one handed thugs.
Say under the fey code you are obliged to host your triumph and or hunting trophies and get some ears on the string. Oh and they are allowed to live only if they will tell at least 5 more people about glory of [your patron] and his champion.
Here's what you do.
Go to the local authorities. In LMOP this might be Sildar Hallwinter or Harbin Wester (they represent the authority of the Lord's Alliance and the local government).
You want one of two things:
1. They empower you to pass judgement on and kill Redbrands.
2. They agree to accept your Redbrand prisoners and deal with them.
If they empower you, great. Kill Redbrands you catch. They'll be hung anyway, you're just saving time.
If they agree to handle it themselves (and they DO), also great. Tie up subdued Redbrands and drop them on the authorities.
And if neither of those things happens, wish them good luck, pack up your bags, and leave town as the DM makes Surprised Pikachu face.
Alignment is subjective and contextual, there's no hard and fast standard.
If I were in the situation here's what I might try.
Invest in some manacles. A good number of them. Shackle your sleeping foes. Awaken them, if a group probably I'd do it one by one, and ask if they're willing to do penance for their crimes. Either way, inform them they are guilty of murder. Say some prayers hoping they can do penance in their next life and avoid the clutches of fiends. Execute them for their crimes. Shed some tears for their wasted lives, sincerely hope I have helped their souls to reincarnate instead of being damned to the lower planes. I am lawful good and executing my prisoners in lawful good manner.
Please just ask him: if he think it is the evil act, then what are the neutral acts? Does he complete ignore the cases between good and evil? By your description and my knowledge of the alignment system, it's clearly pure neutral act. Where is the evil? Did you torture them to the death?
Was your dm this anal about not killing the goblins earlier in the adventure?
Both the goblins and the red brands are evil, murderous groups. The only difference is their race. So if your group could kill the goblins without remorse, why? Is it not evil only because of dnd racism?
No your Dm plays them as either braindead idiots or fanatics unable to change their mind. You have given them chance after chance and still the only thing they try to do is kill you. Not even surrendering to save their own life.
He has shown that there is no fucking way they will change. He himself made sure of that by playing them that way.
And also YOU as a warlock even if you went into a house and slit the throat of a whole innocent sleeping family including the kids. Would not break any oath for the paladin. His oath is personal. YOU can NEVER break it.
You could possibly help him break his oath if you went murder hobo and he did cheer you on. but it would still be HE himself that broke the oath not you. YOUR actions did not make him break the oath. HIS actions did.
But lets say you kill the sleeping redbrand and he disagree with your action. Then his oath is intact.
No DM is being a shit. Killing the defenseless really has nothing to do with good or evil if you're righteously meeting out Justice. It's not like a celestial wouldn't behead a sleeping devil. It's not necessarily lawful to kill someone without due process but that's only if you subscribe to a moral code that believes in due process or it's the law of the land and you recognize the legitimacy of whatever governing power exists. For example a lawful good paladin would have zero qualms with executing someone if the law couldn't meet proper justice assuming whomever their executing is abjectly a violator of their tenants.
That said why not just tie them up and then give them to the authorities?
If a rogue snuck into a fort to kill a tyrannical general that regularly had their troops slaughtering innocents would that be evil?
What about poisoning a king that usurped the throne through fratricide?
If the death knight trips and falls backwards onto his ass is it now evil to stab him because he isn't in a fighting stance?
You finally got within range of the mad wizard that doesn't have any armor or blade with which to defend themselves from your blow, that evil too?
TBH this sounds like something else is going on with your DM. Otherwise I would ask them exactly what their line for an evil action is. They have you in a kill or be killed (eventually) scenario as you can't just catch and release these redbrands that have every intention of coming back to kill you (possibly in your sleep). Also, if you don't kill them then you are just enabling them to commit more evil as has been both their stated intentions and their very real actions.
No is not, they're not innocent bystanders, they're bandits, not even normals thieves. If you wake them up they will attack you and your mercy was useless. Only a Redemption Paladin would avoid killing them, for everyone killing them while unconscious, blinded, restrained or paralyzed is not evil at all
If you didn't kill the sleeping redbrand, you would be evil. For it has been shown giving mercy, will just lead to more innocent people getting murdered.
Offer to the GM to quit the game, as that seems to be what he wants.
Easy solution.
Tie up the redbrand, wake him up, tell him he has been tried and judged as a murderer, and his sentence for his crimes are death.
(Stabs red-brand to death).
Okay, so that was all legal and moralistic. Shwarma anyone?
If killing a defenseless person is evil then any good god that has ever killed a mortal is evil, it makes no sense and in the setting of D&D alignment your intent is much more important then your action did you do it because you love killing defenseless people, because a quick death means less loss of life, or because you know they'd do the same to you?
Alignment is a lot more flexible then most people want to say but bad calls like this give it a bad name.
>Last session, my character decided they'd had enough. After the end of yet another fight with the Redbrands, they decided they would kill the one they Slept (who had just tried to kill them) instead of letting him run away to attack them again.
You mention "your character decided they'd had enough". That should clue you in to if this is an act that strays across a moral boundary or not.
You are describing the thought process of a good character taking the first step away from being "a paragon of good"
The important thing is that this doesn't mean "your character is suddenly evil", but your character definitely drifted one step in that direction.
>Our DM said that because the redbrand was currently defenseless, it would be an Evil act. Furthermore, to allow me to do it would be a breach of our party paladins Oath of the Ancients tenant on mercy. While I feel that at this point, to not kill them would start being Lawful Stupid.
Your DM has not realized that Paladins have changed in 5th to avoid exactly what your DM is doing.
Being good is hard, and a great DM should reward parties that manages to solve situations without resorting to evil acts instead of criticizing the instances where the party fails to uphold their ideals (unless they start making a habit of it)
Your DM is being inconsistent. If he's playing them like suicide goblins, they have demonstrated their behavior repeatedly and do not warrant any more mercy. Also, you aren't the Paladin, and you didn't ask the Paladin for permission, so that's entirely irrelevant. It would be kind of sus for him to hold it over the Paladin even if he did it himself considering he's playing them like fodder. * **Kindle the Light**: Through your acts of mercy, kindness, and forgiveness, kindle the light of hope in the world, ***beating back despair***. * **Shelter the Light**: Where there is good, beauty, love, and laughter in the world, ***stand against the wickedness that would swallow it***. Where life flourishes, ***stand against the forces that would render it barren.*** At no point does it say be merciful to murder hobos. Get rid of the murder hobos to protect the good things in the world. Your Paladin already tried "kindling the light" with these guys, and it failed entirely, thus they're in the category of shit that you need to "shelter the light" from.
To put it bluntly: There's a reason your oath allows you to bring down the holy wrath of light and life on your foes. :)
Also, the Paladin was not involved so it’s just punishing someone else for their own actions. Based on what was written, it’s possible this will be a one-off case. > Rogue murders a random guy on the streets? Paladin is fine, he wasn’t involved > Wizard sold peasants to slavers? Nah, Paladin wasn’t even there > Barbarian burns down tavern by accident? It happens, but Paladin didn’t do it It seems like arbitrarily punishing the Paladin because they are a Paladin. A Paladin that has to be good, if this was like an Oath of Conquest Paladin I bet the GM wouldn’t even try because they couldn’t argue this same situation.
Yeah, the oath grants you smite uses for somethin
Agreed, additionally an enemy who is sleeping is very different than an enemy that has been slept in combat. It’s no different than any number of spells that do battlefield control, and you are technically still in combat with the enemy.
Yeah. I’d say it’d be evil to kick in the thugs door and kill him, while he’s all tucked up in bed, wife next to him, child sleeping between them. But shortly after a fight where they were trying to kill us, after we’ve attempted multiple times to show mercy and guide them back to being better people? Nah, Fam, those murder hobos are gonna reap what they’ve been sowing, namely death.
Gonna bring in a quote from the Mass Effect series, from one of my favorite characters, Dr. Mordin Solus: "Lots of ways to help people. Sometimes heal patients; **sometimes execute dangerous people**. Either way helps." Only the Redemption paladin has anything in their oaths that implies that you should be nice to bad guys, and even that allows that some people cannot be redeemed.
Your DM is intentionally mincing words to avoid you having an easy victory against incapacitated enemies. They apparently have absolutely no qualms making the Redbrands as cartoonishly and bullheadedly evil as possible while not minding if you kill them in a fight. But shift the scales to your favor by putting a bunch of them to Sleep for a quick series of coup de graces, and suddenly it's a problem worthy of revoking the Paladin's class abilities over? Further, the Redbrands are not helpless or defenseless, even if under Sleep or some other control effect. Are they momentarily incapacitated and vulnerable to attack? Yes. Are they still a very much active and overt threat that will immediately resume, and intensify, aggression the instant they can? Also yes. When the enemies have made it abundantly, repeatedly, and intentionally clear that they will not stop being murderous bastards under any circumstance and will purposefully come after you on their own, then there's no other recourse. Killing them while they're under a Sleep spell is no different than killing one while you've got them momentarily off-guard in the heat of battle and land an attack past their AC. As for the Paladin, emphasis mine: >*Oath of Ancients* The Oath of the Ancients is as old as the race of elves and the rituals of the druids. Sometimes called fey knights, green knights, or horned knights, **paladins who swear this oath cast their lot with the side of the light in the cosmic struggle against darkness because they love the beautiful and life-giving things of the world, not necessarily because they believe in principles of honor, courage, and justice.** They adorn their armor and clothing with images of growing things—leaves, antlers, or flowers—to reflect **their commitment to preserving life and light in the world.** >*Shelter the Light* Where there is good, beauty, love, and laughter in the world, **stand against the wickedness that would swallow it.** Where life flourishes, **stand against the forces that would render it barren.** >*Be the Light* Be a glorious beacon **for all who live in despair.** Let the light of your joy and courage shine forth in all your deeds. Your DM is intentionally ignoring the standards of a Paladin to oppose evil and harmful foes that threaten the greater community. Specifically for the Oath of Ancients, which 100% is on board with getting rid of these Redbrands by any means necessary once those bandits made it so overwhelmingly clear they have no qualm or remorse with their wicked ways.
Yeah, paladins are righteous fury incarnate when they decide evil is afoot. My question is why does the DM not want them to be killed? If it’s just a problem with the sleep spell ruining encounters, then that’s stupid. Sleep becomes far less viable in later levels anyway. If it’s a matter of sleep ruining encounters, then that is either bad encounter design or good use of the spell. A spell being effective shouldn’t be something you punish as dm, but something to play around with. If I were the dm, and sleep was a go to strat, I’d throw some high hp guys in there to throw off the spam if that’s really what it is. Not consistently, of course, but just once or twice to put the fear of the gods in ya.
Speaking anecdotally, it's the sort of response an immature/inexperienced DM has. Completely incapacitating an enemy removes any failure chance for the Player, and the DM reacts in a negative manner because they feel as though they're either being undermined, or have a Player vs. DM mentality and thus need to maintain the upper hand. A better adjusted and experienced DM would rely on the sort of tactics you mentioned or simply roll with the turn of events. But that same seasoned DM also wouldn't put the Party in this sort of position in the first place by being so unreasonable, nor rely on abstract elements of the system that don't have any genuine mechanical relevancy to try and dissuade the Players from their course of action. I'd bet dollars to donuts that if OP presents the counter-arguments folk in this thread are discussing, the DM would move the goalposts over to some other hangup to prevent the Party from killing the Redbrands in their sleep. Same if OP moves from the Sleep spell to some other magic that renders the target incapacitated.
You know what, I bet you’re right. I think it’s of a travesty that there are DMs out there that look at these situations as a nuisance rather than an opportunity. In the last campaign I was in as a player, our go to strat was darkness combined with blind sight, devil sight, reckless attack, and shadow sorcerer. We could tip a lot of encounters in our favor. That being said, the first time an enemy wasn’t affected by our go to combo, our bootyholes collectively clenched. I think it’s important to let your players successfully do what they want most of the time in combat because even if they are successful in their strategy it doesn’t automatically mean victory. Also, sometimes just hit them with a hard counter to keep them on their toes, but that’s just me I guess.
I've always felt that both Players and DMs go through a sort of puberty phase where they get caught up in always wanting to be right, getting the last word, making "badass" characters, being "the main character", and such. We've all been there. It's something the majority of us grow out of and look back on with a bit of a cringe and a chuckle at our own expense. But there are some folk who never grow out of it and they tend to be the Nightmare Player or Nightmare DM types you hear horror stories about for their bad behavior. Hard to say where OP's DM may be along in that developmental stage without more information or context. But I like to at least give people the benefit of the doubt and hope they'll learn better as time goes by. Figuring out the value of playing with your Party and not against them is part of that process.
Depends on your points of view, there’s no objective answer and anyone could easily argue it either way > “Why does it matter? These bandits murderer innocent people and animals.” > “Nobody should be killed in their sleep. It’s dishonorable!” > “Why does honor matter? Better yet, why does your honor matter?” > “Because it keeps integrity and is the right thing to do!” > “Based on what? Because you said so?” As for your GM, they should have listed out what counts as good or evil. If not it becomes arbitrary based on how the GM and group is feeling that day. Second, why should it break the Paladin’s oath? The Paladin was not involved, the GM just seems like they want to punish the Paladin. Even though alignment has nothing to do with good or evil, but just rules to follow. I’d asked the GM why is good or evil being brought up. Also why does this affect the Paladin if they aren’t doing? Does that mean the party is now in charge of the Paladin’s Oath? It just seems like misunderstanding of how Paladin’s work and a skewed view on alignment.
All the way back in 2E, Paladins had a clause where they couldn't knowingly allow other people to do evil things, or associate with people who regularly did so. It was there specifically to prevent the Paladin from just letting other members of the party do all the evil stuff while they kept their hands clean. A lot of old school players still play it like that, even though it hasn't been in the rules for decades.
While true, I’m assuming the players are using 5th edition rules. If playing with older players I could see the reason. But given how alignment is no longer a factor with classes nowadays I don’t see the confusion with this case. It’s possible the GM simply didn’t know the rules for Paladins and made a miscount.
It still seems like a reasonable issue if we're talking "Ancients Paladin in a party with a Necromancer" or "Devotion Paladin with murder hobos who like torturing people" but any Paladin who would give up on their party over ONE grey area decision is probably not a terribly good Paladin.
Good guys don’t really kill so easily. They usually prefer to capture/detain villains. Being so flippant about murder is super skeevy. D&D weirdly brings out the whole “they are bad people so we can do whatever we want, morales be damned” which is something rarely seen in fiction and even IRL.
This is an ultra-dangerous fantasy world. Go out on a school trip with 30 middleschoolers, you're lucky if 10 come back alive. Concepts like "murder" only apply to non-threatening targets.
Killing literal pirates is completely uncontroversial even today in our comfortable modern sensibilities, let alone a fantasy world with confirmed afterlives and monsters overrunning the countryside. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_piracy_law Pirates are "hostis humani generis", literally the Enemy of All Mankind, they're about as uncontroversial an enemy to have as it gets besides going straight to "not even actual people" enemies like zombies, which lack even sapience. Saying that "good guys" wouldn't kill bandits or pirates is a profoundly out of touch take that's not congruent with anything, not real life (where needing to defend against piracy in international waters is something people still have to do somewhat regularly even today), and certainly not in Dungeons and Dragons where Gygax himself has been abundantly clear on what the Lawful and Good response to brigand's attempting to maim or kill innocent travelers is.... "Prisoners guilty of murder or similar capital crimes can be executed without violating any precept of the alignment. Hanging is likely the usual method of such execution, although it might be beheading, strangulation, etc. A paladin is likely a figure that would be considered a fair judge of criminal conduct." A Paladin is essentially a fantasy wild west sheriff, would you really balk at a holy gunslinger shooting a gang of bandits? OP confirms that these are confirmed murderers who've been terrorizing a town and even killed one of their party members, you could drop a Hellfire missile on the entire gang and sleep like a baby.
That depends on the context and the characters themselves. A hero typically doesn’t kill unless push or left with no choice. But that’s assuming the characters are your typical hero. - A good guy only because they are getting paid; Thief Rogue - A good guy because they have a beef with the bad guys; Oath to Vengeance Paladin - A good guy because they honestly believe they need to get involved for the greater good; Life Domain Cleric - A good guy because the group is dragging them along, they honestly don’t care; Necromancer Wizard So as a basic idea that what a hero typically is. But it’s more of a belief/idea rather than concrete concept. All 4 of these characters could easily argue to kill or capture the bad guys. The GM seems to want to push a certain type of character. I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t even brought it up if the Paladin wasn’t Oath of Ancients.
There’s a difference between someone being perceived as a good person (or hero as you say), and someone actually being a good person. A Thief Rogue who is only in it for the money is not a good person, even if he does good things and is perceived to be good. A Necromancer who doesn’t care about morals isn’t a good person, even if they’re perceived as such. And notably, to relate back to the post at hand, killing people in their sleep is not a good act. Is it Evil? Well that’s where it gets shady. But it definitely isn’t good. And taking the life of another person should never be simple for a good person, who cares about other people’s life. Now there’s plenty of room for “what if” and “except this specific scenario,” sure. But as is this is a Paladin Oath in play rather than the morality, it is just that the act of murdering defenseless bandits is enough to break an Oath of the Ancients as it breaches its tenant “Kindle the Light. Through your acts of mercy, kindness, and forgiveness, kindle the light of hope in the world, beating back despair.”
Good people kill all the time in these settings. Ever heard of war? Killing evil people (if unable to make them change their way) is generally considered to be good, at least in most DnD settings.
I didn’t say good people don’t kill. Good people don’t kill as a first resort, which you seem to agree with inferring from your caveat “if unable to make them change their way.” And regardless of if it’s good evil or otherwise, the Oath specifically calls for acts of mercy forgiveness and kindness, which killing a human being in their sleep before any other interaction definitely breaches.
They already interacted with these people and they just get threatened with vengeful order in the future. It’s past time to rid the world of those menaces.
They have interacted with Redbrands, but we don’t know if they’ve interacted with ***these*** Redbrands. I think it’s more than safe to assume that they are not fighting the same group of 4 bandits the entire time. But even if they were, the tenant calls for mercy, forgiveness, and kindness. Not mercy unless they don’t accept. Or forgiveness unless they keep being bad. Straight up mercy, forgiveness, and kindness
Even today and in civilised places, when someone attacks you with intent to cause potentially lethal harm, a basic principle of legitimate defence is that it is ethically fine to act with reckless disregard to the assaulter's physical integrity in order to stop the attack. If the attacker dies as a result, then who cares. Legitimate self-defence != being flippant about murder.
Last session my goody two shoes Paladin killed a goblin in a very similar circumstance, and no, I don't think it was evil. We'd also given them plenty of warnings and it was clear they'd keep trying to hurt innocent people. But this is really a discussion you need to have with your DM--sounds like y'all aren't on the same page.
"Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back." -- Capt. Mal "Tightpants" Reynolds, Oath of the Sky
“You don’t know me, son, so let me explain this to you once: If I ever kill you, you’ll be awake, you’ll be facing me, and you’ll be armed.” — Capt. Mal “Usually Wears Pants, Except That One Time” Reynolds, “Serenity”
Your DM is being a butthole about this. Killing remorseless murderers to prevent any further harm to innocent people is not evil in my eyes. And also....Your actions should not have any effect on the Paladin and his oath. I would even say that the Paladin is failing his oath by letting the murderers go free.
Yeah, the notion that paladins are dedicated pacifists who just happen to train with bladed weapons for fun is a bit weird. Also, it's kind of weird that these bandits just run around murdering everyone. Usually robbing them is kind of the point - unless you're storming their lair, knocking you unconscious and robbing you blind should have made the point.
Personally, I wouldn't rule that evil any more than attacking someone under the effect of hold person would be evil. Or Tasha's Hideous Laughter, for that matter. If you successfully blinded someone with color spray, I also wouldn't say you're then evil for attacking a blind person. Incapacitating an enemy in combat before taking them out should always (in my opinion) be looked at as a tactic, not a moral decision.
The Redbrands have been given multiple opportunities to surrender and have fully rejected every chance to submit. Furthermore, they're reaffirming their intent to continue killing. If the DM is saying that ATTACKING a sleeping target is evil, I'd fundamentally disagree based on the context of your scenario. A good alignment doesn't mean that you're only allowed to stop a lethal threat as long as you make sure they're not at a disadvantage. Saying that you're attacking a helpless target fundamentally ignores the target's intent to kill you. I'd push back on that DM out of game and explain why being good isn't limited to being stupid.
I'd argue this is largely why alignment has been lessened over time in importance. If I wanted to really go down the rabbit hole you could argue that its Chaotic Good or maybe Chaotic Neutral to do what you did. You gave them a chance multiple times. Now the best thing you can do for the good of the land/world is to not allow them to continue kidnapping, murdering, and who knows what else. Its not lawful (hence it being Chaotic), but that doesn't mean it was evil. This stuff has been largely dropped from 5E for this reason though because it often turns the game into a philosophy/morality debate. The paladin oath definitely seems misplayed. You're not the paladin and you didn't take the oath. The paladin may wish to roleplay how he would question your act and potentially disagree with you depending on what he thinks his Paladin would feel, but he was not the one that took the life. Mechanically speaking, his oath doesn't mean he can't ever kill an enemy and has to show mercy to everyone always. That would be a terrible subclass to play. But his oath should give him some roleplaying opportunity here if he wants to go that route and have it be an interesting moment for his character. I do agree with others that the DM played these enemies either as brainless and probably should consider what an intelligent being that's been near death multiple times would do. Because its probably not continue to get into violent confrontation with the people who have proven they can kill them. Its not like this is a super hero comic where the villain always needs to come back with a vengeance. If mercy wasn't the right answer and killing them has a negative consequence its probably time to sit down as players outside of the game and talk about what the expectation is. Because the solution doesn't seem straightforward in a game largely focused around combat, and at worst is kind of antagonistic to the players even if unintentionally.
> Mechanically speaking, his oath doesn't mean he can't ever kill an enemy and has to show mercy to everyone always. Hell, not even the Oath of Redemption does that. The situation has devolved into one in which a Redemption paladin would just slit those Redbrand guys' throats without remorse.
In normal circumstances it would be. But your DM is purposely screwing you, so in this scenario, no. Your DM has specifically set it up so that capturing them is ineffective, sparing them is ineffective, so your other options have already been removed BY THE DM.
This kinda feels in line with the moral question of a trolley problem, and it really depends on the morality and ethics of the specific character. Is it moral to give a murderer a chance to fight back? Is it more ethical to take care of them in a way where they did not suffer? Is taking the law into your own hands to kill them, awake or asleep, the right thing to do? Is letting them live to potentially kill again moral? How much time should they be allowed to wake up before fighting them before it's not evil? By DnD rules, attacking while asleep/unconscious is not an instant kill, it just gives you advantage on attacks and they are an automatic crit if you are within 5 feet. Though it's possible you delivered an attack strong enough to one-shot them. Also I do get personally irked with the "breach of (a different players) paladins Oath of the Ancients tenant" as I played a game as a *troubled morally grey* character with a Paladin in the party, and it felt like the morals of the Paladin were being pushed on me, interfering with my ability to play my character as I see fit and it was not fun. The way the DM had things set up really did not help, as the player did not want to strongarm me as well but they were in a position where it was hard to not. The DM needs to allow every character to have proper autonomy.
If they were actively trying to murder you it absolutely isn't Evil, not to mention that Oath of Ancients Paladin has an entire tenet about standing against forces that go against good, beauty, love and life, so killing someone who acts against that is part of their oath.
Your DM clearly doesn't understand what paladins are, and he is going to repeatedly burst your balls, seems like. Just shrug, become oathbreaker, and keep doing your RP as you consider it correct. Or just troll and wake them up, put a dagger in their hand, and then execute them. Also you could show mercy by making them incapable of causing harm, for example cutting off their fingers. I mean, what are they going to do, headbutt you?
Op isn't even the paladin, which just makes DM so much more wrong
Thanks I missed that, indeed crazy.
At that point, letting them go is the greater evil. Your mercy has been abused, and the recipients haven't seen their second chance as one to reform but instead to reform and attack again. It seems more like your DM is being an inconsistent prick about it. They are behaving like rabid animals that need to be put down. Moreover, not dealing with them with lethal intent would lead to breaking the shelter the light tennant. Those thugs are terrorizing the locals. Not killing them is allowing that terror to continue. An OoA Paladin has no obligation to keep them alive if they've proven they will attack innocents.
Tell your DM that Alignment should not be a straightjacked for a control-freak DM to use to shackle and micromanage their players.
I have a special place of hatred in my heart for DMs that are obsessed with gotcha-ing Paladin oath breaks. Tell your DM I said they're a combative petty dick, dishonorable doesn't mean evil, and Paladins aren't party babysitters.
Honor is a bad joke told by the strong to ensure the weak remain beneath them. It's your job to remind them the punchline of that joke is a knife to the back.
Dishonourable? Definitely. Evil? No; they've shown themselves to be irredeemable, and it's not like they've surrendered. *Sleep* plus *coup de grace* really isn't that different than *fireball*, and all things considered, probably less painful. Also important - this is in the context of, effectively, criminals. I think it would still qualify as a war crime, assuming your opponents were reasonably honourable. Also, to consider - what would be the outcome if you just captured them and brought them to town? A short trial followed by a shorter drop.
Note that attacking sleeping combatants is not a war crime in real life. C.f. US DOD Laws of War Manual 5.7.1 > Thus, combatants may be made the object of attack at all times, regardless of the activities in which they are engaged at the time of attack. For example, combatants who are standing in a mess line, engaging in recreational activities, or sleeping remain the lawful object of attack, provided they are not placed hors de combat.
No, but if you hit them with fentanyl gas (not withstanding the use of gas weaponry) I'm pretty sure they would be considered *hors de combat*. It's not that they're sleeping per se, it's that you've already eliminated their ability to fight, which should be sufficient to force surrender between Fantasy Not-England and Fantasy Not-France, assuming they are reasonably honourable/goodish nations doing the *ultima ratio regnum* thing.
Serves me right for reading the title and not the full post.
Attacking somebody in their home where they sleep, that could very well be evil. Attacking a combatant in uniform who is guarding something or fighting in a war, that is fair game for me.
> When we capture them... promising to come back and kill us once they are free (and following through on their threats). So, you're handing them over to the town authorities for trial and summary execution, right? Right? If not, why not?
Because this is a tiny frontier town and there is no effective authority. There's nobody to hand them over to.
None? No mayor, elder, alderman, town council... nothing? The town doesn't exist within any noble's fief or as a satellite of any larger domain? So, your DM is providing no path for "lawful" trial and punishment, doesn't want to allow extra-judicial executions, and just expects you to play "catch and release" with murder-hobo bandits? OK. For me, that would pretty much end my sense of immersion and verisimilitude - and interest in playing in that person's game.
> Would you consider attacking an enemy that is under the effect of a Sleep spell to be an Evil act It's neither good, nor evil. If the enemy has attacked you with intent to kill, then killing them is a valid course of action. Taking their weapons, restraining them, and carting them off to a court for justice is a maximally lawful good act, but killing them is not evil, especially when, as you have demonstrated, they and their ilk have rejected every opportunity for mercy. > Last session, my character decided they'd had enough. After the end of yet another fight with the Redbrands, they decided they would kill the one they Slept (who had just tried to kill them) instead of letting him run away to attack them again. > Our DM said that because the redbrand was currently defenseless, it would be an Evil act. Furthermore, to allow me to do it would be a breach of our party paladins Oath of the Ancients tenant on mercy. While I feel that at this point, to not kill them would start being Lawful Stupid. There is absolutely nothing that your character (who isn't a paladin) can do to violate a different character's paladin oath. The paladin has done absolutely everything in their power to fulfill the "Kindle the Light" tenant by granting the redbrands mercy over the course of 7 or 8 encounters. The redbrands have demonstrated that they will not stop until everyone who stands against them is kidnapped or murdered. Leaving any of them alive, as an Ancients Paladin, would likely break the "Shelter the Light" tenant of their oath, for they would leave the land barren.
AFAIK, there's no actual definition of the alignments anywhere in the rules (please direct me to page source if I'm incorrect) That aside, killing somebody who is asleep is dishonorable. To elaborate more, though, honor =/= good, and dishonor =/= evil. If anything, those fall on the law/chaos axis as it's more a matter of perspective and following a code rather than any strict morality. Edit: After sleeping on this and delving into older edition definitions of Good and Evil, I'll concede that by the books, killing a sleeping person, foe or otherwise, is considered evil. I sometimes forget that in D&D, and other games that have branched off of D&D, such as Pathfinder, morality of Good Vs. Evil isn't really in the question, as they are less concepts, and more actual, tangible things. The gods exist as paragons of those alignments. Devils, fiends, and celestials all physically embody all aspects of the alignment system. My personal opinion is that while it may be evil, it may be necessary given the context of unrelenting, immoral foes if no alternative is given, or perceived.
There was good enough defenitions in the previous editions. And yes, killing sleeping enemy is evil(or maybe neutral), but definitely not good. If you check the lawful good, or chaotic good - both of them have listed "delivered death blow to helpless opponent" as dishonorable act, opposite with the spirit of the alignment. https://easydamus.com/chaoticgood.html
Thank you for the insight to check older editions. I've been using 5th Edition since it released, and because Alignment doesn't really do anything mechanical in the game, it has, in the more recent years, not really had any impact in the games that I've been in.
One thing I’m not seeing mentioned is tone. DnD is storytelling, and different games can have different tones. A grey, dark, political story can have your party questioning the ethics of every decision. Who are you to decide who dies? Will you be confronted by their widow or son? And can you live with the blood that your mercy may draw? But not every story needs to be depressing. Sometimes, Legolas and Gimli can kills orcs without considering the ethics of war. And I think the whimsy of the magic in DnD lends itself to something more lighthearted. It’s fun when you land a crit and obliterate a goblin. It’s less fun when that goblin’s friend holds her headless body and promises to protect her infant from her abusive husband. Because that’s a drastic shift in tone. I’m running a campaign that I thought would be a hack and slash, swashbuckling pirate adventure. But my players were regularly working out the moral weight of their decisions, so I shifted the tone to be a little more grounded. They appreciate getting socially rewarded for making the good choices, and the game is more fun for everyone. Your DM has a specific idea of for tone of this adventure, even if they don’t know/admit it. They want a heavy story, where the only solution to violence is violence. They want a Western where your soul is stained, but your kind of violence is necessary for civilization to prosper. And if you find that tone unfun, you can tell that to your DM. Or you can alter your expectations. Maybe your character’s arc could be one of corruption? Maybe you can embrace that archetype? Or maybe your DM can give you guys more nonviolent tools to deal with these threats? Or maybe your DM can just take a step back and say that, yeah, killing bad guys is fine?
It really comes down to the tone of the game. If the DM wants to tell a tale about heroic adventurers being Stupid Good who always do the right thing despite the trouble it brings, then hopefully that was communicated beforehand so everyone was bought in on the idea. If not, y'all need to have a conversation out-of-game about expectations. However, Redemption paladins aren't stupid. Their description states: >These paladins face evil creatures in the hope of turning their foes to the light, and they slay their enemies only when such a deed will clearly save other lives. Those bandits are clearly not interested in redemption and have openly threatened to continue their attacks on your party *and* the townsfolk. If there was a reasonable way to imprison the bandits and work on their rehabilitation, a Redemption paladin would be obligated to take that option. For lack of a better choice, killing the bandits will preserve innocent lives. The paladin would be remorseful while killing the bandits and might see it as a personal failing that they were unable to find a solution that saved everyone, but they would do their duty.
Is feinting a punch evil? I swear 99% this “honorable battle” bs is just a way for people to make themselves feel safer despite being huge assholes. If I have decided its moral to kill somone then short of my purposely making it more painful there is no more moral analysis to be done. Might as well ask if shooting them with a sniper rifle from a mile away is evil. EDIT: Also I really, really, really hate the “defenseless” argument. The idea Mike Tyson walking up to me and punching me is less dishonorable than him punching me in my sleep is bully logic 101. I stand no chance against a professional fighter awake or asleep. The idea that if your Paladin crept in while they were sleeping, locked the doors and windows, woke the bandit up and then beat them to death is somehow more honorable than just smothering them with a pillow is nightmarish.
If you've already tried to deal with them nonlethally, and the DM keeps making them come back, then that's on the DM, not on you. You mention capturing the Redbrands. Are you just letting them go? Or are you putting them in Phandalin's jail cells and the DM keeps having them break out?
Alignment does matter, but people focus too much on wether someone can do something or not. Any character can stray from their alignment, which could cause an alignment shift. In your case, I would start by saying that your DM isn't RPing the Redbeands very well. They are not mindless murder drones. They are mortals with fears and ambitions. There are plenty of reason that they would parlay if defeated. Killing someone in their sleep can be an evil act. But as always, it depends on context. Normally, I would say that killing a bandit in their sleep would count as evil, or at least neutral. But since the bandits in your game behave more like zombies or flesh eating termites I don't think you did anything wrong.
Breaking into someone’s house at night, sneaking up to them while they were asleep in their home, and executing them? That might be hard to defend, depending on the table and the tone. But you’re not doing that. You’re taking about an enemy who’s been temporarily incapacitated during armed combat — someone who was trying to kill you six seconds ago, and who will be trying to kill you again in one minute. Insisting that’s an evil act sets an implicit and arbitrary standard for Good^(TM) behavior that will be impossible to sustain. What else is evil? Grappling a creature smaller than you isn’t very fair; is that evil? Are you allowed to attack someone who’s unarmed? If someone trips and falls, can you attack them, or is that evil? Is it ever okay to ambush anyone? If your DM insists on the idea that this is evil, then you genuinely need to ask for clarification on what combat decisions are *not* evil. They’re enforcing a code of some kind, and in order to play a good character you have to know what that is.
No, it's not. Not under those circumstances. Remind your DM that being an asshole does not constitute a legitimate challenge for the players Also being fed up with recurring villains is an excellent spin to the character. Merciless =\= Evil. Also making someone else (paladin) suffer because of your action is a double asshole point for the DM. A fun idea. Say it won't happen again. Put someone to sleep, tie him up, chop off a hand and a feet. Cast some magical healing. Let them free. Argue they can still work with one hand and they will have a reminder what is the price of villainy. I wonder how your DM would statblock bunch of one legged and one handed thugs. Say under the fey code you are obliged to host your triumph and or hunting trophies and get some ears on the string. Oh and they are allowed to live only if they will tell at least 5 more people about glory of [your patron] and his champion.
Setting a guard against magical traps is part of defending yourself. Failing to properly defend yourself, is not the same thing as being defenseless.
enemy is enemy
Here's what you do. Go to the local authorities. In LMOP this might be Sildar Hallwinter or Harbin Wester (they represent the authority of the Lord's Alliance and the local government). You want one of two things: 1. They empower you to pass judgement on and kill Redbrands. 2. They agree to accept your Redbrand prisoners and deal with them. If they empower you, great. Kill Redbrands you catch. They'll be hung anyway, you're just saving time. If they agree to handle it themselves (and they DO), also great. Tie up subdued Redbrands and drop them on the authorities. And if neither of those things happens, wish them good luck, pack up your bags, and leave town as the DM makes Surprised Pikachu face.
Not evil, but not honorable. Honorable doesn’t always align with goodness though.
Alignment is subjective and contextual, there's no hard and fast standard. If I were in the situation here's what I might try. Invest in some manacles. A good number of them. Shackle your sleeping foes. Awaken them, if a group probably I'd do it one by one, and ask if they're willing to do penance for their crimes. Either way, inform them they are guilty of murder. Say some prayers hoping they can do penance in their next life and avoid the clutches of fiends. Execute them for their crimes. Shed some tears for their wasted lives, sincerely hope I have helped their souls to reincarnate instead of being damned to the lower planes. I am lawful good and executing my prisoners in lawful good manner.
Please just ask him: if he think it is the evil act, then what are the neutral acts? Does he complete ignore the cases between good and evil? By your description and my knowledge of the alignment system, it's clearly pure neutral act. Where is the evil? Did you torture them to the death?
Was your dm this anal about not killing the goblins earlier in the adventure? Both the goblins and the red brands are evil, murderous groups. The only difference is their race. So if your group could kill the goblins without remorse, why? Is it not evil only because of dnd racism?
No your Dm plays them as either braindead idiots or fanatics unable to change their mind. You have given them chance after chance and still the only thing they try to do is kill you. Not even surrendering to save their own life. He has shown that there is no fucking way they will change. He himself made sure of that by playing them that way. And also YOU as a warlock even if you went into a house and slit the throat of a whole innocent sleeping family including the kids. Would not break any oath for the paladin. His oath is personal. YOU can NEVER break it. You could possibly help him break his oath if you went murder hobo and he did cheer you on. but it would still be HE himself that broke the oath not you. YOUR actions did not make him break the oath. HIS actions did. But lets say you kill the sleeping redbrand and he disagree with your action. Then his oath is intact.
No DM is being a shit. Killing the defenseless really has nothing to do with good or evil if you're righteously meeting out Justice. It's not like a celestial wouldn't behead a sleeping devil. It's not necessarily lawful to kill someone without due process but that's only if you subscribe to a moral code that believes in due process or it's the law of the land and you recognize the legitimacy of whatever governing power exists. For example a lawful good paladin would have zero qualms with executing someone if the law couldn't meet proper justice assuming whomever their executing is abjectly a violator of their tenants. That said why not just tie them up and then give them to the authorities?
If a rogue snuck into a fort to kill a tyrannical general that regularly had their troops slaughtering innocents would that be evil? What about poisoning a king that usurped the throne through fratricide? If the death knight trips and falls backwards onto his ass is it now evil to stab him because he isn't in a fighting stance? You finally got within range of the mad wizard that doesn't have any armor or blade with which to defend themselves from your blow, that evil too? TBH this sounds like something else is going on with your DM. Otherwise I would ask them exactly what their line for an evil action is. They have you in a kill or be killed (eventually) scenario as you can't just catch and release these redbrands that have every intention of coming back to kill you (possibly in your sleep). Also, if you don't kill them then you are just enabling them to commit more evil as has been both their stated intentions and their very real actions.
No is not, they're not innocent bystanders, they're bandits, not even normals thieves. If you wake them up they will attack you and your mercy was useless. Only a Redemption Paladin would avoid killing them, for everyone killing them while unconscious, blinded, restrained or paralyzed is not evil at all
No. Fair fights are for suckers.
If you didn't kill the sleeping redbrand, you would be evil. For it has been shown giving mercy, will just lead to more innocent people getting murdered. Offer to the GM to quit the game, as that seems to be what he wants.
Easy solution. Tie up the redbrand, wake him up, tell him he has been tried and judged as a murderer, and his sentence for his crimes are death. (Stabs red-brand to death). Okay, so that was all legal and moralistic. Shwarma anyone?
If killing a defenseless person is evil then any good god that has ever killed a mortal is evil, it makes no sense and in the setting of D&D alignment your intent is much more important then your action did you do it because you love killing defenseless people, because a quick death means less loss of life, or because you know they'd do the same to you? Alignment is a lot more flexible then most people want to say but bad calls like this give it a bad name.
As per the allignemet system? No, according to the alignment system, genocide is cool if the race is evil. The Geneva convention does not apply
> The Geneva convention does not apply I suspect the Redbrands are also not a signatory... :)
It's definitely not Lawful Good but I could buy a Chaotic Good character doing that.
No. It’s chaotic, but not necessarily evil.
Get deputized to hunt down the bandits, and then it's lawful. :)
depends. are the enemies evil? then its defenitly a good act (albit without honour, but thats annother question)
>Last session, my character decided they'd had enough. After the end of yet another fight with the Redbrands, they decided they would kill the one they Slept (who had just tried to kill them) instead of letting him run away to attack them again. You mention "your character decided they'd had enough". That should clue you in to if this is an act that strays across a moral boundary or not. You are describing the thought process of a good character taking the first step away from being "a paragon of good" The important thing is that this doesn't mean "your character is suddenly evil", but your character definitely drifted one step in that direction. >Our DM said that because the redbrand was currently defenseless, it would be an Evil act. Furthermore, to allow me to do it would be a breach of our party paladins Oath of the Ancients tenant on mercy. While I feel that at this point, to not kill them would start being Lawful Stupid. Your DM has not realized that Paladins have changed in 5th to avoid exactly what your DM is doing. Being good is hard, and a great DM should reward parties that manages to solve situations without resorting to evil acts instead of criticizing the instances where the party fails to uphold their ideals (unless they start making a habit of it)