I'm playing as a Paladin of Vengeance in a D&D 5.5 campaign, and I recently faced a moral dilemma that I'd like to discuss with you.
During a battle, we captured a goblin who ended up tied up and disarmed. My paladin believes the goblin is a potential danger, as it could escape or become a threat later, but at the moment, it poses no immediate threat while restrained.
I know the Oath of Vengeance allows for drastic measures to eliminate evil, but killing a defenseless prisoner feels excessively cruel.
My questions are:
Would killing the bound goblin be a violation of the Oath of Vengeance?
How do you interpret the tenets of "fighting the greater evil" and "showing no mercy to the wicked" in this context?
Have you experienced similar situations in your campaigns with Vengeance Paladins, and how did you handle them?
I'd love to hear how you would approach this situation from both a narrative and mechanical perspective. Thanks in advance for your input!
I’d say they would kill it, assuming the goblin is of the traditional mustache-twirling, evil because it’s evil variety. No mercy to the wicked doesn’t leave a lot of room for interpretation.
If you were a redemption paladin, then you might want to get the goblin to change its ways. But vengeance … that goblin made its choices, and now it must suffer the consequences.
Oaths get a bit subjective but it really depends on the knowledge of what the Vengeance Paladin has of the Goblin. Vengeance Paladins generally should be fighting the greater evil wherever they see it.
Ultimately, this is a role-playing question: How does your character interpret the terms of their oath? Additionally, how much to they chafe at the limits of said oath?
Neither killing nor sparing the goblin is inherently the wrong action. How your character handles it could also be circumstantial. (Are you way out in the wilds, or near civilization and its prisons? Is the goblin itself the cause of its evil, or is it a slave of the Evil Overlord? Etc.)
"By my oath, I should kill the goblin, but it would be excessively cruel, so I will not." is not only a legitimate RP decision, but it's also an interesting one.
Oaths are roleplay rather than RAW, so this is something only your DM can actually answer. Broadly speaking if the oath is under a more Good-aligned auspice of justice then I’d say you need a strong reason to believe they could escape rather than just an abstract possibility, whereas if it’s more under Neutral morality then it’s less likely there’ll be objections to summary execution. Just one guy’s opinion, though.
I think you could either way but it would have a different feel if are you in a position to give him over to the authorities. As yeah as a general rule, he's captured and if you just let him go it probably wont end well for the next peasant a evil goblin comes across. I'm assuming the goblins were robbing people by force or something and not stealing bread to feed their kids.
If you captured it in battle then you have already given it a few extra minutes of life than it would have had. Kill it.....but be prepared for arguments with others in your party of lawful-good alignment.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm playing as a Paladin of Vengeance in a D&D 5.5 campaign, and I recently faced a moral dilemma that I'd like to discuss with you.
During a battle, we captured a goblin who ended up tied up and disarmed. My paladin believes the goblin is a potential danger, as it could escape or become a threat later, but at the moment, it poses no immediate threat while restrained.
I know the Oath of Vengeance allows for drastic measures to eliminate evil, but killing a defenseless prisoner feels excessively cruel.
My questions are:
I'd love to hear how you would approach this situation from both a narrative and mechanical perspective. Thanks in advance for your input!
I’d say they would kill it, assuming the goblin is of the traditional mustache-twirling, evil because it’s evil variety. No mercy to the wicked doesn’t leave a lot of room for interpretation.
If you were a redemption paladin, then you might want to get the goblin to change its ways. But vengeance … that goblin made its choices, and now it must suffer the consequences.
1. No, Oath of Vengeance is a solemn commitment to punish those who have committed grievously evil acts, which this Goblin most likely did.
2. I see it has not sparing an evil Goblin whenever possible, especially if your Paladin think it's a potential danger.
3. No i never experienced such a thing as DM nor when i played Maledict, my Vengeance Paladin of Bane.
Thank you my friends!
Oaths get a bit subjective but it really depends on the knowledge of what the Vengeance Paladin has of the Goblin. Vengeance Paladins generally should be fighting the greater evil wherever they see it.
Ultimately, this is a role-playing question: How does your character interpret the terms of their oath? Additionally, how much to they chafe at the limits of said oath?
Neither killing nor sparing the goblin is inherently the wrong action. How your character handles it could also be circumstantial. (Are you way out in the wilds, or near civilization and its prisons? Is the goblin itself the cause of its evil, or is it a slave of the Evil Overlord? Etc.)
"By my oath, I should kill the goblin, but it would be excessively cruel, so I will not." is not only a legitimate RP decision, but it's also an interesting one.
Oaths are roleplay rather than RAW, so this is something only your DM can actually answer. Broadly speaking if the oath is under a more Good-aligned auspice of justice then I’d say you need a strong reason to believe they could escape rather than just an abstract possibility, whereas if it’s more under Neutral morality then it’s less likely there’ll be objections to summary execution. Just one guy’s opinion, though.
Have a dagger, cut yourself free.
Ah! He's trying to escape!
*ShwacK!*
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I think you could either way but it would have a different feel if are you in a position to give him over to the authorities. As yeah as a general rule, he's captured and if you just let him go it probably wont end well for the next peasant a evil goblin comes across. I'm assuming the goblins were robbing people by force or something and not stealing bread to feed their kids.
If you captured it in battle then you have already given it a few extra minutes of life than it would have had. Kill it.....but be prepared for arguments with others in your party of lawful-good alignment.