-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Player Dilemma
- Thread starter DevlinStormweaver
- Start date
[/QUOTE]
What i still want to know, and i may have missed, is the answers from the GM, who we have posting here, about what their expectations of the scenario were and what they expected to happen when they threw the goblin baby's setup to this group? What did they expect the "right answer" to be and when they threw the dwarf's hated foe babys into the mix with the paladin didn't they see trouble coming?
Whether the palaldin stays or the dwarf stays isn't a matter of benefit of the doubt. its a matter of which character is IN CHARACTER not going to be able to tolerate the others and work with them.
If the other characters had stepped up and supported the pally, then likely the dward would be hittin' the highway, but they didn't, they aren't. The group isn't giving the pally a good reason to stay. It might seem to you like they should be doing so, but they aren't. The decision of "which character stays" isn't a player referendum.
Now, maybe they ought to have a referendum on "which player gets booted" but again, they have said No to booting either. right?
With the paladin's motivations and the dwarf's action and lack of party backing, i would not be enjoying this palaldin in play. I would be certain that continuing to play my character would simply lead to more PC on PC conflict especially as the dwarf is going on with taunts and gloating and such and the party is tolerant of all this. Let the character dowhat the character would do and then bring in a new character more in sync with the group.
to be clear, i am not implying negative spin from the Gm posting etc. But more threads with one side describing the other doesn't add more weight to the argument, merely confirms the same type of disagreement between the same two parties.reveal said:
What i still want to know, and i may have missed, is the answers from the GM, who we have posting here, about what their expectations of the scenario were and what they expected to happen when they threw the goblin baby's setup to this group? What did they expect the "right answer" to be and when they threw the dwarf's hated foe babys into the mix with the paladin didn't they see trouble coming?
reveal said:
Whether the palaldin stays or the dwarf stays isn't a matter of benefit of the doubt. its a matter of which character is IN CHARACTER not going to be able to tolerate the others and work with them.
If the other characters had stepped up and supported the pally, then likely the dward would be hittin' the highway, but they didn't, they aren't. The group isn't giving the pally a good reason to stay. It might seem to you like they should be doing so, but they aren't. The decision of "which character stays" isn't a player referendum.
Now, maybe they ought to have a referendum on "which player gets booted" but again, they have said No to booting either. right?
With the paladin's motivations and the dwarf's action and lack of party backing, i would not be enjoying this palaldin in play. I would be certain that continuing to play my character would simply lead to more PC on PC conflict especially as the dwarf is going on with taunts and gloating and such and the party is tolerant of all this. Let the character dowhat the character would do and then bring in a new character more in sync with the group.
I read most of the responses (a lot of them!): here is mine; if I repeat what some have said - sorry about that…
IMO I think that to balance out IC and OOC your Paladin really needs to get a grip on what is "right". Eliminating a near certain evil is a bad thing? Attempting to kill off the Dwarf who is a champion of what is good and right (killing evil things) is not a good idea. Recall that the alignment is both lawful, and good - the mix of the two: NOT "apply lawful, then apply good to that result"
An adventurer (soldier, etc.) should know that sacrifices need to be made to accomplish the "mission" or task…whatever. Your paladin should know that as well. You are focused on the "defenseless" portion. What if it were something where there were no doubts about the evil - defenseless demon kids for example?
Once puberty hits these little buggers…what then? Is this the typical "special interest"/"minority number rules" approach where the Paladin proclaims something evil and so it is? Where the small, immediate "good" outweighs the greater long term good? Where the Paladins own code is more important than the safety of defenseless commoners - many yet to be born!
What if you let them go then one of them, 10 years down the road slaughters a village - you come to assist the survivors and find out that this is one of the Gobby kids you let go…what then? What would you tell the survivors of your error? Should the DM rule you need to atone (I would)? What if they slaughtered a dozen other Paladins…
I would say that of course your Paladin may not "approve" and lacked the intestinal fortitude to do the deed - but it is one of those things that he should "overlook" as being for the greater good perhaps even offer moral support and council to the dwarf for having to do such a horrible, yet essential deed (not that the dwarf wants that or needs it!).
I ask you to read the Shadowbane Inquisitor from Complete Adventurer.
IMO I think that to balance out IC and OOC your Paladin really needs to get a grip on what is "right". Eliminating a near certain evil is a bad thing? Attempting to kill off the Dwarf who is a champion of what is good and right (killing evil things) is not a good idea. Recall that the alignment is both lawful, and good - the mix of the two: NOT "apply lawful, then apply good to that result"
An adventurer (soldier, etc.) should know that sacrifices need to be made to accomplish the "mission" or task…whatever. Your paladin should know that as well. You are focused on the "defenseless" portion. What if it were something where there were no doubts about the evil - defenseless demon kids for example?
Once puberty hits these little buggers…what then? Is this the typical "special interest"/"minority number rules" approach where the Paladin proclaims something evil and so it is? Where the small, immediate "good" outweighs the greater long term good? Where the Paladins own code is more important than the safety of defenseless commoners - many yet to be born!
What if you let them go then one of them, 10 years down the road slaughters a village - you come to assist the survivors and find out that this is one of the Gobby kids you let go…what then? What would you tell the survivors of your error? Should the DM rule you need to atone (I would)? What if they slaughtered a dozen other Paladins…
I would say that of course your Paladin may not "approve" and lacked the intestinal fortitude to do the deed - but it is one of those things that he should "overlook" as being for the greater good perhaps even offer moral support and council to the dwarf for having to do such a horrible, yet essential deed (not that the dwarf wants that or needs it!).
I ask you to read the Shadowbane Inquisitor from Complete Adventurer.
On the subject of the dwarf heading for alignment change if he keeps killing helpless goblins.
IMO and by my read of the rules, to be an alignment you do not have to be every single part of the alignment's description. You can be most parts of the alignment and not others and still be the alignment.
PALADINS have harsher restrictions on their class abilities, but not their alignment. A fallen pally can still be lawful good, just a LG who has done an evil act knowingly.
So, why is it a given that a dwarf who kills goblins without mercy is automatically not good? What if he respects life for everyone else, does all the other good things, but is, for goblins only, not good? Cannot he be willing to attack eveil creatures even when they cannot defend themselves and still not be good? Does "good" mean he has to warn a goblin rading party before he attacks instead of ambushing them?
if so, good has become a lot more of a straightjacket than i took from the rules.
And again, we are talking good the alignment, the non-straightjacket, not the paladin code class restrictions, when we are talking about changing the dwarf alignment.
For me, with the understanding that to be an alignment you don't have to be every bit of that alignment all the time, i would not be looking to force an alignment change onto a character because his "good character" hates one evil subgroup enough to believe killing them when possible is the right thing to do.
Now, if his fanaticism starts leading him to kill others in the pursuit, to use villagers as bait for goblins, to let goblins slughter a caravan so he can follow the party back to its lair and "get them all!!" then you start IMO looking more to an alignment change area.
I would also be very hesitant at using alignment change as an end around the booting of a player with the "i don't allow evil character so... now that i have changed you to evil..." maneuver.
From the SRD:
Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.
IMO and by my read of the rules, to be an alignment you do not have to be every single part of the alignment's description. You can be most parts of the alignment and not others and still be the alignment.
PALADINS have harsher restrictions on their class abilities, but not their alignment. A fallen pally can still be lawful good, just a LG who has done an evil act knowingly.
So, why is it a given that a dwarf who kills goblins without mercy is automatically not good? What if he respects life for everyone else, does all the other good things, but is, for goblins only, not good? Cannot he be willing to attack eveil creatures even when they cannot defend themselves and still not be good? Does "good" mean he has to warn a goblin rading party before he attacks instead of ambushing them?
if so, good has become a lot more of a straightjacket than i took from the rules.
And again, we are talking good the alignment, the non-straightjacket, not the paladin code class restrictions, when we are talking about changing the dwarf alignment.
For me, with the understanding that to be an alignment you don't have to be every bit of that alignment all the time, i would not be looking to force an alignment change onto a character because his "good character" hates one evil subgroup enough to believe killing them when possible is the right thing to do.
Now, if his fanaticism starts leading him to kill others in the pursuit, to use villagers as bait for goblins, to let goblins slughter a caravan so he can follow the party back to its lair and "get them all!!" then you start IMO looking more to an alignment change area.
I would also be very hesitant at using alignment change as an end around the booting of a player with the "i don't allow evil character so... now that i have changed you to evil..." maneuver.
From the SRD:
Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.
Last edited:
Savage Wombat
Hero
To quote from one of my own games:
"If we kill off all the goblin children, where will the next generation of adventurers get their experience points?"
"If we kill off all the goblin children, where will the next generation of adventurers get their experience points?"
Grimstaff
Explorer
It seems like this party needs to establish a pecking order of some sort. If the players refuse to "gang up" against the paladin or dwarf over this issue, why not have them elect a provisional party leader? That way the morality of the party in general can be established.
Barring that, might I suggest the time-honored Paladin tradition of "trial by combat"? It doesn't necessarily have to be to the death, and the winner gets to pick whether or not evil humanoid spawn should be allowed to live or not if the situation arises again.
Personally, I feel a Paladin would lean more towards slaughtering evil humanoid spawn. Conversion and indoctrination is more the purveyance of Clerics and Priests. Paladins are the Sword of the Church, not the Voice.
But to each his own...
Barring that, might I suggest the time-honored Paladin tradition of "trial by combat"? It doesn't necessarily have to be to the death, and the winner gets to pick whether or not evil humanoid spawn should be allowed to live or not if the situation arises again.
Personally, I feel a Paladin would lean more towards slaughtering evil humanoid spawn. Conversion and indoctrination is more the purveyance of Clerics and Priests. Paladins are the Sword of the Church, not the Voice.
But to each his own...
Ellie_the_Elf
First Post
Just to clear one thing up - the dwarf player and the psion player are two different people. I had a long talk with the psion player, who was the 'problem player' in my previous thread, and out of that he made a new character. This new character fits in fine with the group and all is now well with that player 
DevlinStormweaver
First Post
I have decided to carry on playing my paladin, but i am going to try to get the party to become more cohesive and to select a leader. Once we have a leader selected i will then try to get the party to sit down and discuss what as a group we believe is the right thing to do. This isn't my idea , one of the other group member's has come up with it, but he is playing his character as a stay at the back and not get involved, so i will becoame the spokeperson.
Kesh
First Post
This is why I encourage (and require, when I DM) Paladin players to write up a Code of Conduct for their pally before the game, and get it approved by the DM. That way, there's a clear set of rules for what the Paladin believes (or is supposed to believe), and how they should respond to injustices and evils.
If you don't have such a thing, then I suggest the old "gentlemen's" solution: challenge him to an honorable duel. Preferably not to the death, but the old 'first blood' concept doesn't work so well in D&D.
The loser would then have to a) abide by the other's beliefs or b) leave the group. Note that either way, the Paladin would likely feel they have to leave if they lose, so be very sure you're willing to roll up another character if that happens, before you commit to this.
If you don't have such a thing, then I suggest the old "gentlemen's" solution: challenge him to an honorable duel. Preferably not to the death, but the old 'first blood' concept doesn't work so well in D&D.
The loser would then have to a) abide by the other's beliefs or b) leave the group. Note that either way, the Paladin would likely feel they have to leave if they lose, so be very sure you're willing to roll up another character if that happens, before you commit to this.
DevlinStormweaver
First Post
double post
Last edited:
Similar Threads
