D&D 5E Player agency and Paladin oath.

[Flamestrike]

So to start with I don't like Paladin PCs. Did not like them in 1Eor 3E, 5E is a little better but they still have that silly oath. They are great for that knucklehead NPC.

We have an oath of devotion Paladin in a game I am DM ing. His Deity is Tyr. He is Lawful good, the rest of the party is Chaotic (CN fighter, CG warlock/rogue and CN Barbarian). As an aside I am not a fan of CN players either but that is another topic.

Well there is constantly friction in the party as to how to handle things. For example they typically want to kill prisoners after interogating and promising to let them go, they have no problem lying and well acting Chaotic.

Yeah... your CN and CG PCs are not Neutral or Good.

They're pretty clearly Evil.

Very, very evil from the sounds of it.

 

[MGibster]

I don't know what that means. There are ways to just avoid most situations and only confront the situations that will result in the most character development and entertainment for everyone. One could argue that struggling with the oath is the whole point of having one, from a dramatic standpoint.

In bygone ages, there was often an unspoken gentleman's agreement where players would have their characters distract the paladin as they did something unsavory while the paladin's player went along with a wink and a nudge. Lot's of, "Hey, Borax the Clean, why don't you go check out what's going on behind that barn over there while we keep an eye on the prisoners?" And then good Sir Borax never seems to question why prisoners tend to disappear when he's not around.

And I agree that there are ways to avoid most situations. I just happen to be one of those players who dislikes participating in games where PCs are murdering prisoners. It's just a preference on my part.

 

[auburn2]

question for OP, why was the giant ambush inevitable? Why did the giant being let go by the paladin decide to reciprocate by letting the party pass unmolested.?

seems to me that the Paladin played to character, but the other players decided against mercy and the DM chose to punish it.

killing prisoners isn’t chaotic as the warlock proves so making that a standard is flawed

I agree players need to talk about their expectations
Characters need much clearer motivations

and Alignment sucks

To clarify - the entire plot is based on the idea that they are invading the Giants home and causing their family harm (and they are), although they did not know that before this encounter. The fight was inevitible, but an ambush wasn't.

They snuck up on this giant and decided to confront him. The guy was obviously angry at them, but none of the party spoke giant (and to be more specific didn't want to waste a spell slot to cast comprehend languages and at least understand him). After yelling back and forth and no one understanding the giant runs away. It was at that point both CN characters wanted to go into combat and take him down and said (rightly) he is going to get reinforcements. To their credit they could have forced combat but didn't.

I did not punish them per se. The giant ran back to his clan and told the clan where the invaders were. I guess I could have cheesed it and said he got lost on the way (even though it is his home), or that he tripped and fell off a cliff. I could have also said he told the clan about the invaders and they chose to stupidly stuble into the fight like they would have in the original script.

Instead of leaving the area or hiding or setting up a pickett or a watch or doing anything else after the Giant fled, the party (the entire party) starts searching the area looking for a plant they are seeking. If they got punished for something it was this.

Finally the fight with the Giants happens no matter what they did. It was designed to be the tough battle in this part of the adventure. It just would have been tough without the ambush. Adding the ambush made it overwhelming and it would have been if I had not made some combat mistakes.

 

[Voadam]

So to start with I don't like Paladin PCs. Did not like them in 1Eor 3E, 5E is a little better but they still have that silly oath. They are great for that knucklehead NPC.

We have an oath of devotion Paladin in a game I am DM ing. His Deity is Tyr. He is Lawful good, the rest of the party is Chaotic (CN fighter, CG warlock/rogue and CN Barbarian). As an aside I am not a fan of CN players either but that is another topic.

So the only one we are not sure you dislike is the warlock rogue?

A couple options come to mind.

You can let things run and see how it falls out.

You can talk to everyone out of the game and try to work it out.

You can throw monsters at them every time they get in an argument to divert them away from the argument.

You can house rule out the oaths.

You can ban paladins from your games.

You can ban CN PCs from your game.

Helmet of opposite alignment on any of them.

You can manipulate things so that prisoners are less of an issue (ran away, cyanide pills, died fighting, angel geases/curses the CN PCs, construct and undead and ooze and abberation and animal and monstrosity enemies).

You can have some or all make new compatible characters and continue on with the campaign.

You can have them make new compatible characters and start a new campaign.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I don't like alignment in this situation. The paladin is playing his Oath which is a code of conduct of how to behave. The other people are killing and lying to the prisoners they capture. None of These people live in a vacuum. Word is going to get out that they are murdering people for no reason. Especially if they start garnering a reputation.

The Paladin's Reputation is going to get sullied because of their actions and powerful people connected to him will want him to make amends. Possibly while his associates are sitting in a jail cell.

Powerful People connected to the other characters are no longer going to lose trust. NPCs and are going to start making things difficult. Why are the rogue's contacts ignoring him? Why can't they find a fence? There is Honour amongst Thieves. Do you want to be a fence for a person who might murder you if you don't give him the right price?

I say this because the opposite is true.
I'm playing character that's pretty close to LG and I, often - and annoyingly to the party - let prisoners go because he believes in Mercy - at least the first time around. I cannot say this hasn't bitten us in the ass but it has also helped us in the way of gaining allies in unexpected places. Because of this, the party tolerates it. They are interested in seeing where it goes. They just make sure they are doing the unlawful stuff behind my back. But that's more out of respect for my character rather than worrying I'm going to hinder them.

In short: Reward them for interesting decisions. I find random murdering less interesting...until it comes back to haunt you.

OUT OF CHARACTER STUFF:

-Have a chat with the group and ask them if they are enjoying the dynamic. Maybe they like it!
-If not, it might be an out of character solution like someone rolling up a new character
-It could be a decision to make an in game change such as creating some kind of bond that makes them, grudgingly, work together. (Why does this paladin have to be dating my sister!)

rereading this post, I'm not sure how helpful it will be...but maybe it will give you ideas.

 

[auburn2]

Yeah... your CN and CG PCs are not Neutral or Good.

They're pretty clearly Evil.

Very, very evil from the sounds of it.

You are looking at a few actions, and yes ones that either are or lean evil. Their characters are more than that and they do plenty of good things too. Letting enemies go (or in this case potential enemies) is not one of them.

You can't take this as a whole. For example, I doubt anyone would call Cattie Brie from the Drizzt novels "evil", yet in one of the novels she states that Goblin children should be slaughtered in their nursery without mercy and Bruenner (her also good father) agrees with her. I think that act is undeniably evil even though both of those characters as presented in the novels are undeniably good.

I don't like Chaotic neutral characters in general because I think this is the most difficult alignment to play, but I also don't think these characters actions as a whole are necessarily evil. Chaotic, absolutely.
1. They do lie often and have no use for the truth (chaotic)
2. they do kill prisoners rather than release them (evil) but they refuse to torture prisoners for information (good)
3 they do tend to err on the side of caution instead of rightousness - better safe than sorry - when it comes to potential threats (neutral?)
4 They never steal and give to charity (good)
5. They deal and work with both good and evil factions to get the job done (neutral). One works with the harpers, the other actually joined the Zhents. The Paladin is unaware of both factions, but the CN PCs are aware of each other and they use the factions but have no real care for advancing their goals nor any value in the allegiance other than its usefulness. (Chaotic).
6. What they do is always for the greater good of society albeit often motivated by the reward they will receive (neutral)

I think overall that is pretty neutral on the good-evil scale.

 

[bedir than]

There's a whole world of villains and monsters to get into conflicts with - maybe don't look for conflict among your allies, I say.

I'd even question if the party are allies

 

[auburn2]

So the only one we are not sure you dislike is the warlock rogue?

Yeah right!



I actually did used to ban CN PCs from the game, along with evil characters. With alignment deemphasized in 5E and because the two players begged to play CN characters I decided to allow it this game.

 

[Guest 6801328]

In an ideal situation, the paladin's player puts the character in the position of being able to look the other way when it comes to the other players' characters actions. And vice versa.

Yes. This strikes me as player conflict being channeled through their characters.

If the players really wanted to get along, they would (as @iserith says) have fun narrating ways to "look the other way" during those awkward moments. I.e., some of the players agree to let the captive go, then they distract the paladin and kill the captive while he isn't looking. Or the paladin agrees to do the dirty deed and takes the captive off into the woods to off him, but of course lets him go. And everybody pretends to fall for it.

Since they're not doing this, your problem is the desire of the group to play D&D as a group, not the alignments (or oaths) of their characters.

 

[Flamestrike]

You can't take this as a whole. For example, I doubt anyone would call Cattie Brie from the Drizzt novels "evil", yet in one of the novels she states that Goblin children should be slaughtered in their nursery without mercy and Bruenner (her also good father) agrees with her.

Her father was murdered by Goblins.

Can you please cite a single example of her murdering Goblin children?

they do kill prisoners rather than release them (evil)

Yeah. Extremely evil.

If your PCs are killing prisoners out of hand, or for convenience, they're unquestioningly evil.