D&D 5E Player agency and Paladin oath.

[HomegrownHydra]

Listening to the giant was possible with magic, they just did not want to waste it. As was taking reasonable precautions after an obviously angry and relatively powerful foe ran off in anger. Either of these would have prevented the ambush.

I certainly never expected them to kill the giant.

So why are you pinning this on the paladin? If you didn't expect the PCs to kill the giant, why are you criticizing the paladin player for not wanting to kill it? Why aren't you criticizing the players of the chaotic characters for their foolish insistence on choosing between killing it or doing nothing at all?

 

[Redwizard007]

I skipped a couple pages, so correct me if I misunderstand this, but your players are attacking the giants, encounter a giant, try to communicate with a giant they stumble onto, and then the paladin doesn't allow them to kill their fleeing foe. Does that about sum it up?

Ruling: paladin is a crap character that needs retired.

Explanation: a paladin is a warrior. A soldier of God (or order or concept.) Watching your deadly foe who has not been ransomed or otherwise committed to abstain from the conflict retreat without persecution is stupid. Find a soldier who feels that shooting their fleeing foes is against a moral code anywhere in the world and get back to me. If the prisoner was restrained, injured, swore to leave, etc then the Paladin has grounds to spare him, but as you explained it I see none of that.

 

[Mort]

I skipped a couple pages, so correct me if I misunderstand this, but your players are attacking the giants, encounter a giant, try to communicate with a giant they stumble onto, and then the paladin doesn't allow them to kill their fleeing foe. Does that about sum it up?

Ruling: paladin is a crap character that needs retired.

Explanation: a paladin is a warrior. A soldier of God (or order or concept.) Watching your deadly foe who has not been ransomed or otherwise committed to abstain from the conflict retreat without persecution is stupid. Find a soldier who feels that shooting their fleeing foes is against a moral code anywhere in the world and get back to me. If the prisoner was restrained, injured, swore to leave, etc then the Paladin has grounds to spare him, but as you explained it I see none of that.

If the stone giant was the only issue you may have had a point, but it's not.

The CN characters apparently do things like promise to let a captured foe go then kill them after getting information they need.

Even forgetting that though: this paladin is not just a soldier of god, he is a LG soldier of a LG God with an oath to match. If you don't want that to mean something - then don't play one. There are plenty of other options.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I've seen this done, and it always struck me as being just a bit too meta for my liking.

Thats a low bar.

 

[auburn2]

The real question is why would they be adventuring together in the first place? Did you not have a session zero and design characters together?

They were brought together for the quest they are on, which is a quest to secure certain ingredients and items to help cure a city of a plague (or if you would prefer pandemic). The Paladin's church sponsored the quest, the others answered the flyers to help find the cure for the good of the city and its inhabitants .... as well as the reward.

 

[auburn2]

"a fighter who went to church once."

I think that describes lawful good characters in the games I play ... or for that matter most of my real life "christian" friends. The difference is a Paladin actually has an oath and consequences to breaking it.

 

[auburn2]

nm

 

[Redwizard007]

If the stone giant was the only issue you may have had a point, but it's not.

The CN characters apparently do things like promise to let a captured foe go then kill them after getting information they need.

Even forgetting that though: this paladin is not just a soldier of god, he is a LG soldier of a LG God with an oath to match. If you don't want that to mean something - then don't play one. There are plenty of other options.

Aaaaaaaah. I missed that. Pretty psychopathic CE stuff.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

At the end of the 30 Years War freedom of prisoners of war without ransom was agreed with France in the 1600. As I said this was during war though, not banditry or raiding. Actual criminals were treated horrendously.



As late as the 18C in Britain often a private citizen would be paid by victims to track down criminals and bring them to justice. As this paid so poorly they often had part time jobs. There was no civil law enforcement to speak of beyond some small organized watch paid for by cities usually to protect property and paid for directly by the rich. They had Very little interest in crimes against the poor.

In RPGs are usually requested to investigate by local authorities (mayor, headman, noble, king). Those are the authorities as far as most crimes are concerned. I don’t believe the average person gave a damn about the average criminal. They certainly wouldn’t care if bandits got killed y the people sent to deal with them.



Bringing them back to whom? Trials in medieval times were very rare for all but the most notable (not serious, just notable) Quarterly sessions often took place a few times per year and there were very limited jails to hold people. Prisons as we Understand them now didn’t exist.



This I agree with. It’s not Lawful Good behavior and it breaks the oath of devotion. That said It’s not evil to mislead someone to get information about other murderers. Neutral at worst. Perhaps the Paladin should have interrupted the interogation to make it clear that his companions weren’t going to let the criminal go. That clears the Paladin of deception.



Bandits don’t have to be evil to be bandits. Neither do they need to be evil in order to be punished with death. The Bloody Code included such crimes as stealing goods worth more than 12 pence. Even at the end of the 18thC. I think it stretches credulity to think that adventurers charges by authorities to solve a problem of banditry or raiding would be considered murderers in turn... other than by those doing the banditry and raiding.

DnD worlds aren't literal Medieval Europe.

 

[Lanefan]

DnD worlds aren't literal Medieval Europe.

Many D&D worlds - at least the mundane non-magical bits - are nominally based on Europe of varying ages, from Greco-Roman times to the Renaissance; and (as keeps arising in other threads) this puts a whole different spin on how a lot of things work in society. Trying to apply or overlay 21st-century rules, morals, ethics, politics, etc. just doesn't work well.