A Paladin Shows Mercy to a Priestess of Orcus?

[Ravlek]

Lord Pendragon; Well stated. Unfortunately simple agreement doesn't make for an interesting discussion, so...

If we alter your example slightly;

Paladin of St.Mercy: "Now, foul priest of bane, prepare to..."

Cleric: "Mercy!"

You can make a good case for requiring the paladin to grant mercy. Just for the sake of absurdity:

Paladin: "Now, foul priest of bane, prepare to..."

Cleric: "Mercy!"

Paladin: "Oh, ok."

Cleric: attack roll...

Paladin: "Ouch!" attac... Cleric: "Mercy!" Paladin: "grrr, ok" rinse and repeat. :\

Particle Man: That is Bizarre. I like it.

Nightfall: Either way it goes, I think there is still going to be blood spilled.

 

[Nightfall]

Rav,

Never doubted that. The Paladin already has a death sentence since he's LG. He just now gets more attention from Orcus. The priestess will get more since I'm sure Orcus won't tolerate this kind of insuborination.

 

[Ravlek]

Now if Shark will fill us in on the juicy details...


<Ravlek passes around the milk and cookies in anticipation>

Legal Disclaimer: No chocolate chips were actually harmed during the posting of this post.

 

[Harmon]

I completely disagree. A paladin isn't required to stay his hand just because his foe cries out for Mercy. If he were, the villains would figure it out in no time and he'd never kill anyone. He'd be the most ineffectual warrior against evil the world has ever known.

Giving our enemy mercy is what makes us better then them.

To make myself clear here and not want to get political- my personal feelings do not reflect what I say here. If you kill murders, rapests, and the like it would greatly reduce the criminal element and allow us to hire more teachers, and people that could alter the criminal element before they become criminals. I won't go further, other then to say that I don't think the death penalty is used enough.

Paladins are a breed above anyone I know or can comprehend, they stand where others haven't the courage.

-but what happens afterward depends entirely on whether this is true or not.

I agree. A CE priestess can not be trusted, but I think that a Paladin would be more interested in what she says and means at that moment, and to have the wisdom to be aware of the fact that- "hay I am dealing with an untrustable, women here."

If the priestess isn't sincere, things are straightforward. She must have some means of concealing her alignment from the paladin's Detect Evil. So she bides her time until she can escape or kill the party and then escape.

Any Paladin that has a Wisdom above 12 should be thinking about the possiblity that- hay, this woman is gonna have to be watched 24/7, she gets even a micro second of a chance and its over.

If she's sincere-

Oh, she isn't. THe Paladin is just showing her that he is a better, more honorable person then she is, though I believe she would see him as stupid and naive (like all goodie two shoe types, doncha know )

If you go this way, you not only have the RP opportunites of the repentant priestess, but also several plot-hooks built into the concept. For not only will Orcus be upset and want his revenge on the traitor, but the priestess will likely not receive a warm welcome from the paladin's church, either. Indeed, granting mercy to a priestess of Orcus may get him into trouble politically within his own organization, and other clerics and paladins frown upon his decision not to punish the wicked priestess, and question his ability to remain pure in the constant presence of one who served the Demon Prince.

Personally I like the RPing experience the Player has set up. He showed the bad guys that 1st he's a better, kinder person then they are (or perhaps the Player is playing him as naive?), and 2nd that it gives the Priestess a chance to see what good is and that she has the chance to change her ways, which gives so much towards a great game. As a GM I think I would be very happy with the Player for giving me this chance to either slit his characters throat in his sleep or to help to change some one of great evil to good.

As far as the church is concerned the RP there is great I mean the church is gonna say "what the hell are you doing?" and he has to explain- "I wanted to give this evil woman the chance she may never have had." "Hello, she's evil!" Great RPing- love this kinda stuff.

 

[Michael Morris]

What now? What do you think? I was amazed that she granted her mercy! Just incredible! A priestess of Orcus no less!

Consider very carefully on how things will unfold from here. This has amazing story potential for good or ill. It harkens back to the attempt by Frodo to redeem Gollum. Just be careful - if the priestess strikes out at the players without cause, they would be well justified indeed in never showing mercy again.

Indeed, this is the type of players Ravlek deserves - automatons who kill anything that sets off the detect evil alarm without any cause, because the rules say so. I have a feeling though that that isn't the type of game your running SHARK.

If you don't already have it, I'd recommend a look at the Book of Enlightened deeds. It has quite a bit of advice on this situation, on the things can go right, and go wrong.

Redemption is a powerful thing. Yes, Orcus will turn away from the priestess, and former allies will become enemies to her, but other gods need followers and in time perhaps one of them may grant spells to her.

Mercy, compassion and the chance for redemption are as uniquely good as treachery, grudges and hatred are evil. This paladin is taking a huge gamble with his life and the lives of his friends in offering mercy and trying to redeem this priest. Understand that if you punish this as Ravlek recommends, your players may never do this again - and they will be justified.

Ravlek, you are so wrong on so many levels it isn't funny. Mercy, compassion, forgiveness and redemption are part of good's identity. A refusal to offer mercy to a foe who has surrendered is an evil act - not the reverse as you so strongly argue. If this priestess betrays the trust she's been given it is her for it - it is no sin on the paladin. While the paladin has every right to be mistrusting of this priestess, if there is even the tiniest hope of redemption for her then he is obliged to try - not turn away as you argue he should.

Stories of redemption are some of the most powerful and moving in literature. Return of the Jedi anyone?

Oh, and BTW, the rules you're quoting don't even apply anyway. Followers & cohorts are the NPC's gained through the leadership - and this priestess is neither of those - she's an incidental character that may or may not remain with the party: at the moment it's unclear what will happen. If she is to remain she must of course redeem herself - but that's a long term judgement, not an overnight one.

Or are you going to argue that if an evil PC joins the party the paladin instantly loses his paladinhood?

 

[BOZ]

taking a prisoner is not the same as taking on an associate. if the paladin sees the priestess as someone who will either be turned over to the proper authorities or who will be given a chance at true redemption, there is nothing wrong with what the paladin did.

if, however, the paladin has neither of these in mind (or any similar lawful good motivation), then the paladin has some 'splaining to do.

 

[Wycen]

Orcus doesn't give a crap about any of his "followers" so the priestess is gonna have to rely on her wits to survive.

 

[Ravlek]

Ravlek, you are so wrong on so many levels it isn't funny.

Or are you going to argue that if an evil PC joins the party the paladin instantly loses his paladinhood?

From post #12, which was mine incidentally;

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starman
Sometimes, just sometimes, a strict adherence to the rules can get in the way of a good story. When that happens, jettison the rules.

Starman


I thought I made that point earlier.
From post #8 (my fourth post in the thread)

"If the priestess changes alignment, there is no problem. If the player of the paladin RP's trying to redeem the priestess, I wouldn't worry about the RAW."


Are you trying to say that the RAW should always be ignored?

 

[Ravlek]

From post #13 (from Starman to me)

Well, that's what you get when you skim a thread too quickly. I thought someone else said it.

Starman

I would like to take this chance to apologize to Starman for not expressing my appreciation for his post earlier.

Starman,
A thousand pardons.

Ravlek

 

[Ravlek]

Does/would anyone care for me to elaborate on post#14?