Another Paladin Thread: Throw Rocks!

[The Thayan Menace]

Word ....

Do you think it'd be more fun for bad things to happen to the paladin, or for you and she to have an argument about her actions?

Neither really, but to be honest the session made me feel uncomfortable. Talking about it is cathartic and allows me to achieve discernment.

Ideally, I'd like to work out differences between my mage and the paladin. After all, I am friends with her player IRL.

If I come to the conclusion that Nigel Yarrow cannot co-exist with the Fair Wyndess, then I will have him leave the party and create a new character that can.

In-game drama is fine, but so is plot "flow".

-Samir

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Masters of a Dead Tongue ....

Why did you and another player decide it was necessary for your characters to discuss interrogation strategy in a language not all the other characters could understand?

We spoke in Aragrakh because the orc would probably not know it (i.e., it's a very obscure language). We specifically used this draconic patois during the Q&A.

-Samir

 

[Thanatos]

Based off the new information, I find I do not need to reconsider my opinion.

The Paladin did not implicitly agree to anything since it had not been decided in the first place.

The fact that it wasn't discussed by the paladin is really moot; the paladin apparently understood the course of action she had no choice but to take in thus matter. On the flip side, no one bothered to ask the paladin her thoughts regarding the matter. Her being Tyrran though, seems to really make it clear what dictates her actions.

Rules of war don't apply without formal agreements between fighting factions, so even that is moot. Characterizing the actions as lawful evil is really funny -- I love the little stories people imagine in how this all shook down.

Playerwise, it wasn't the smartest way to handle this whole thing. The fact that so many people are divided on the issue indicates to me, she played close to the line, with opinions differing on whether she crossed it or not.

Hopefully she won't find her character unjustly nerfed by the DM IMO.

Sorry to hear you have chosen to remove that character from the gaming session. I can certainly understand why...I've done that once before (and ended up getting cussed out and banned from the DM's house in perpetuity).

 

[The Thayan Menace]

More ....

If what to do after was discussed - and "let the orc go" was the conclusion reached by those discussing - did the paladin
1)say nothing/give no input at all one way or another during the discussion about what to do after the interrogation was completed?
2)suggest the orc should be dispatched after questioning - and then say nothing when others didn't agree?

01. We discussed the matter, but the paladin acted before a decision was ever reached.
02. She gave no input during the interrogation other than criticizing me for speaking Aragrakh.
03. She never suggested anything about the prisoner ... she did however demand his execution (after the questioning).

-Samir

 

[Rystil Arden]

Based off the new information, I find I do not need to reconsider my opinion.

The Paladin did not implicitly agree to anything since it had not been decided in the first place.

The fact that it wasn't discussed by the paladin is really moot; the paladin apparently understood the course of action she had no choice but to take in thus matter. On the flip side, no one bothered to ask the paladin her thoughts regarding the matter. Her being Tyrran though, seems to really make it clear what dictates her actions.

Rules of war don't apply without formal agreements between fighting factions, so even that is moot. Characterizing the actions as lawful evil is really funny -- I love the little stories people imagine in how this all shook down.

Playerwise, it wasn't the smartest way to handle this whole thing. The fact that so many people are divided on the issue indicates to me, she played close to the line, with opinions differing on whether she crossed it or not.

Hopefully she won't find her character unjustly nerfed by the DM IMO.

Sorry to hear you have chosen to remove that character from the gaming session. I can certainly understand why...I've done that once before (and ended up getting cussed out and banned from the DM's house in perpetuity).

It is definitely Lawful Evil to twist the law in that way, by omission. She allowed an agreement to be made by a spokesperson on behalf of the party and then balked using the letter of the law, since she had not personally and specifically submitted to this agreement. If this is not true, and she didn't deviously twist the letter of the law in this way, then she was acting blatantly against it, in a Chaotic manner.

 

[Thanatos]

It is definitely Lawful Evil to twist the law in that way, by omission. She allowed an agreement to be made by a spokesperson on behalf of the party and then balked using the letter of the law, since she had not personally and specifically submitted to this agreement. If this is not true, and she didn't deviously twist the letter of the law in this way, then she was acting blatantly against it, in a Chaotic manner.

There has been no law twisted. Its is not an omission, especially since it had not been decided yet what to do with the prisoner.

An "agreement" had not been made. Read what he said.

And then, a paladin is not bound to what the party spokesperson says if it is a violation of her code. She isn't required to discuss the tenats of her code with the party, it might be the smarter thing to do, but its not required. Perhaps she knew the fight it would cause and decided to just avoid the fight and do what was required of her. Till that person posts here, we won't really know for sure on all counts and in regards to all the details.

LOL so if you can't get her one way, you'll get her another. Her actions weren't chaotic, they were right in line for someone who believes in a lawless land that they have divine right to be judge, jury and if necessary, executioner.

I think your crediting this player with far too much deviousness.

 

[Thanatos]

01. We discussed the matter, but the paladin acted before a decision was ever reached.
03. She never suggested anything about the prisoner ... she did however demand his execution (after the questioning).

-Samir

So, it wasn't agreed before questioning and getting information what would be done with the prisoner at the end of questioning. In other words, there was no expectation on the part of the prisoner and common agreement among the characters, he would be let go.

Of course she wouldn't have...because she knew what course of action she had to take, so there was no option for her to discuss it.

I'd still really like to hear from the player of the paladin though...

 

[Rystil Arden]

There has been no law twisted. Its is not an omission, especially since it had not been decided yet what to do with the prisoner.

An "agreement" had not been made. Read what he said.

And then, a paladin is not bound to what the party spokesperson says if it is a violation of her code. She isn't required to discuss the tenats of her code with the party, it might be the smarter thing to do, but its not required. Perhaps she knew the fight it would cause and decided to just avoid the fight and do what was required of her. Till that person posts here, we won't really know for sure on all counts and in regards to all the details.

LOL so if you can't get her one way, you'll get her another. Her actions weren't chaotic, they were right in line for someone who believes in a lawless land that they have divine right to be judge, jury and if necessary, executioner.

I think your crediting this player with far too much deviousness.

If the Paladin had killed the orc before allowing the other PCs to negotiate with the orc for its life and freedom for information--even slaughtering it while they tried to talk, there wouldn't be a problem. By failing to do so, the Paladin allowed an agreement to be made and then went against it. Thus, in this way, the actual victims of the Paladin's Evil act were the other PCs. If one of the other PCs who made the agreement was also a Paladin, for instance, he would have to turn the killer paladin into the authorities and/or beat her up to stop the killing or else fail to uphold the code by going against his word by failing to act to prevent it.

It is the lack of respect for anyone but herself and the willingness to act alone regardless of the effect to the other PCs that makes this act either chaotic or evil, depending on the modus operandi and how it was carried out. Breaking the consensus to do what you want is Chaotic unless the person you are ignoring is your vassal or subordinate.

 

[Dross]

That's a "no," then. The paladin did not (explicitly) agree to let the orc go.

If a paladin needs to explicitly agree to this deal she needs to do so with all deals. So did the paladin explicitly agree to the job of getting rid of the ogres? If not she cannot accept any payment.

Also the indication I read is that the discussion was not finished when the paladin decied to execute the orc. Ccan she be certain that the orc was going to be let go (as likely as it was)?

"Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation is lawful good."

Who should then have finished the orc strait away, because allowing it to live, even for a little while, is showing mercy is it not? Otherwise it is providing false hope deceitfully to someone that is helpless against you before you kill them.

Letting the orc live = orc prisoner. How is the paladin supposed to treat prisoners or orc prisoners? By Tyrran code her actions might have been acceptable.

A trial, or at least a statement of “You are evil, I cannot abide to let you live” should be given, and if the party has had any experience with the paladin they should know this stance. A trial does not mean a judge back in town as a paladin should have the power to judge and if need be execute in the wilds. Given the further information, the group and the paladin (probably) have the authority to execute the orc for banditry at least. And a “trial by combat” has already been performed.

Why did the OP’s PC not say to the Paladin: my intent was to let the orc go since he has provided valuable information? and let the discussion continue.

Why did the paladin not say a word as to why she chose to do run the orc down?

Why does the paladin work with people that she doesn’t trust? Why didn’t she ask the PCs talking to talk in Damaran? Why did the other PC’s not tell her their reasoning?

Paladin has accepted the orc as a prisoner by not killing it but by tying it up and letting it regain consciousness (unless the paladin had an honourless reason to tie up the orc????). The party has gotten information (useful or not), should the paladin not take this into consideration (Thank you for your help, your death for your crimes will be quick and painless. CHOP!)?

To me the paladin should have been more forthright in what her actions were going to be. In discussing the matter, the paladin should have made her views clear as to why to orc could not be released.

As to what happens? A little more explanation about the choices PCs and the DM are going to make is needed. This one scenario shows that not all the group are on the same wavelenght.

And the right answer is one that the group is happy with.

 

[delericho]

I don't honestly know. We were discussing the idea of releasing the prisoner during (and after) the interrogation, but we did not make any explicit agreements before the dispute broke out.

That's a "no," then. The paladin did not (explicitly) agree to let the orc go.

So much for all the people screaming about how the paladin "broke her word," or "acted chaotically."

I agree. If the party didn't deal with the orc beforehand, then the orc has no right to expect release. The paladin is entirely entitled to require justice, which in this case might well be considered to be a quick and painless death.

The paladin may have acted in a somewhat dishonourable manner, riding down an unarmed and fleeing opponent, but her actions were basically okay, and no sanctions are warranted.

(As I said in an earlier post, in the light of new information, I reserve the right to adjust my opinion )