Cheating Death

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Finally: what happens when one of the paladin's lawful Neutral buddies helps his code-bound friend out of a jamb by offing Lord Death's target du jour? (I always encourage players in campaign with little moral script immunity to generate parties that include at least one sin-eater: a character who can do those necessary things that the others' heroic concepts will not permit.)

This is how I play, though I do it almost unconsciously. My characters are almost always Good or Neutral, but I've noticed a trend-- every character I play is either the "paladin" or the "sin-eater". My Paladins range from actual Paladins, to Clerics of goodly gods (rare) or Holy Liberators, to various holy character concepts. My Sin-Eaters are usually good as well, but they're a hard-bitten, in-the-trenches kind of good that can't afford to be squeamish-- Good mercenaries and troubleshooters.

It actually works quite well for party interaction, because the Paladins are safe to lecture me and disapprove of me and try to stop me, while I get the things done that they can't. When I'm playing a Paladin, I'm more constrained, but there's usually a member of the party who can fill the same role for me.

 

[Hejdun]

Even if you're not purposely working to screw the paladin, you've managed to do it pretty well. From the PC's point of view, he is stuck in a box with no way out. Any choice he makes will turn him into a lowly fighter, only without the bonus feats. This is the worst kind of railroading, and if I were running the paladin I wouldn't stand for it.

Agree. You are royally ****ing the paladin. It's generally pretty mean to railroad a player into a situation with no good choices.

You just shoved the paladin into a sharkden, and how you're cackling evilly as the paladin gets ripped to shreds.

Not cool man, not cool at all.

 

[Dakkareth]

I don't quite see the problem there ... the paladin goes and asks, whether Lord Death could make an exception. Lord Death states the condition and the paladin says "no thanks".

So what, he has maybe broken his oath. Big deal. He cared more for his moral principles and for the oath to his deity than for the consequences and unless he's a paladin of some lawful stupid 'order is everything' god he should have no problem.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I don't quite see the problem there ... the paladin goes and asks, whether Lord Death could make an exception. Lord Death states the condition and the paladin says "no thanks".

So what, he has maybe broken his oath. Big deal. He cared more for his moral principles and for the oath to his deity than for the consequences and unless he's a paladin of some lawful stupid 'order is everything' god he should have no problem.

The problem is that, from the tone of the original post, the DM believes that the oathbreaking will cost the PC his paladinhood, so just saying "no thanks" is not an option, because the paladin already promised the dwarf that he'd try to ressurrect the girl. Basically it's been portrayed as a "lose your paladinhood or lose your paladinhood" type of scenario.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

Sounds like it could be interesting. As long as the player gets into this with some idea of what he's doing, it sounds fun.

From your other comments, it sounds like this sort of difficult situation is a staple for your game. However, I would like to bring up one specific quote that I hope you keep in mind "when you play that class you accept that you will face certain decisions. I try to emulate life. Sometimes, to right a wrong, you have to commit a wrong yourself. Sometimes there simply is no correct answer. Things are rarely black and white."

If that is the case now, remember that if there isn't a correct answer, then there shouldn't be a penalty for not finding it.

This is reminding me of that time-travelling paladin thread.

Anyway, I'm not seeing as much malice in your actions as seems to be accorded to you, but I'd urge some caution in taking away the player's paladinhood. Unless they simply don't act the part at all (which it doesn't sound like) twist the knife, but don't send them to the headsman.

And by the way, Lord Pendragon, I like his situation better than your first one. Maybe that's just because in the first one, it seems more like the situaiton is set up to be more messy than the player helping to make a mess of things.

 

[Michael Dean]

*IMC...the 'raise dead' spell line does not automatically bring one back to life. Instead it grants an audience with Lord Death, whose job it is to ferry souls from this life to the next.
The person must then barter with Lord Death for the soul of the deceased. Since Lord Death cannot be tempted with carnal possessions, most often one must perform some service for Lord Death in exchange for the soul. Failing to come through with one's end of the bargain is known as 'cheating Death'.

That's a very clever way to handle raise dead! I always wondered how distabling it would be to a society if rich people could avoid dying by paying the church to raise them. This way, not everyone would want to, because they wouldn't know what kind of bargain they would have to make.

I'm not in the camp of this being unfair to the Paladin as I think moral choices sometimes have no right answer. That's the beauty of the LG aligment; it's a tough alignment to properly roleplay, and what fun would it be if all the choices were simple and straightforward? If he loses his paladinhood, he can always go on a quest to wipe the stain from his soul.

 

[rbingham2000]

I think the paladin should consult his own god and lay the situation down for him as plainly as he can.

I've got just one question: how do the paladin's god and Lord Death get along with each other?

Although the paladin did give his word of honor to the bartender that he would bring Molly back, I don't think that Moradin (or whichever god the paladin serves) will stand at all for his servant's hammer to fall upon a good person, even at the behest of the god of death.

Maybe the paladin should bring this little tidbit up, if he hasn't already. He should point out that although Lord Death does not care about good and evil, the god that the paladin serves does.

 

[Munin]

There are a few points here I'd like to clear up. Perhaps I wasn't exactly clear on the details of the situation and this lead to some confusion. Perhaps some of you are just wussies.

The paladin is in no way being 'railroaded'. He can at any time *before* he agrees to LD's deal walk away clean, without a mark on his honor. No harm no foul.
He did NOT swear to bring Molly back. He promised to do the best he could. Of course, the tavern owner may not see it that way, but that is his own fault, and not the fault of the paladin.

If he does accept the deal with LD, he will then be oathbound until he satisfies his part of the bargain. He will not know in advance what soul he must exchange, but he will be made aware of the fact that it could be anyone.
In fact, the cleric performing the ritual will recommend that he not go through with this, and has himself declined to strike a deal with death. IMC, this is equivilant to the DM saying 'are you sure you want to do that?'

If the worst case scenario happens, and he becomes obligated to murder, there will be consequences. First off, he will loose some or all of his paladin abilities.
If he does like some of you suggest, and pitch a tantrum and kill his character, so be it.
If he playes his character like the (relatively) mature individual that he is, he will be given a quest to redeem himself, and the loot that will result from that adventure.
He would also gain the respect an admiration of the dwarf and a healthy gift from him (he is a retired adventurer himself). He may also gain an squire, since Molly wants to be an adventurer someday.

Nifft, I really like the old guy idea...consider it stolen

I can't help but get the feeling that some of you prefer to play in a consequence free, alls well that ends well environment. If that's your cup of tea, cool. But I find it boring.

I don't screw my players. I am harsh, but they are playing in a harsh world. Who says there is always a good way out? Who says the party will always win?
If a player screws up, he's going to pay. If he pledges an oath and breaks it, especially to a being as powerful as LD, there will be hell to pay.
Rewards are hard fought, but the players earn them.

 

[Joshua Randall]

Macario

I suggest you seek out the Spanish language movie Macario (which should also be available with English subtitles) for an interesting perspective on cheating Death.

That said, I have to agree with the others who have pointed out that you are royally screwing the paladin here, future compensation notwithstanding. You're teaching him the lesson that sometimes, even when he does the right thing, he will lose his paladinhood because of a contrived set-up. If that's the kind of game you want to run, great; but I wouldn't want to play in it.

Edit: typo.