DM Advice: handling 'he can't talk to me like that' ~cuts NPC throat~ players.

[NilesB]

That's a lot of projecting your assumptions on the situation.

It is a lot of projecting, by an an objective standard. For this thread though, it's low-average.

 

[Victim]

Umm, yes? I have no idea why the DM thought this situation belonged in a D&D adventure, but yes, taking a legal dispute on child custody to the compete legal authorities would be the "Lawful" thing to do.

Given the situation, I'd assume that any sort of legal challenge would be a dead end.

 

[haakon1]

And you haven't yet. I said the system was evil.

Got ya.

Liechtenstein's actual form of government, having read up on it now, reminds me of England after the English Civil War, or America if the President were hereditary -- that is, it has a strong executive, but he's limited somewhat by a legislative branch, an independent judiciary, and a constitution. Really neither fish nor fowl between absolute monarch and parliamentary democracy.

I tend to be a moral absolutist, but I wouldn't call Liechtenstein evil. That is, I think democracy is, to paraphrase Churchill, the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried. But I don't think other forms of government are necessarily evil.

For example, my wife is Singaporean. I have almost complete respect for their form of government and for what Lee Kuan Yew achieved, going from Third World to First in a generation with no great social upheavals or mass inhumanity. But some people say Singapore's not a real democracy, since they same party keeps winning almost all the seats and since their government has imposed some laws that feel draconian to outsiders (namely, the ban on chewing gum, and the one foreign kid who was caned for graffiti). On balance, however, I think it's a well-meaning and Lawful Good -- with a capital LG! -- government that has vastly benefited its population.

And normally you'd think a imperialist who started a colony was an "evil" guy, from a 21st century perspective, but Sir Stamford Raffles, who founded Singapore, was a singularly well-meaning and non-racist colonialist, still highly respected there as a founding father. So go figure.

Whereas South Africa had a democratically elected Lawful Evil government until it had a change of heart and ended apartheid in 1994.

So, I see your point, but I respectfully don't think it's ALWAYS true that democracy = good, and undemocratic = evil.

But while I truly love talking about all these things, I should probably shut up since it seems a very minor issue in the perpetual D&Der argument about the nature of good!

 

[Fenes]

And how likely do you think it is that rudeness warrants death in the paladin's mandate, particularly when said rude individual is the representative of the king? What paladin code of conduct would make sense to include respect for the legit authorities save when they offend the paladin's tender sensibilities?

Suffice to say, the DM's dismay in the OP rather suggests that your supposition is not the case.

Some call it "tender sensibilities", some call it honor. And keeping your honor by killing is considered the right thing to do in far too many real world socieites, so I would dare to assume it's not too far out for a paladin either.

Which is the crux of this discussion. For me, being rude is enough to warrant getting killed in most of my medieval and sword&sorcery settings. Usually in a duel, but if that's refused, people may just attack the "honorless cur".

 

[roguerouge]

Not showing up on the paladin's evildar doesn't give you immunity from a whupping. Good vs Good/Neutral can still happen, though it is tragic when circumstances can force your hand. A simple mind blank, which any operative of a king should have on at all times, also foils the ability.

Paladins get 2 skill points per level(plus int mod obviously) and are rather starved for stat points anyway. Just because you have the skill on your class list, doesn't mean you are trained in it, or else you wouldn't need to make a choice for skill points.

First, we don't have to argue whether being good/neutral gives you immunity from a paladin whuppin', 'cause the paladin never used that ability. That's my point: he doesn't know. Second, "a simple mind blank"?? Every operative of the king is a 15th level caster? Even if the OP took the EL system to an absurdity, sense motive's also a skill he can use untrained.

Also, sense motive what? Speak with the dead requires the truth(not that they really asked her for any info) and Vincent(a rather evilish name imo) only said "Give me the boy." Sense motive reveals: He wants the kid. By Odin's Beard, what a shock.

First, I agree that they should have asked follow-up questions. IF they actually are high level, having another casting of that spell should have been a priority. And Sense Motive's more useful than you give it credit for being:

Let's check the SRD:

DC 20: This use of the skill involves making a gut assessment of the social situation. You can get the feeling from another’s behavior that something is wrong, such as when you’re talking to an impostor. Alternatively, you can get the feeling that someone is trustworthy.

So, they could have gotten a hunch based off body language and facial expression whether he was trustworthy or not. Again, it's that the PALADIN didn't bother with this approach when dealing with an agent of the king, WHOM HE SERVES (see his service in the army as a soldier in the OP.)

What options? The arbiter is above the law, and untouchable by courts.

They are answerable to the king. If they had any, you know, evidence, they could go to the king and appeal to his court. That would be a lawful act.

They are presumed to have respect for their code of honor, which may or may not respect the secular laws of any given nation or state.

They worked for the state for a very long time, according to the OP, as, "They have moved their way up in the ranks of the local army starting as pleb novices all the way to kingdom heroes."

Who says the sorceror/hexblade or cleric need to even mention another father. They could just claim that the children is one of their's(which if they raise the kid, they might feel is true) and mommy died in childbirth(which is the truth). They are just infants after all. They might not remember it. And if they do, the paladin can simply say that daddy wouldn't explain and wouldn't consider the fact that they felt bound to follow the wishes of the mother.

Well, yes, asking the hexblade would be a stupid thing for the child to do. But the paladin's going to still have an awfully difficult time explaining follow-up questions like

"Why did my mommy hate my daddy?"
"Should I hate my daddy?"
"Was daddy evil?"
"Where's daddy now?"
"I want to meet my biological father."
"Why can't I visit my daddy's grave?"
"Why did you kill my daddy?"

And each time he lies in answer to one of these questions, he gets further and further away from his code.

Paladins don't require an atonement for a non lawful act, unless it moves them out of LG. Also, I disagree about the act. I simply view it as neutral without more info. The way the mother phrased her wishes makes it seem like it is a case of defending the innocent. The only thing not good about the act is that the DM knows that Vincent isn't evil, just an arrogant jerk.

Sorry, but you're incorrect. Atonement works for violating any part of your alignment. And while we disagree with it being a neutral act, this spell would fit for that alignment violation of both law and good too. From the srd:

Though the spell description refers to evil acts, atonement can also be used on any creature that has performed acts against its alignment, whether those acts are evil, good, chaotic, or lawful.

Like I said, there's always the Paladin of Freedom or Paladin of Slaughter options for this chaotic little paladin.

 

[Kalis]

Well, yes, asking the hexblade would be a stupid thing for the child to do. But the paladin's going to still have an awfully difficult time explaining follow-up questions like

"Why did my mommy hate my daddy?"
"Should I hate my daddy?"
"Was daddy evil?"
"Where's daddy now?"
"I want to meet my biological father."
"Why can't I visit my daddy's grave?"
"Why did you kill my daddy?"

And each time he lies in answer to one of these questions, he gets further and further away from his code.

Why would any of those questions be asked? Unless it is really obvious that the children can't be one of theirs(children are elven, the team are half orcs), the children have no reason to assume they are anything but the children of their apparent father. Especially with a possible paladin father figure. They were babies, practically fresh out of the womb, when the events took place. They won't remember mommy hating daddy or see a need for any of those questions.

This is especially true if the group leaves the kingdom and starts over. Nobody in the new village will doubt that a paladin traveling with two babies is the actual father, and the lack of mother would just cause them to assume the mother died in childbirth.

Villager: "The kids don't look much like you, Sir Gawain."
Paladin: "They take after their mother more than me."

A totally true response which gives facts without violating the code of honor, since they take nothing from the paladin.

 

[NewJeffCT]

I read the first couple of pages, and now the last page. To me, the party was clearly acting in a chaotic fashion and that would call for some serious penalties to the paladin - if it is the paladin's first time acting unlawful, perhaps a stern warning and some atonement. If the DM has been letting the players act in this chaotic fashion, I don't think he would be justified in going further. But, the players are part of the king's army and the inquisitor is a high level official in the king's army answerable only to the king. If these players were playing a modern-age game with similar characters and had to go through boot camp, are they going to slay the drill sergeant because he yelled at them? Boo-hoo, they didn't like the inquisitor's attitude. I don't like the attitudes of some people I work with - does that give me the right to draw steel on them?

I would also say that slaying a person answerable only to the king and without him doing anything outwardly evil (i.e., they caught him standing over the dead mother with a knife dripping blood...) - the PCs also committed an evil act. Assuming the players know that the inquisitor is a high ranking official, they should know that he is answerable only to the king. Taking a life because you don't like somebody's attitude isn't really something in any paladin code that I've read, unless it's the Chaotic Evil Paladin of Slaughter.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[moritheil]

Got ya.

Liechtenstein's actual form of government, having read up on it now, reminds me of England after the English Civil War, or America if the President were hereditary -- that is, it has a strong executive, but he's limited somewhat by a legislative branch, an independent judiciary, and a constitution. Really neither fish nor fowl between absolute monarch and parliamentary democracy.

I tend to be a moral absolutist, but I wouldn't call Liechtenstein evil. That is, I think democracy is, to paraphrase Churchill, the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried. But I don't think other forms of government are necessarily evil.

For example, my wife is Singaporean. I have almost complete respect for their form of government and for what Lee Kuan Yew achieved, going from Third World to First in a generation with no great social upheavals or mass inhumanity. But some people say Singapore's not a real democracy, since they same party keeps winning almost all the seats and since their government has imposed some laws that feel draconian to outsiders (namely, the ban on chewing gum, and the one foreign kid who was caned for graffiti). On balance, however, I think it's a well-meaning and Lawful Good -- with a capital LG! -- government that has vastly benefited its population.

And normally you'd think a imperialist who started a colony was an "evil" guy, from a 21st century perspective, but Sir Stamford Raffles, who founded Singapore, was a singularly well-meaning and non-racist colonialist, still highly respected there as a founding father. So go figure.

Whereas South Africa had a democratically elected Lawful Evil government until it had a change of heart and ended apartheid in 1994.

So, I see your point, but I respectfully don't think it's ALWAYS true that democracy = good, and undemocratic = evil.

I enjoyed this post.

But while I truly love talking about all these things, I should probably shut up since it seems a very minor issue in the perpetual D&Der argument about the nature of good!

Which is, itself, a minor issue, as it boils down to a "red team vs. blue team" type of discussion.

 

[moritheil]

It is a lot of projecting, by an an objective standard. For this thread though, it's low-average.

But then, that's what this thread is all about. The DM has expectations of the players, the players see the situation a certain way, the NPCs think the situation is different, the board posters almost all think their interpretation contains the essential nature of the real situation . . .

 

[Dire Bare]

If we can't vote as equals then our human rights are not upheld.

Democracy is a relatively new social concept. (a good one, mind you, I like it a lot) So, did evil rule the world before democracy took root and saved us all? There can be good without democracy, and there can be evil within democracy. I'd explain my point further, but there's no way I could stay within the "no politics" rule on the boards here.