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

[roguerouge]

No, the "he did not even want to talk to them" evidence. You simply don't treat people like that.

Seriously, I can't imagine a politician or arbiter acting that stupid. If it had been a PC, we'd all laugh at how he ignopred the signs of impeding violence, and provoked the party.

Incorrect!

Let's go back to the OP.

... He says, "I will take the boy." The PCs try to talk him out of it and question his motives, but he doesn't see the need to explain himself to them. "I will take the boy" He repeats.

So the dialogue scene is:

Arbiter: "I will take the boy."
Paladin: "I know that you're a legal representative of the king and that this is your child and that you are the only surviving parent. And I'm a paladin, by definition sworn to uphold the law and work within the system to promote good under all but evil tyrants. But I distrust your motives for these reasons..."
Arbiter: [rolls eyes] "I will take the boy."
Paladin: [draws sword, kills arbiter, cuts off head, burns body]

So, what's missing: detect evil, augury from the cleric nearby, asking for a diplomacy check, doing gather info checks on this dude before he gets there, knowledge: royalty and nobility checks to figure out what his rep is, reporting the incident to his religious leaders, pressing a case in the legal system, getting any supporting information that the child would even be in danger rather than unhappy and badly parented.

Clearly, the obvious solution to this difficult moral problem for the paladin is to go right to the most chaotic action that does not involve the use of hummus as an offensive weapon.

 

[hong]

What are blue circles around their feet?

They're the things that tell you who not to play as annoying.

 

[Hypersmurf]

To his amazement he can shoot someone in the street and police cars aren't screeching up to nab him straight away.

"I have just shot someone; I did it on purpose!"
"... I said, I have just killed a man and I wish to confess!"
("Shut up!")

Lousy movie with some moments of brilliance.

"To be, or not to be? ... not to be."

-Hyp.

 

[Kalis]

Arbiter: "I will take the boy."
Paladin: "I know that you're a legal representative of the king and that this is your child and that you are the only surviving parent. And I'm a paladin, by definition sworn to uphold the law and work within the system to promote good under all but evil tyrants. But I distrust your motives for these reasons..."
Arbiter: [rolls eyes] "I will take the boy."
Paladin: [draws sword, kills arbiter, cuts off head, burns body]

It is more likely that the players saw themselves as stopping Darth Vader from taking baby Luke. They burned the body so they wouldn't be attacked by some Sith LordArbiter vampire or something. They were told by the mother not to let the father know about them, then the cold, distant, supposedly powerful and intimidating(to non-PC's anyway) father shows up and demands the son with no explanation or attempt to explain why the mother might be loopy. The result of such an attempt on D&D adventurers isn't that surprising.

It isn't hard to possibly see where any hero could end up making a mistake in this situation.

 

[Fenes]

Trying to aviod real life politics here but the whole idea that anything other than a democracy can be evil an a democracy can't does not ring true to me.

That's not what I said - I claim that by our modern values, a non-democratic system is evil. That doesn't mean any democratic system is good. But it disqualifies any non-democratic system.

 

[Fenes]

On that, we disagree completely. As long as the king respects and defends the human rights of his people, then I fail to see how it would be considered "evil" even by modern Western society.

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

 

[Slife]

That's not what I said - I claim that by our modern values, a non-democratic system is evil. That doesn't mean any democratic system is good. But it disqualifies any non-democratic system.

So... Canada is evil? So is the United Kingdom?

Constitutional monarchies can work.

 

[Fenes]

This I think is an unfortunate artifact of modern western civilization.

In a world with wide disparities in power between individuals (I mean active "Blast with Lightning Bolts" power) and potent MONSTERS roaming the countryside, with large numbers of different races with vastly different ideas of right and wrong; the ideal of democratic government is not necessarily the highest good.

"Um, Mr. 20th level Cleric, sir? We all voted that YOU go out and kill the big horrible nasty."
"Sorry schlub, I vote that I go over there and let the big nasty eat you."
"But we voted. You're breaking the law!"
"There won't be any law if the nasty eats you. Ok, how about another vote. IF I kill the nasty, I get to be King. And if you don't agree to my terms, I take a hike. Deal?"
(pause and large amounts of whispering)
"Yes, your majesty."

I agree with that - killing someone to protect or restore your honor is often a good thing in my game because I do not apply modern values to my game's belief system.

 

[Fenes]

That's not my point. My point is that it is clearly a huge CHAOTIC action. This paladin has not been LAWFUL, which is equally important to whether or not he's been good or evil. He was not lawful when he brought a sword to a fist fight. Not when he covered up that murder. Not when he refused an order from a duly appointed member of the law. He wasn't lawful when he failed to even try to work within the system to achieve his allegedly good aims. Not when he slaughtered said law enforcer. Not when he attempted to cover up the crime by slicing off the head and burning the body. There's been no time when this paladin has acted as Lawful Anything, even Lawful Stupid.

I've been exceedingly generous on whether this was an evil act or not by suggesting that Paladin of Freedom or Paladin of Slaughter would be an appropriate choice for the PC now. But the one thing this paladin is NOT is Lawful. And that means a class change or an atonement from celestials or religious superiors.

Lawful, in my opinion, is not following the law of the land, no matter who rules the land and what laws they are, but following clear principles and codes. Those codes can be "follow the law of the land as long as it's not evil, respect authoritiy as long as it's not evil", but they canalso be "Follow the law of the church, no matter where you are, respect authority but the church's authority is supreme" or even "Follow the code. Follow your God. Anything else comes after that."

Given how flimsy law can be, how law can change with ruler changes, I simply don't get why people expect a paladin - a champion of a god and/or its chruch - to follow laws of kings instead of divine law.

 

[Hammerhead]

So... Canada is evil? So is the United Kingdom?

Constitutional monarchies can work.

Neither Canada nor the UK are constitutional monarchies; the queen of England has no real power.

I'm with the PCs. If a dying woman just asked me to stop the bad guy from getting the child, my good-aligned PCs would try to stop him. What's the alternative, getting into a custody battle?

As far as burning the body, well, it's probably pretty smart to hide the evidence if you've just killed the king's right hand man. Stops Raise Dead, Speak With Dead, etc.