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

[Fenes]

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

Constitutional monarchies can work.

I am talking about real monarchies, as in "King says what goes" style. Any system where the monarch has executive power by virtue of his or her birth (like Liechtenstein) is evil. Queen Elizabeth II however is not the government or executive of the UK.

 

[Fenes]

Incorrect!

Let's go back to the OP.



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]

If I read "The arbiter doesn't feel the need to explain", I assume that the arbiter was not receptive to verbal questions. That, for me, rules diplomacy as a tool right out. Zone of truth and similar stuff also fails since there is no explanation to check.

And I vehemently disagree with a paladin being sworn to work within a system under all but evil tyrants - I say that his divine mandate takes precedence.

I assume the dialogue went more like

Paladin: Sir, I once again ask you to explain yourself. I cannot simply hand over a child to you when its dieing mother asked me not to.
Arbiter: I will take the child.
Paladin Player: Can I roll diplomacy?
DM: He doesn't react.
Paladin: Sir, explain yourself, or leave, but you will not get the child like this.
Arbiter: I will take the child.
Paladin: I will not allow this.

 

[roguerouge]

If I read "The arbiter doesn't feel the need to explain", I assume that the arbiter was not receptive to verbal questions. That, for me, rules diplomacy as a tool right out. Zone of truth and similar stuff also fails since there is no explanation to check.

And I vehemently disagree with a paladin being sworn to work within a system under all but evil tyrants - I say that his divine mandate takes precedence.

I agree that the diplomacy roll would be a DM judgment call. As a DM, if the player made a big argument/speech, I'd let him roll a diplomacy check to see if he nudges the arbiter from the "Hostile" setting. If there's a success, then, yeah, he starts talking to you.

But even if the DM doesn't rule that way, there's no way that I'd say that the player response would be described as inevitable, rather than horrifically played.

Why on earth didn't the paladin use his detect evil ability? (I assume he didn't use it on the mother, so we also have no idea if the MOTHER was evil, which was also a possibility. And kudos to her if she was. Good show!)

Why didn't the paladin use sense motive? That's a class skill for him, just as much as diplomacy.

Why didn't the paladin use knowledge: nobility and royalty to get a scrap of information about this guy? It's his one knowledge skill.

He also didn't use the campaign-specific options: talk to a religious superior, insist on taking this situation to court, have the sorcerer gather info on the Arbiter before he gets there, and he didn't press the case in the legal system.

He didn't ask the cleric at the birth of the children to cast Augury, Zone of Truth, or get divine guidance through other spells.

In short, he has no information that the child would even be in danger rather than unhappy and badly parented. And, however, much you disapprove, you don't kill a man for that. That's why the paladin has diplomacy and sense motive on his list. So, the "punish those who harm or threaten innocents" clause can't come into play.

And, for our purposes, we don't have to argue about the paladin's divine mandate and how it fits into secular society structures. 'Cause my basic point was that paladins are presumed to have some respect for the law, which this incident and his past history indicate a profound disrespect for divine and secular laws. (There's no way that bringing a sword to a fist fight that you and your buddies started respects a divine mandate.)

And I can't wait to hear how he explains to the little girl and little boy that he murdered their father, cut off his head, and burned his body. One would imagine that such a tale would be... emotionally scarring, to say the least. Especially since one of their first questions is going to be "Why did mommy not like daddy?" And his response is going to be, "You know what? I never bothered to find out."

Verdict: Not Lawful. Get a new paladin alternate class or get an atonement.

 

[roguerouge]

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

Have you been to this thread: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=223473

 

[Fenes]

Have you been to this thread: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=223473

There's a difference between having the right to elect one's government, and having a say in what is a private virtual area one chooses to join as a guest.

On topic: One does not know if the paladin did not use sense motive, or simialr things. I'd ask though why the arbiter did not use sense motive, bluff, or anything else to avoid getting killed. And if he lacks those skills, how on earth did he do his job?

 

[Kalis]

Why on earth didn't the paladin use his detect evil ability? (I assume he didn't use it on the mother, so we also have no idea if the MOTHER was evil, which was also a possibility. And kudos to her if she was. Good show!)

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.

Why didn't the paladin use sense motive? That's a class skill for him, just as much as diplomacy.

Why didn't the paladin use knowledge: nobility and royalty to get a scrap of information about this guy? It's his one knowledge skill.

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.

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.

He also didn't use the campaign-specific options: talk to a religious superior, insist on taking this situation to court, have the sorcerer gather info on the Arbiter before he gets there, and he didn't press the case in the legal system.

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

He didn't ask the cleric at the birth of the children to cast Augury, Zone of Truth, or get divine guidance through other spells.

In short, he has no information that the child would even be in danger rather than unhappy and badly parented. And, however, much you disapprove, you don't kill a man for that. That's why the paladin has diplomacy and sense motive on his list. So, the "punish those who harm or threaten innocents" clause can't come into play.

They tried a little diplomacy and to get information from the guy. He basically told them to "Shut it", cause he's an untouchable Arbiter and they are nobodies(from a legal perspective) to him. Again, they see him as Darth Vader coming for baby Luke and being a jerk about it.

And, for our purposes, we don't have to argue about the paladin's divine mandate and how it fits into secular society structures. 'Cause my basic point was that paladins are presumed to have some respect for the law, which this incident and his past history indicate a profound disrespect for divine and secular laws.

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.

And I can't wait to hear how he explains to the little girl and little boy that he murdered their father, cut off his head, and burned his body. One would imagine that such a tale would be... emotionally scarring, to say the least. Especially since one of their first questions is going to be "Why did mommy not like daddy?" And his response is going to be, "You know what? I never bothered to find out."

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.

Verdict: Not Lawful. Get a new paladin alternate class or get an atonement.

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.

 

[billd91]

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.

Actually, they do. They need to atone for any evil act or act that grossly violates the code of conduct... which requires that they respect legitimate authority. So, whatever game these players want, the paladin player has taken his character into territory that endangers his powers.
You might argue that he did so to protect the innocent, but upholding one part of the code while violating the other shouldn't make the character immune to the need for some form of atonement. Particularly when the evidence that the innocent was actually threatened is sketchy.

Ultimately, I think the player made the wrong choice of character type to play for the style of play he wants. If he persists in wanting to play a paladin, he should take the restrictions with the powers as fairly adjudicated by the DM. If he doesn't want the restrictions, he should reboot the character.

 

[robertliguori]

Actually, they do. They need to atone for any evil act or act that grossly violates the code of conduct... which requires that they respect legitimate authority. So, whatever game these players want, the paladin player has taken his character into territory that endangers his powers.
You might argue that he did so to protect the innocent, but upholding one part of the code while violating the other shouldn't make the character immune to the need for some form of atonement. Particularly when the evidence that the innocent was actually threatened is sketchy.

Ultimately, I think the player made the wrong choice of character type to play for the style of play he wants. If he persists in wanting to play a paladin, he should take the restrictions with the powers as fairly adjudicated by the DM. If he doesn't want the restrictions, he should reboot the character.

Define 'legitimate authority'. The principle of authority and law is to serve the public trust. Doing this requires equality and a sense of fairness and justice. The Arbiter's failure to recuse himself from this situation on account of conflict of interest (or even explain his actions) means that he was by definition not acting as legitimate authority. In the Paladin-view of the world, great authority carries with it inherently great responsibility; the Arbiter's attempt to use his granted authority for personal business was a violation of that responsibility, and de facto abdication of authority on his part. Evil or not, the paladin's obligation to give him the time of day ended there.

Also, if the head-of-state status of the king is a problem, all the paladin needs to do is declare all the lands and waters of the Prime to be under his dominions as benevolent ruler and protector. Now he's the lawful authority.

Now, he could well have been simply inarticulate, and had no malign intentions towards the child. Indeed, caution should have been exercised on the part of the party, since this is family stuff and people can be strange about family stuff. However, there was certainly a reasonable doubt that handing over the child to the Arbiter would have resulted in evil.

So, IMC, no first-degree code violation. Whether or not it was an actual code violation depends on whether or not the Arbiter actually was malign.

Also, in 3.XE, paladins do not serve gods or churches. They serve Goodness, full-stop. If the will of the church or even the gods goes against Goodness, then the churches and the gods just lost themselves some followers. In D&D, Good is an actual, tangible, quasi-sentient force in the universe, and is not subject to redefinition by anyone (other than the GM, who is not a force in the universe).

 

[haakon1]

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

They absolutely are constitutional monarchies, as are Belgium, Norway, Australia, etc.

And as I pointed out, even a monarch not limited by a parliament or a constitution can be good. Bhutan is an excellent example of this, though in the last few weeks he recently decided that his people should have democracy and required them to form two parties to have an election.

What's the alternative, getting into a custody battle?

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.

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.

Stops Raise Dead is what makes it extra evil, IMHO. Not just dead, but super dead.

 

[haakon1]

I am talking about real monarchies, as in "King says what goes" style. Any system where the monarch has executive power by virtue of his or her birth (like Liechtenstein) is evil. Queen Elizabeth II however is not the government or executive of the UK.

No, but she is the Head of State. And in time of constitutional crisis, she would be in charge. In the 1960s, the British had a plan for military/royal takeover from the elected leaders, much like the recent coup in Thailand, if the 1968 disturbances led to a communist takeover.

I must admit, I've never seen anyone say the ruler of Liechtenstein is evil. I'll have to read about Liechtenstein! If you said the Sultan of Brunei, I would see your point, but it's the guy, not the constitutional situation, in that case.