Help: Paladin putting group in danger...

[Myrmidon]

My latest campaign has been moving along nicely, but as the PCs enter mid-level the paladin has gotten it in his mind that he is invincible. The group's rogue has an enemy from his past, a high level monk who's been looking for him for years. Recently the group gained some noteriety and this drew the monk to the area, the rogue spotted him first, but while he tried to slip out the back way the rest of the team went to talk to the monk.
Obviously a fight ensued. I had hoped that the group would flee when they realized what a powerhouse the monk was. At worst he would kill the rogue, take what was stolen from him and go. When the rest of the group started saying it was time to run, the paladin refused. He said there is no way that a single person, no matter how powerful, can beat 4 people, no matter how weak. When the team said they were going to go anyway, the paladin said he would stay and die. Of course no one felt right about going after that.
In the end the rogue convinced the paladin that he had an idea, so they ran, having maybe 20 hp between them. But the rest of the night the paladin player pouted, professing that because of the aura of courage this is how paladins are supposed to act (personally I think he's got a bad case of Sturm envy).
I want to prove the point that sometimes you have to run, and I know that killing off his PC will come off as hevey handed. Plus he'll be too busy throwing his usual you-killed-my-character tantrum to learn a lesson.
Any advice.

 

[caudor]

I think you may be able to 'prove' that the party is outmatched by changing the villian's motivation just slightly. Just a suggestion, but here is what I would do:

The power-house...seeing that a weaker foe was standing against him might become curious (esp. if he has a high intelligence) rather than angry. He may suspect, that other than being fools, that the adventurers may be 'working' for someone they 'fear more' than him and want very much to find out who this person is. Or, he may just want to toy with them since they are not a real threat.

In either case, he may use subdual damage to disable and humiliate the entire party rather than kill...so he can question them later. Then when done; he'll leave this lackeys to deal with them.

The party will eventually catch on that he is a bad mama jama.

 

[ThorneMD]

Ahh, someone else has the same player I do. Here are some examples of how to deal with this annoying problem.

1. (this one works best in a dungeon, and if he is like my paladin "CHARGE") Separate the paladin from the rest of the group via fallen walls, portcullis, force walls, etc. (make these extra strong and thick), have the party deal with their own problem while the "all-powerful" paladin faces a 8-1 force (10-1 works nice as well).
If you want to be extra mean, a death trap works well with the spliting as well (water begins to fill room, air is sucked out, or poison gas fills the room, etc.)

2. Here is my favorite. My players are required to write a short
1-2 page character history. In either case, most people forget that paladins are Holy warriors (TSR messes things up by forgeting to think, and fills people with strange thoughts), they have to be lawful. I know they mean lawful good, but how then do you explain an evil God having Paladins. Anyway, if you allow the house rule that paladins have to be lawful (good or bad) having him face a paladin 1-1 of an evil god (i'm sure by this time he has managed to piss one off). And remember, evil baddies, even paladins, DON'T fight FAIR!!!

3. The ideas here are simply to take the "all-powerful" paladin and smack him on the head so many times that he eventually doesn't think he all that anymore.

My players have learned the hard way: that no matter how good you are, there is ALWAYS someone or something better *cackle with insane glee*

Hope this helps -- and please let me know what the look on his face was.

 

[maddman75]

He said there is no way that a single person, no matter how powerful, can beat 4 people, no matter how weak.

Seems that the paladin needs to learn that lawful good != lawful stupid. Apply a cluestick, liberally.

If you have to kill the paladin to make the player see this reality, then its for the greater good.

 

[caudor]

Seems that the paladin needs to learn that lawful good != lawful stupid. Apply a cluestick, liberally.

If you have to kill the paladin to make the player see this reality, then its for the greater good.

These are good ideas for sure. However, just be careful not to slip into DM versus player mode. If the players sense this then it might hurt the campaign. I say this because I've made that sort of mistake before.

I suggest giving the player a 'warning shot' across the bow before getting medieval on them. Have the villian make smart remarks while he beats the group to a pulp (subdual damage again). Warn that next time, 'he'll kill them'.

If the player does not 'catch on', then I think you'll just have to let the dice fall where they may. Be sure to lean of the rules as the arbitrator of death in this situation. Go out of your way to be neutral, but hold no punches when the time comes.

 

[Bhaal]

I agree on teaching him a lesson by simply letting the monk do what he does. It sounds like he'll take getting killed personally, even though he walked right into it. However disabling the Paladin via disarm, grapple, trip, stuns and subdual (stuff that monks excel at BTW) will put him in his place without killing him. Hopefully he'll catch on that a 4:1 ratio does not mean automatic victory, and also keep an emphasis that not all encounters are just slug matches. Keeping a window open for a peaceful solution for other PCs to use occasionally would help demonstrate this.

Also, in the fights where the paladin is stepping on the wrong toes and is about to get it, I'd suggest making the opponent's combat rolls out in the open so he can see them. If he still isn't catching on that this him simply losing to mechanics and not a vengeful DM, tell him the guy's AC and attack/damage numbers, so he can do the math himself and be assured you aren't fudging (also, try not to fudge at all in that fight or he'll never forget it). Hopefully he won't start complaining that you throw impossible stuff at him, as that's not a good sign.

 

[clark411]

I honestly don't see how bad this guy was for sticking to his guns like that. Unless his character is aware that this guy might be a high CR as a powerful monk who truly can tool everyone, it's not unreasonable to think that 4 on 1 is a decent battle, especially if he's able to justify his confidence in his somewhat lengthy career as an adventurer (being mid level). Unless the enemy monk did something like crush a rock in his bare hands or some other fair display the paladin could gauge his power with, it's not "stupid" at all to not pause to consider the CR of an enemy.

Dragons, giants, and things of that nature are truly OBVIOUSLY dangerous. Goblins + Kobolds, unless backed in the dozens, usually appear weak (good for surprising characters with skill based on levels). When it's just a human, elf, or dwarf, it's not unreasonable to have no idea that even 4 on 1 odds aren't good enough even in the best of circumstances.

Now if the monk was juggling taverns as he walked in, or impaled a random npc red shirt who was between him and the rogue with the flick of his wrist and his index finger.. then maybe I'd be like "Wakey Wakey Paladin boy." But as it was written, no- I see no reason to be fearful.

Trusting the rogue's evaluation of the monk with prior knowledge of him however, was something that does need addressing. Paladin fearlessness should not equate necessarily to a complete numbing of the flight aspect of the fight or flight responses. It's like Darwinistic leprosy in a sense if you can't tell that you'd be tooled by something under any circumstances. Aura of Courage simply allows it to not phase him at all. Immunity to fire means you are unburnt by fire when engulfed in it... Immunity to fear can be seen in the same light- you're no less aware that you should be fearful as you should be burning.

 

[Walter_J]

There's already plenty of advice on this one, so I'll offer something from a different angle.

I believe the GM's job is to create/present situation, moderate the game, and everything else except control the characters (except when magical compulsion comes into play and so forth.) In other words, I set up the scene and whatever happens, happens. I will admit that I will lean at times in favor of the players because a series of bad dice rolls can ruin the game for even the most skillful players, but that's an exception.

In the situation you presented, I wouldn't go out of my way to teach the paladin any particular lesson. Let the player handle his or her character however they see fit. I don't see anything wrong with what's going on in your campaign. Maybe the paladin, who probably has never been defeated, believes that with his faith and the power of his deity evil cannot triumph over him. If this attitude gets the party in "trouble", well, leave it to the party to get themselves out of it. And from what you've written, it sounds like that is exactly what happened. Sounds like good playing to me.

A big part of being a GM is earning keeping the player's trust. If you start going out of your to "Teach people a lesson" you might loose that trust and earn a reputation as an unfair GM.

Anyway, just some advice.

PS And if the paladin does get killed, what's wrong with raise dead? A paladin sent back to the realm of the living because the appropriate diety still has plans for him or her could add something to the campaign.

 

[Piratecat]

My bad guy was a monk, too. He would try to catch PCs when they were separated from the rest of the group. Then he would beat one person unconscious. The next day that person would be found unconscious (subdual) in an embarrassing public place, naked and shaved and branded, stripped of magic items that the monk had given away to poor people.

Oooh, they hated that guy - and the monk had an equally big chip on his shoulder, too.

The point is, subdual damage is a great thing. Make sure you use it; it makes players nervous!

 

[Guilt Puppy]

I say, if he understands the consequences of his actions, let him take them. If he doesn't, then tell him to take it as evidence of the fact that not all foes are made to be defeated.

I played a CG paladin/barbarian homebrew recently, and went a similar route as this player... Total uber-heroic bravado, always running to keep ahead of my group and be the first one into combat. I knew that it was risky, and accepted that... Going toe to toe with Fire Giants while the rest of the party was off handling the "weaker foes" was a blast. Sometimes having a character with no fear of death is fun -- never backing down from a fight if you knew you had a fighting chance to uphold what was right -- but that also means that you should be ready as a player in case it does happen.

Of course, characters like that can be a bad thing if it's detrimental to the group... While I'd get myself into situations I might not survive, I never took risks with the other characters' lives. It doesn't look like your player is doing that, though -- he did offer to stay and die on his feet.

Only potential problem I can see is if it's a chronic thing with the player (being careless with his characters' lives)... Introducing new characters (or constantly resurrecting the same damn one) slows down the game, and breaks down the sense of realism a little.

I'd suggest having a talk with the player, just to make sure he's up to speed on the kind of consequences there can be for playing that type of character, and the responsibility it carries (putting other characters at risk.) If it fits your game better, ask one of the other players to bring it up in character: Just make sure it's non-confrontational, and not critical... Don't make it seem like you think they're doing something wrong, (for one, from what I've read they aren't, although a lot of that varies depending on your gaming standards), just let it be friendly advice.