Killing innocents - a paladin thread in disguise ;-)

[Thia Halmades]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. The purpose of the argument isn't whether she did the "good" thing, it's whether she did the "right" thing. That's part of the beauty of this scenario. I submit, the moment your Paladin can't convince a normal that they are, in fact, a Soldier of [Your Deity Here], and must, by rule, be LG, you have a serious breach in world design. IMC, that just doesn't happen. Paladins border on being Rock Stars at times, because they are rare, and the group as a whole is generally well known and a respected branch of the church. The Pally IMC does his best to not draw attention to himself for that reason alone.

And, I may be reading too much into this, but it seems to me, Gothic Demon, that you're putting words in the Paladin's mouths. Who's to say they aren't, deep down, relieved that the problem was handled? You're being wrongfully imprisoned on false orders by a bunch of idiots who are ready to get fireballed despite how they want their steak cooked. They ordered medium rare; they got well done. I'm not saying what Thanee did was good; I'm saying that in the structure for my campaign, what she did would have been backed up 100% by the DM (i.e., me). I've put my PCs in those positions before and they opted to not tarnish themselves, and allowed themselves to be captured, which set up a whole different scene.

Had a Paladin tac-nuked the room, oh, bam, loss of powers. Instantly. Paladins are held to an extremely high standard, and if one person was guilty, that doesn't allow them to waste the other two without PROVING that they're guilty. Thanee didn't panick so much as guarantee that there were no arguments left to be made. Fwackoom. Insofar as the crew, at this point, is IDIOTIC ENOUGH to somehow manage to believe that a Paladin, a Druid (!!) and a Sorceress are PIRATES I have yet to figure out. I side with railroading on this one; c'mon, give the NPCs some common freaking sense.

 

[diaglo]

The remaining crew actually thinks we are pirates. Altho, that's really completely stupid.

Even after giving the now highest ranked among them full control over the ship and telling him, that he can choose what we do now (I only asked of him not to try to put us in chains, like his captain, because I cannot let this happen) and offered any help we can give.

Bye
Thanee

see for me... as a rat bastard referee.... i would place the burden more on the actions after the event than during. i would have worked out 2 or more scenarios ahead of time for each PC. since i would've taken them each individual aside as was presented.

and since the first 2 didn't kill the captain, the first mate, guards, and cleric it next fell to Dread Pirate Thanee.

the action during the event and the explanation of it of course would have made things move towards one scenario or another. 1) do you wish to be thrown in irons a) no b) yes.
2) since you chose a. will we have to force you. a) no b) yes.
and so on...

until the inevitable BOOMMMmm.

now, does the PC show remorse for having just slain what most likely are innocent pawns? does the PC go on a killing rampage and boom the rest of the crew, the passengers, her friends? what does she take? what are her orders afterwards?

the where does it go from here scenario.

 

[Gothic_Demon]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. The purpose of the argument isn't whether she did the "good" thing, it's whether she did the "right" thing. That's part of the beauty of this scenario.

I agree, which is why I stated at the foot of my supposition why I felt this was the wrong choice, rather than an evil act.

I submit, the moment your Paladin can't convince a normal that they are, in fact, a Soldier of [Your Deity Here], and must, by rule, be LG, you have a serious breach in world design. IMC, that just doesn't happen.

As you said, in your campaign this doesn't happen, but it could and would in mine. Also, look at Eberron, where priests can completely go against the tenets of their faith and still get spells.

And, I may be reading too much into this, but it seems to me, Gothic Demon, that you're putting words in the Paladin's mouths. Who's to say they aren't, deep down, relieved that the problem was handled?

Had a Paladin tac-nuked the room, oh, bam, loss of powers. Instantly.

You can't genuinely say that such an action would instantly cause loss of paladin powers, yet it's fine for a Paladin to say "Thank [insert god] you did that, I would've been booted out of the order for an action like that!"

Thanee didn't panick so much as guarantee that there were no arguments left to be made. Fwackoom. Insofar as the crew, at this point, is IDIOTIC ENOUGH to somehow manage to believe that a Paladin, a Druid (!!) and a Sorceress are PIRATES I have yet to figure out. I side with railroading on this one; c'mon, give the NPCs some common freaking sense.

By ignoring the assumption that a Paladin is a stand-up, known by everyone to be completely pure and honest and trustworthy kind of guy/gal and the assumption that any Tom, Dick or Harry commoner can tell the difference between a Paladin and a fighter or cleric in platemail (which I think is implicit in the scenario, or it wouldn't be a scenario), then how exactly is the captain an idiot?
From the captains point of view, he has four people on board, two of whom would like everyone to know are Paladins, but could in fact be liars. These people have seemingly been poisoning the other passengers (and the vial of poison is enough evidence of that), and of course their ministrations couldn't help everyone...
These people look guilty, and by fireballing the captain they now look even more guilty. Beyond that, the other crew and passengers, who might have supported them previously, are now sure they're evil nasty pieces of work, and their support is gone. They're on their own, and they'd better hope they can catch the killer and prove it wasn't them. Certainly not a good situation to be in.

Ergo, I posit again that the choice to fireball the captain was a bad choice. It was the wrong decision.

 

[Thia Halmades]

A Paladin can be relieved without having taken action; that doesn't go against the grain. Just because you couldn't do it, doesn't mean you aren't happy that you had some sort of resolution.

Point Yielded: The plot was likely built with the capture of the PCs in mind. Further yielded: people can be convinced of a great many things. However, I don't see how bull-headedness, especially for a man who's used to resolving disputes & hearing both sides of the argument, makes sense. It wasn't my NPC, though, I'm simply speaking from where I stand in general in regards to NPC design. As I said, IMC the NPCs wouldn't have gotten nuked, because the PCs are in direct employ of the military & the Empire proper. They'd've found another way around the problem.

My argument sustains: This does sound like railroading. I, the DM, want you to do this and go here, and nothing you say or do can change my mind. From a player standpoint that's insanely frustrating.

I further sustain: I can't say the choice was wrong. I can say the act itself was evil, and I specifically said it left the realm of alignment, and that were the Paladin the one doing it, it's a power loss. Further, if Thanee is brought up on charges (say... Murder 1) than the Paladin can no longer associate with her (known criminal) and further would have to bring her to justice (Code of Law). But that depends as much on the campaign structure as the characters.

I'm not saying the Pally wouldn't be upset, or possibly disgusted, but I've seen my party Pally react when someone goes utterly against the grain, and all he can do is let the law resolve it. Now if you really want to get this down to the nitty gritty, you could easily play out the scenario as:

Thanee: Okay, I tac-nuked the room, but it's okay, I warned them first.
Pally: Great. Well, we're in international waters now, and the boat no longer flies flags. I'm glad you got us out of that, but there were probably better ways to do it. Speaking of which, I'm going to arrest you once we hit land.
Thanee: But... wait, what?
Pally: Arrest. For murder. You were on his boat, you had no evidence, and while it's possible you killed our erstwhile killer, you killed the Captain and a crewman, any of whom could have been innocent, in the process. I have to let the court decide your fate.

I maintain (having reread my post) that they really aren't pirates. Murderers, maybe. Pirates, unlikely. Pirates usually take the ship. And, to further clarify, I'm simply counter-pointing the devil's advocacy; I'm not saying the Paladin WOULD be relieved, I'm saying they MIGHT be. That the possibility exists, that they may choose not to punish Thanee because they believe (and their God may agree, they may not) that the right thing was done, despite it being an evil act.

However, Gothic Demon, you make some excellent points, and I absolutely see where you're coming from, and as such am willing to revise my stance. Well played. I hadn't yet touched on the consequences of the actions; I was still thinking in terms of grand scope. The short game matters as well. Thanks for reminding me of that.

 

[Gothic_Demon]

However, Gothic Demon, you make some excellent points, and I absolutely see where you're coming from, and as such am willing to revise my stance. Well played. I hadn't yet touched on the consequences of the actions; I was still thinking in terms of grand scope. The short game matters as well. Thanks for reminding me of that.

Thank you. I have to admit I agree with the piracy bit. There just aren't enough of them to really be pirates, although it's not a huge overstretch.

I'd love to see Thanee's point of view. Do you (Thanee) think you did the right thing?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Insofar as the crew, at this point, is IDIOTIC ENOUGH to somehow manage to believe that a Paladin, a Druid (!!) and a Sorceress are PIRATES I have yet to figure out.

Hey, I've played a Druid Pirate before!

-Hyp.

 

[Endur]

They killed the captain of the ship; they must be pirates!

Seriously... I think alot depends on the customs of your campaign world.

In some cultures, the captain of a ship is 100% in charge of the ship. Refusal to follow his orders would be a very serious crime. Not to mention killing the captain.

In other cultures, the captain is not as strong of an authority figure. Is the Captain a representative of the King of the Land? Is he a higher level Noble than the PCs?

Furthermore, there may be a distinction between a passenger on a ship, for whom the captain is more responsible to than a crewmember.

The tying up issue is hard. On the one hand, the GM may be planning to cut the throats of the paranoid players. On the other hand, the GM might have a long involved Roleplaying scene that requires having the paranoid players taken prisoner.

A lot depends on your GM. Is your GM the type to take the opportunity to eliminate the foolish players by cutting their throats? Or is he more likely to have the villain gloat about his evil scheme before leaving the players in a over-complicated diabolical death trap?

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Hmmm...

Hi Thanee,

It was an interesting situation the DM put you in; he/she really forced your hand. Some comments though (all of which are simply opinion):
- In terms of good and evil, the spells a sorceress has up their sleeve says a lot about who they are as a person (much more so than a wizard). The fact that your PC did not have peaceful arcance alternatives perhaps represents her view on how to deal with situations.
- While your PC had a little room to move, the paladin most likely did not while the exalted druid would have had even less. An exalted character given several options must always choose the "goodest" one. In this situation, the exalted druid could not have done something bad (killing people) in trying to do the greater good. The Book of Exalted Deeds is quite explicit on this.
- As for your character's situation, a good character trying to do a good act would not have gone the fireball option. [As I said before, the fact that your character did not have other options reflects on the character]. A neutral character trying to do good would have done as she did, delay and warn but in the end, go through with the act if met with resistance. In the end though, it was obviously not a good act. An evil character simply would have blasted away, possibly delaying before doing so. However, with an evil character, there would have been no element of remorse.
- In the end, with the fireball having killed, I guess the only option for a good or exalted character trying to do the most good would have funded the reincarnation/raising of the killed captain and crew. An expensive exercise. However, note that realistically in a generic campaign, only certain paladins or exalted characters would have gone to these lengths.

In the end, your character did not have too many options at hand. Your PC certainly did not do the best thing possible, but nor did she do the worst.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[EdL]

If she'd let them chain her up the bad guys would have been in possession of the stones (all but one) that would allow them to do really Bad Things!
All other considerations are irrelevent.

So how did the party get on board the ship without it becoming common knowledge that there were TWO paladins with them?

 

[Thanee]

- In terms of good and evil, the spells a sorceress has up their sleeve says a lot about who they are as a person (much more so than a wizard). The fact that your PC did not have peaceful arcance alternatives perhaps represents her view on how to deal with situations.

Oh, she absolutely has many spells, which are more peaceful, like Charm Person, Ray of Enfeeblement, or Slow, but none of them would have been useful in the situation, I would have needed something to put them out without killing them, there aren't a whole lot of spells, that really do that.

Bye
Thanee