Law vs. Good - The paladin's dilemma (Advice needed)

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

So, as previously mentioned, my player characters ended up entering into a hostage exchange with a group of kobolds to ensure safe passage for both sides when both groups were visiting the area outside a dungeon for differing (and non-conflicting) reasons and wanted to achieve their goals and go home.

For reasons known only to the player's character, the gnome cleric volunteered to be the party's hostage, out of some strange delusion that he will be the gnomish Martin Luther King and bring the two races together.

The party's dwarf barbarian/druid (think a short and violent Grizzly Adams) and paladin are convinced the kobolds will stick to the letter of their deal and then either torture or murder the gnome after the deal expires. (The kobolds are, in fact, Lawful Evil worshippers of Tiamat and the plan was to stick to the deal, and then let the dire weasels that patrol their mountain chase the gnome all the way home in the dark. If they caught him, oh yeah, we forgot that we let the guard weasels out for the night. Whoopsie!)

The dwarf decided to charge the kobolds as they were leaving the area and the paladin decided to help. The paladin has thus reneged on an agreement entered into willingly by all parties, but for what he perceives to be the greater good.

How much doodoo is he in?

I'm thinking a stern talking-to from his mentor (he got one last time, for carousing with some folks he didn't realize were of pretty murky moral quality until later, and he's roleplaying trying to become the paladin he wants to be quite well) and, at most, an atonement quest that will send him (and like-minded adventurers from the pool of 10 player characters) off to the nearby haunted abbey to exorcise it.

 

[Warbringer]

The kobolds had no intention in honoring the deal, so no good faith.

Maybe a little angel whispered in his shell like...

No harm, no foul...This time

 

[Voadam]

I don't feel it is nearly enough to push him from lawful to neutral, and I don't feel it is a gross violation of the code or an evil act, so no mechanical consequences.

Socially when his mentor hears about it he could react a number of ways depending on the organization, the particular ideals of paladinhood in your game, and the mentor's personality and views.

 

[ceratitis]

i disagree, the kobolds being lawful intended to honour the deal to the letter. besides even if the paladin suspected they would break the deal he has no right to administer judgment before they actually did it.
i'd go with the atonement quest. its a good plot hook, its in order for he did break a deal but nothing too bad 'cos his heart was in the right place. also i believe people arent born paladins, they learn it along the way by facing moral dillemas like this one and learning how to do the right thing. maybe next time this player will work harder to come up with a solution that would serve the greater good without breaking the law or maybe he'll just smarten up and not agree to deals with kobolds
Z

p.s
you have read sep's story hour about the tales of wyre right?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Much like the paladin doesnt have to honor an unjust law, neither do they have to maintain an unjust bargain. I royally hate the code as written.

Best solution? Ditch the code entirely, and ask that your paladin player portray what he feels is "a good guy". Its a lot easier than worrying what the appropriate "punishment" for lying to the corrupt fire marshall in order to save a burning orphanage while not giving your +5 sword to the poor should be.

 

[Wolfwood2]

So, as previously mentioned, my player characters ended up entering into a hostage exchange with a group of kobolds to ensure safe passage for both sides when both groups were visiting the area outside a dungeon for differing (and non-conflicting) reasons and wanted to achieve their goals and go home.

For reasons known only to the player's character, the gnome cleric volunteered to be the party's hostage, out of some strange delusion that he will be the gnomish Martin Luther King and bring the two races together.

Can I say that I laughed out loud at the phrase, "gnomish Martin Luther King"?

The party's dwarf barbarian/druid (think a short and violent Grizzly Adams) and paladin are convinced the kobolds will stick to the letter of their deal and then either torture or murder the gnome after the deal expires. (The kobolds are, in fact, Lawful Evil worshippers of Tiamat and the plan was to stick to the deal, and then let the dire weasels that patrol their mountain chase the gnome all the way home in the dark. If they caught him, oh yeah, we forgot that we let the guard weasels out for the night. Whoopsie!)

The dwarf decided to charge the kobolds as they were leaving the area and the paladin decided to help. The paladin has thus reneged on an agreement entered into willingly by all parties, but for what he perceives to be the greater good.

I'd really say it was the dwarf who reneged, not the paladin. You say the paladin "decided to help", but what were his alternatives?

Was he supposed to just leave his ally to fight a bunch of evil creatures alone? Was he supposed to just stand around and wave his hands while shouting, "Nothing to do with me! Kill the dwarf! The dwarf!" (Which is realistically what it would take for the kobolds to even consider not attacking him.) That option strikes me as cowardly and wrong.

There's an old saying about two wrongs not making a right. The dwarf breaking the agreement was wrong (well, by the paladin's POV), but once the agreement is broken the paladin has to do the best he can with the situation at hand.

The dwarf is in for a talking-to afterwards, though.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

Oh boy, another "My Paladin did this naughty thing... " thread.

Hmmm... quite a dilema. If the Paladin didn't join in the fight his adventruing comrade could have been slain by the kobolds. But by doing it he isn't "Law"-ful.

Do what I do. Ditch "Lawful" altogether and use the true opposite of Chaos. That being "Order". Order aligned characters tend not to run into a situation without considering possible outcomes and planning an approach to get the best outcome possible. It has nothing to do with "Law" beyond the fact that the character tends to prefer cities and towns with enforced law since it creates Order.

An Order aligned Paladin might have planned on the Kobolds betraying the contract and could have taken steps to ensure that his own personal mission is accomplished regardless of what the kobolds do or don't do. Even if that involved betraying the Kobold so be it as long as the greater good (the Paladin's mission) is accomplished.

In the end it is up to the DM to make the call. If the diety is more strict then stick it to the Paladin. If it is a forgiving diety then be forgiving.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Best solution? Ditch the code entirely, and ask that your paladin player portray what he feels is "a good guy". Its a lot easier than worrying what the appropriate "punishment" for lying to the corrupt fire marshall in order to save a burning orphanage while not giving your +5 sword to the poor should be.

This player is a huge Superman fan. I'm just telling him to ask himself what Superman would do. The church hierarchy -- which is explicitly flawed and political -- doesn't always agree with that sort of morality, of course.

 

[WayneLigon]

I would say he should have to do some minor pennance assigned by his mentor as a lesson against giving his word frivilously.

 

[Hjorimir]

Opinion: Good > Law when the two conflict.

IMC paladins have to adhere to their God's law or way; the laws of mankind are secondary in all ways.