Oh silly PCs, what hast thou wrought?

[Heathen72]

One of the new PCs is a lawful evil cleric who likes to make zombies out of all the bodies the crew leaves behind. The rest are all lawful neutral or lawful good. I told the players that I'd allow the LE character as long as everybody assumes the party has come to a sort of equilibrium with each other. The good characters are at peace with the evil character and have found a way and a reason to work together...
<snip>
...My point with the funeral was simply to hammer home the notion that the stuff the PCs do (good and bad) have consequences. Well, the LG paladin (why is it always these guys) basically ratted out his party member to the local church.

Silly PC's? Silly GM in my opinion for allowing a paladin and a less-than-subtly evil cleric in the same group, and then applying real consequences for the actions of the characters! If you want the party to last, it has to be cartoon or comedy reality at best!

You say that it was okay as long as everyone assumes a sort of equilibrium has been established in the party, but you didn't indicate what that meant. Did it mean the evil character pulling his head in (you say he is Lawful Evil - though his actions don't seem to reflect that) or the Paladin turning an unpaladinly blind eye to his actions. Without knowing what the ground rules were, there was no way it was ever going to last.

I am not saying that it won't be fun to play out, or it's not a good game by the way. Just that, from the sound of it, it's your fault!

 

[pawsplay]

Got to disagree with those who want to take the paladin down right away. What the paladin did was stupid, not evil. I would hope that the player takes the opportunity to play up the paladin's remorse and begin working damn hard to make amends.

Talk to the player, how would they feel about a temporary fall from grace? Is there some act or penance the paladin could undertake during the conflict with the oncoming horde? MAybe rescuing a small child from certain death at great cost in hit points to themself. Maybe rescue the wife/mother of the deceased? And she does not forgive the pally, but harangues them the whole way.

I think situations like this should be used to give the paladin's player a chance to role play rather than be a chance to punish them with game mechanics.

As for the original question: I think Raven Crowking has it spot one.

Game mechanics? The LE cleric used an Evil spell to create undead. Whatever dispensation for necessary evil may have been earned was lost when the paladin stood by as the cleric turned his creations loose without regard for the consequences. The paladin should be fallen, to the point they might want to consider becoming a Blackguard and teaming up with the (slightly) Lawful (very) Evil cleric. Otherwise it's atonement time.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Pawsplay, re. atonement or, as you prefer it, atonement. This is what I was in fact suggesting. I merely suggested it be done through roleplaying rather than a simple game mechanic. It's a question of play style. Of course each to their own.

Also, I got the impression from the OP that the group is kinda new. Heavy handed isn't really called for. Better to go the lighter touch: a discussion of expectations and of course the chance to play out the scenario.

cheers.

 

[Scott DeWar]

Got to disagree with those who want to take the paladin down right away. What the paladin did was stupid, not evil. I would hope that the player takes the opportunity to play up the paladin's remorse and begin working damn hard to make amends.

Talk to the player, how would they feel about a temporary fall from grace? Is there some act or penance the paladin could undertake during the conflict with the oncoming horde? Maybe rescuing a small child from certain death at great cost in hit points to himself. Maybe rescue the wife/mother of the deceased? And she does not forgive the pally, but harangues them the whole way.

I think situations like this should be used to give the paladin's player a chance to role play rather than be a chance to punish them with game mechanics.

As for the original question: I think Raven Crowking has it spot one.

emphasis is mine in above quote, I would have to say that the first amends shoud be to take out the zombies that were loosed. Then the Pally should defend the city , with out forcing his / her fellows to help, and any loot captured/collected to be turned over to the temple. the fine of 2000 gp should still be paid to the family out of the pc's own 'purse'.IMHO

the other emphasized portion I really like too.

 

[wolff96]

One of the new PCs is a lawful evil cleric who likes to make zombies out of all the bodies the crew leaves behind. The rest are all lawful neutral or lawful good. I told the players that I'd allow the LE character as long as everybody assumes the party has come to a sort of equilibrium with each other. The good characters are at peace with the evil character and have found a way and a reason to work together, vise versa.

Just have to comment how amused I was at this one. I recently played through Red Hand of Doom.

Our party was a LOT lower on the moral spectrum, but had reasons to help things along anyway. For instance, my CN cleric (who had designs on lichdom) had heard rumors of the Ghost Lord and was looking help in realizing his goals.

My CN cleric was a hell of a lot more responsible with my created undead than the LE was in your game... Really cracked me up. And just in case anyone other than me cares: I did achieve my goal, dropping to CE and becoming a lich, after we saved the area.

 

[Raven Crowking]

"Once upon a time, there was a shepherd who was charged with watching a flock high upon the mountain passes. And, as the hours passed by, he was lulled by the sun and the sound of the wind, 'til he fell asleep. When he awoke, it was to discover that two of his charges -- an ewe and her lamb -- had been taken by a wolf.

"Woe is me! said the shepherd. For this is the fault of the wolf.

"But the sheep were not fooled, for the shepherd had been set there to be watchful among them.

"Woe is me! said the shepherd. For this is the fault of the sun and the wind, for lulling me from watchfulness!

"But the gods were not fooled, for the sun is the sun and the wind is the wind, and neither bright rays nor pleasant breeze steps between a man and his duty.

"As the shepherd thought of these things, he at last hung his head. Woe is me, he said, for the fault is mine. And he guarded the remainder of the sheep faithfully until it was time to return them to their pens. Then he took his bow and his quiver, and sought the wolf among the high pastures, until either he or the wolf or the world were ended.

"Still he searches for his foe in the high places, and you can see him yet in the night sky. Those bright stars form his belt.

"For duty done faithfully is honour, and to fail in one's duty is to fall from grace."

The old priest smiled sadly at his charges.

"Do you understand this story? Or must I be more blunt in its telling?"

 

[haakon1]

Nicely done, Raven Crowking.

 

[Kraydak]

Game mechanics? The LE cleric used an Evil spell to create undead. Whatever dispensation for necessary evil may have been earned was lost when the paladin stood by as the cleric turned his creations loose without regard for the consequences. The paladin should be fallen, to the point they might want to consider becoming a Blackguard and teaming up with the (slightly) Lawful (very) Evil cleric. Otherwise it's atonement time.

Absurd. Flat out absurd. When the DM allowed the Evil cleric into the party, he explicitly or more probably implicitly not merely gave the paladin carte-blanche to turn a blind eye to the cleric's misdeeds, but rather explicitly implicitly instructed the paladin to ignore them flat-out. Anything else would be dishonest. More loosely, the DM made the (again probably implicit) statement that no real problems would come from the cleric's actions, unless the cleric was really asking for it, in which case the DM would need to give clear warning. Remember: the DM is, clearly, making exceptions to the normal rules here. Players cannot guess where the DM will draw the line.

I'm guessing that here the DM gave merely hinted warnings that he *thought* the players *had* to pickup on, but they didn't. So the lesson here is twofold:
firstly, never, ever, assume that the players will pickup on hints.
secondly, if such a situation should come to unfold, it is the DM's fault and no negative consequences should hit the players.

 

[Glade Riven]

I like the weregild idea. Since the PCs have quite a bit of wealth, make 'em pay up and then go clean up the zombie infestation.

 

[Raven Crowking]

When the DM allowed the Evil cleric into the party, he explicitly or more probably implicitly not merely gave the paladin carte-blanche to turn a blind eye to the cleric's misdeeds, but rather explicitly implicitly instructed the paladin to ignore them flat-out. Anything else would be dishonest.

This is the fallacy of the excluded middle. Either the GM must be fully restrictive, or must offer carte-blanche.

I would agree that the GM offered the paladin the right to travel with the evil cleric, explicitly, but that doesn't mean carte-blanche to evil. What it should have meant is cunning on the part of the cleric, and, possibly, a chance that either the cleric can be redeemed or the paladin turned.

if such a situation should come to unfold, it is the DM's fault and no negative consequences should hit the players.

Absurd. Flat out absurd.





RC