NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6686641" data-attributes="member: 6681948">But she IS Evil.  Can we make a deal with Evil?  Can we untie her if she promises not to attack?  Or is it only OK if the Paladin unilaterally unties her with no commitments/deals?  The answer, I suspect, is that your “No deals with Evil” position is not as restrictive as saying the words outside the context of the specific deals is, as your comments on the slaver bear out.Would a better summation be “No compromises in dealing with Evil?”  That is, we may be able to reach some kind of agreement, but not if it compromises the principals of the Paladin, including his LG alignment?  So leaving the Witch alone with her Ogre henchmen to do evil to someone else instead of the town was not acceptable.Again, I come back to whether her crimes are known with certainty, and what the Law of the Land would say of this.  A bound criminal, condemned to death, has to be executed by someone.  Does this mean that “someone” must be of non-LG alignment?  I would agree that, as she is bound, there is no pressing urgency to her execution, so if any doubt exists as to her guilt, the issue merits full investigation.  I am still waiting for a statement of what he should have done, rather than what he should not have done.  We have the evil sorceress tied to a stake.  If we leave her there, she likely either starves or gets loose to carry on her evil ways.  While I agree, I suspect we haven’t gone to full group consensus    Still, small victories merit celebration!I think the issue I have here is not seeing a great deal of difference between killing the helpless KO’d target (Colour Spray or what have you), killing the fellow bleeding out and killing the tied sorceress, presuming that the tied sorceress is at least as guilty of verifiable crimes/evil acts as the orcs we targeted in self-defense.  Let’s make them Brigands so we don’t have the added complication of “irredeemably evil or free-willed”.  And, if anything, a swift death seems preferable to leaving her to starve.A very royal “we”.  I am thinking of those “paladin dilemma” games where there is no choice he can make which will not be “bad Paladin – go atone” if not “smack – you’re a fighter”.  It’s a game where choosing the moral high ground – the white among shades of grey – is character suicide that I object to.I defer to the GM of the game.  Seems like their perception was “deal or die”, with the town falling next.  I would suggest that, in steeldragons’ game, some other option would present itself (Paladin is not in a no-lose situation, although the third option may not thrill him), where as in Whizbang’s, the answer may be that there were no other options, so the choice made was a reasonable one, and therefore the Paladin was not penalized for taking the best course of action available.I’d prefer to avoid the retcon as well, but if the answer reached is “striking her down was a clearly inappropriate act as anyone with knowledge of the Code or the culture would know”, backing it out would be a reasonable solution.  Stepping back to wipe out the deal?  I don’t see that as practical, even if it were desirable – it would have too many ripples to retcon.It seems we agree more than we disagree.  I suspect if we sat at the same table, rather than just exchanging comments online, we’d have reconciled a lot of terminology already and be pretty much on the same page.  More than enough to be back to the game.</blockquote>

Verification