Paladin of Torm / PCs Frustrated with Cormyr

[dreaded_beast]

I really hate starting paladin threads, so if anyone comments, please keep it civil and clean.

I'm running a campaign, where the party is composed of Lawful Good characters, including a paladin of Torm. The campaign has been taking place in the Tilverton, a city on the edge of Cormyr. The city has a garrison of Purple Dragons, the military, where they enforce a large number of laws, that tend to get in the way of the PCs adventuring activities, such as need to register as an adventuring company, paying for "adventuring writs" to go explore the sewers, and recently telling the PCs to stay away from some ruins in town. In addition, they see the Purple Dragons as ineffective due the number of times the PCs have been attacked in the streets of Tilverton. The PCs have also taken offense at the Purple Dragons, since the Purple Dragons blame the PCs for bringing trouble to the streets, claiming the PCs presence is an instigator for trouble.

While the party has not actually done anything "chaotic" or "non-lawful", they are starting to express a growing dislike of the laws of Cormyr and Purple Dragons in town, making comments of how Cormyr laws are not really for the good of the people, but for the sake of making laws, etc., especially the Paladin of Torm. However, they follow the laws when told to by the Purple Dragons, but there is always grumbling and backtalk.

One difficulty is that I am not sure if such an "attitude" is acceptable by a paldin of Torm. On the otherhand, this could be considered "roleplaying" and I don't want to penalize the player for "roleplaying". As I said before, the PCs have not done anything "chaotic" or "unlawful". In addition, I believe the PCs have a right to get annoyed by all the bureacracy in place, but some of the laws in Cormyr are really for the benefit of the people, but even those the PCs seem to dislike.

At this point, I'm not sure if the dislike of the laws is entirely "roleplay" or if it is mainly the actually players expressing their frustration by out-of-character comments. However, a few times, the paladin would make a snide remark about the laws, ending it with "I don't say that out loud". When I ask him why he dislikes the laws so much, he states that because he believes that the laws in place get in the way of the good the PCs could do, such as clearing the sewers of evil monsters and such. I am a bit worried that his dislike is not mainly because it hinders "acts of good deeds", but is just a hinderance overall.

I don't want to penalize the characters for "roleplaying" a certain way, especially if they haven't "done" anything wrong, just having a "difference of opinion". However, I am not sure exactly if this is OK for a paladin of torm, and lawful PCs, to be so against the laws.

Hope this made sense, hope to hear some comments.

 

[babomb]

Hi,

I think a Paladin of Torm being annoyed with lawful-neutral types is a perfectly reasonable and good. He should follow the laws when it does not conflict with his personal code (which you've worked out with him in advance, right? ). Ideally, he should do so without grumble or back-talk, but even paladins have personality flaws. (In fact, flaws in a paladin are even more important than in other characters.) He could instead try to work to reform the laws if possible, or maybe express concern to the guards that the law works against the common good and thereby possibly convince them to overlook an infraction. But, again, even paladins aren't perfect, and his attitude problem is generally within acceptable limits. If it gets worse, maybe he can get a warning.

It may be that your players hate the laws, or that they love to hate the laws. (The latter is a good thing.) As long as you don't use the laws to raiload your players, they probably don't hate them (especially since the reasons they gave were in-character reasons). If you are concerned that the players may hate the laws, the best way to find out is to ask them. Simple as that.

If they hate the laws, tone them down. But don't penalize them for roleplaying. Not even the paladin.

 

[jerichothebard]

I really hate starting paladin threads, so if anyone comments, please keep it civil and clean.

I'm running a campaign, where the party is composed of Lawful Good characters, including a paladin of Torm. The campaign has been taking place in the Tilverton, a city on the edge of Cormyr. The city has a garrison of Purple Dragons, the military, where they enforce a large number of laws, that tend to get in the way of the PCs adventuring activities, such as need to register as an adventuring company, paying for "adventuring writs" to go explore the sewers, and recently telling the PCs to stay away from some ruins in town. In addition, they see the Purple Dragons as ineffective due the number of times the PCs have been attacked in the streets of Tilverton. The PCs have also taken offense at the Purple Dragons, since the Purple Dragons blame the PCs for bringing trouble to the streets, claiming the PCs presence is an instigator for trouble.

While the party has not actually done anything "chaotic" or "non-lawful", they are starting to express a growing dislike of the laws of Cormyr and Purple Dragons in town, making comments of how Cormyr laws are not really for the good of the people, but for the sake of making laws, etc., especially the Paladin of Torm. However, they follow the laws when told to by the Purple Dragons, but there is always grumbling and backtalk.

One difficulty is that I am not sure if such an "attitude" is acceptable by a paldin of Torm. On the otherhand, this could be considered "roleplaying" and I don't want to penalize the player for "roleplaying". As I said before, the PCs have not done anything "chaotic" or "unlawful". In addition, I believe the PCs have a right to get annoyed by all the bureacracy in place, but some of the laws in Cormyr are really for the benefit of the people, but even those the PCs seem to dislike.

At this point, I'm not sure if the dislike of the laws is entirely "roleplay" or if it is mainly the actually players expressing their frustration by out-of-character comments. However, a few times, the paladin would make a snide remark about the laws, ending it with "I don't say that out loud". When I ask him why he dislikes the laws so much, he states that because he believes that the laws in place get in the way of the good the PCs could do, such as clearing the sewers of evil monsters and such. I am a bit worried that his dislike is not mainly because it hinders "acts of good deeds", but is just a hinderance overall.

I don't want to penalize the characters for "roleplaying" a certain way, especially if they haven't "done" anything wrong, just having a "difference of opinion". However, I am not sure exactly if this is OK for a paladin of torm, and lawful PCs, to be so against the laws.

Hope this made sense, hope to hear some comments.

Several things occur to me here, all of which are my own opinions.


1) Paladins are supposed to be more good than lawful, if forced to make a choice.

2) I have always though that 'lawful' was a REALLY bad choice of words. IMO, it should have been 'honorable' or a similar word. I don't think their responsibility is to follow every law ever laid down by a mortal - I think it is to follow the higher law of their god.

3) Who's laws are they bound by? Torm's, or the Purple guys'? Their allegiance, always, should be to their god. If they are caught in an ethical conundrum, the dictates of their god should always light their path.

4) If, by their laws, the Purple guys are hindering the destruction of evil creatures, then by definition, they are committing evil!

In my opinion, given the information presented, your players are within their boundries - in fact, they are right on the money.

jtb

 

[J_D]

The city has a garrison of Purple Dragons, the military, where they enforce a large number of laws, that tend to get in the way of the PCs adventuring activities, such as need to register as an adventuring company, paying for "adventuring writs" to go explore the sewers, and recently telling the PCs to stay away from some ruins in town.

The requirement for an adventuring charter, with an annual fee, is canon and that's fine and good. There are reasons why the Crown mandates that. They want to keep track of any armed force in the kingdom to make sure it doesn't become a threat to the security or safety of the kingdom or its people.

On the "adventuring writ", though...

I might be getting the wrong impression, but do you require your players to pay a fee to obtain a writ to allow them to go on each individual adventure? They need a writ this week to explore the sewers, then another writ next week to explore the ruins in the foothills, then another writ the week after that to etc. etc.?

I would disagree with this practice. The annual adventuring charter should be sufficient to cover all adventuring that the party does within Cormyr. Once they have the charter, so long as they don't threaten the security of the kingdom or endanger the people in the course of their adventures the Crown and the Purple Dragons shouldn't care overmuch how many adventures they go on. At least, that's what I get out of the published lore.

If all of your players' adventures do end up causing injury or property damage to the locals and this is a pattern, then they should expect to find the Purple Dragons breathing down their neck. If they don't like that, then maybe it's time they give the city a rest and try some wilderness adventures....

 

[dreaded_beast]

Thanks for all the replies!

I remember in the DMG it talks about adventuring in cities, advising that PCs should be aware that laws are in place, but to not bog the game down with too many laws.

Maybe I went a bit overboard in trying to show the lawful flavor of Cormyr.

This gives me a lot to think on and I may revise the way the Purple Dragons act in the future.

Thanks!

More comments always welcome.

 

[FireLance]

Just a couple of random thoughts about laws and lawful characters (all only in my opinion, of course):

1. Lawful characters simply believe there should be laws, or more specifically, that rules (laws, customs, traditions, orders, etc.) should dictate behavior. However, individual lawful characters may disagree with specific laws. A lawful good person would certainly disagree with an evil law, for example.

2. If a encounters a law that he disagrees with, a lawful character may follow the law out of courtesy, or if it only inconveniences him. However, if the law goes against his fundamental beliefs, he will not consider himself bound by it because from his perspective, it is not "really" a law.

3. Lawful characters who disagree with specific laws would certainly work to change the laws, if possible, according to the standard acceptable procedure, e.g. organising a petition, writing to the local authorities, lobbying the lawmakers, etc.

4. If the rules relating to changing the laws are themselves unacceptable to the character, he may ignore them (as they are not "really" laws). However, he will seek to replace them with "proper" laws at the earliest possible opportunity. Having overthrown the tyrant, a paladin would seek to establish a set of "good" laws, for example.

With respect to your players, why not give them the opportunity to change the laws that they do not like? As they become more powerful, they should also become socially respected and influential. An "adventure" to change a law may also make an interesting roleplaying challenge.

 

[dreaded_beast]

Very good idea Firelance!

I think I may use it for next session. The PCs have really been dissatisfied with the "Law" in town lately. Maybe I can design next session to give them the opportunity to join the Town Council or at least given the opportunity to affect some of the laws in town.

I guess I was forcing too much of "law" down the PCs throats trying to show the lawfulness of Corymr, hehe.

Thanks!

 

[Torm]

I like Firelance's points, above - especially point #3.

However, to DIRECTLY answer your question - I, Torm, do not consider My Paladins bound to the laws of man in any given location. They are bound to My laws - the laws of My following. Of course, one of the implications of My laws is that they should make an effort to follow the local laws if they do not conflict with My way - but they are certainly not required to under all circumstances. I would certainly not, for instance, take the powers of or penalize one of My Paladins for disobeying the laws regarding slaves in Thay!

As My Avatar in your campaign, the question you really need to ask yourself is, is this Paladin beginning to behave in a chaotic fashion, or does he simply find what he believes to be the duties and requirements of his faith to be incompatible with the local law?

 

[FCWesel]

Wow, now FR Gods are answering messageboards. How cool is that?

 

[dreaded_beast]

However, to DIRECTLY answer your question - I, Torm, do not consider My Paladins bound to the laws of man in any given location. They are bound to My laws - the laws of My following. Of course, one of the implications of My laws is that they should make an effort to follow the local laws if they do not conflict with My way - but they are certainly not required to under all circumstances. I would certainly not, for instance, take the powers of or penalize one of My Paladins for disobeying the laws regarding slaves in Thay!

As My Avatar in your campaign, the question you really need to ask yourself is, is this Paladin beginning to behave in a chaotic fashion, or does he simply find what he believes to be the duties and requirements of his faith to be incompatible with the local law?

Hehe, does that make me Ao?

Good response!

I guess my idea of what is lawful is a bit "skewed" as a result of being a player from another FR game. The DM was "lenient" for some aspects of being lawful, while a bit stringent on others. No specific examples, but I find my former DM's influence affecting my own DMing style. (I think I may start a thread on that.)

Anyways, my PCs have actually done nothing really "chaotic", except voice their opinions and backtalk the Purple Dragons. They go along with what they are told to do by the local law enforcement, although grudgingly.

Like I said before, I guess some leniency on my part is in order to prevent my players from having less fun than they could have.