Paladins in Sunless Citadel (UPDATE)

[AnthonyJ]

Technically, you could argue the Druid would be just as interested in killing the Dragon as the Paladin. I seem to recall that Druids generally despise creatures like Dragons, considering them a taint upon nature.

Maybe. Depends on the druid. Aberrations are the most obviously a taint upon nature. The issue with the druid is not whether the druid behaved properly according to his beliefs, it's whether he behaved properly according to the paladin's beliefs. Attacking in the middle of a parlay is not lawful behavior (the druid, most likely, wasn't lawfully aligned, so it isn't really a problem for the druid).

 

[LuYangShih]

At most the Paladin should take the Druid aside and lightly chastise him, reminding him that even Evil Kobolds must be accounted for in an honorable manner. It is a minor issue at worst, however. From the descrption of the situation, it seems that it was quite clear the Kobolds had no intention of acquiescing to the Paladins request.

 

[paulewaug]

Did you say....?

A party with a Paladin and a Druid?!

IF you have not already done so...you have to read

Sepulchrave's story hour
http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=762

It is a great read and involves a major conflict centered around a Paladin and his fellows (including a Druid and an Alienist) and how they all deal with the tough choices they have to make.

It is also a very good look into what it can mean to be Good or Evil.
Without things always being "Black and White"

 

[AnthonyJ]

At most the Paladin should take the Druid aside and lightly chastise him, reminding him that even Evil Kobolds must be accounted for in an honorable manner. It is a minor issue at worst, however. From the descrption of the situation, it seems that it was quite clear the Kobolds had no intention of acquiescing to the Paladins request.

While it's probably true that the kobolds weren't going to be convinced, violating a truce is in fact a big deal; remember, paladins are Lawful as well as Good. The proper way to handle this is to withdraw beyond the limits of the truce, and then attack.

 

[LuYangShih]

True. Which is why, if the Paladin had committed the act, it might be an issue. But it was the Druid who broke the truce, not him. As I said, at most I think the Paladin would chastise the Druid for his actions.

 

[AnthonyJ]

True. Which is why, if the Paladin had committed the act, it might be an issue. But it was the Druid who broke the truce, not him. As I said, at most I think the Paladin would chastise the Druid for his actions.

And in the future, be careful to hold negotiations in a way where the Druid lacks the opportunity to cause problems. The druid's actions do harm the paladin's honor, but it's much worse if the paladin has reason to assume it might happen.

 

[Rel]

And in the future, be careful to hold negotiations in a way where the Druid lacks the opportunity to cause problems. The druid's actions do harm the paladin's honor, but it's much worse if the paladin has reason to assume it might happen.

Or the paladin can make sure to phrase his negotiations in such a way as to preserve his personal honor:

"I can't speak for my lawless companions who maintain the honor of a mangy street cur, and I apologize for that may in fact be an insult to the average street cur, but as for me, I shall not in any way assault you so long as we parley under this flag of truce. What say you?"

 

[Arravis]

"I can't speak for my lawless companions who maintain the honor of a mangy street cur, and I apologize for that may in fact be an insult to the average street cur, but as for me, I shall not in any way assault you so long as we parley under this flag of truce. What say you?"

Sounds pretty cheap, in my opinion. It's simply an excuse for the party to do whatever it wants and the paladin simply washing his hands clean of it. A paladin -is- responsible for the sort of friends he maintains. That doesn't mean the paladin controls their actions, but if they aren't up to his standards... he is honor bound to leave their company (or bring them to justice [and redemption ] if they have done evil).

Imagine if a paladin was traveling with a group of thugs and murderers and then the paladin tried to make a deal with an NPC Innkeeper:
"*I* will pay for my room... but I can in no way vouch for my friends whom, as we speak, are burning the place down and robbing you blind. I apologize for their behavior... but hey, it in no way reflects on me!"

 

[Arravis]

Ack, double post... sorry.

 

[Rel]

Sounds pretty cheap, in my opinion. It's simply an excuse for the party to do whatever it wants and the paladin simply washing his hands clean of it.

Man, I have GOT to remember to use more smileys in my posts when I'm not being serious.