Paladins, Priests of Demogorgon, Mercy and Revenge! A Paladin and Costly Choices.
- Thread starter SHARK
- Start date
Endur said:
I would say that could be some juicy role playing for the player. He could go into attotnement mode or he could go into vengence mode. When things like this happen to my character I love it because it gives me a chance to do something dramatic and that is my favorite part of the game watching my character change do to the things that happen in game.
SHARK
First Post
Greetings!
Hmmm...indeed, Celtavian, some members of the group think that Vallian did the wrong thing by not killing Tharnor when he had the chance. Doing so may have prevented them from ever going to the city, let alone killing so many people. Some think that Vallian should have ran Tharnor through the first time, and thus rescued his wife. Yeah, the ceremony might have worked anyways, but he would have his wife, Tharnor would be dead, and he might have been able to take a shot at Marlu, too. Thus, only Drethennar would have to be worried about. And, his wife wouldn't be pregnant with a demon-child, either.
But no, Vallian was naive enough to believe that some kind of honourable exchange could be made, in that he would let them go, if Tharnor would release his wife and the two virgin girls. Then of course, some think it was stupid not to kill him when Tharnor surrendered. Vallian insists, however, that the intelligence information gained was potentially worthwhile, and the opportunity to convert Tharnor from darkness was also a rare opportunity that was worth pursuing.
I admit, there were tough consequences regardless of what choice he made. Sometimes, just as in real life, there are choices that require sacrifice and struggle no matter what.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Hmmm...indeed, Celtavian, some members of the group think that Vallian did the wrong thing by not killing Tharnor when he had the chance. Doing so may have prevented them from ever going to the city, let alone killing so many people. Some think that Vallian should have ran Tharnor through the first time, and thus rescued his wife. Yeah, the ceremony might have worked anyways, but he would have his wife, Tharnor would be dead, and he might have been able to take a shot at Marlu, too. Thus, only Drethennar would have to be worried about. And, his wife wouldn't be pregnant with a demon-child, either.
But no, Vallian was naive enough to believe that some kind of honourable exchange could be made, in that he would let them go, if Tharnor would release his wife and the two virgin girls. Then of course, some think it was stupid not to kill him when Tharnor surrendered. Vallian insists, however, that the intelligence information gained was potentially worthwhile, and the opportunity to convert Tharnor from darkness was also a rare opportunity that was worth pursuing.
I admit, there were tough consequences regardless of what choice he made. Sometimes, just as in real life, there are choices that require sacrifice and struggle no matter what.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
SHARK
First Post
Greetings!
Posted By Thoughtbubble:
____________________________________________________________________
Quote:
"What he deserves is a warm relaxing bath, a few nice cool beers, a long talk with his spritual advisors, and a vision from his diety to keep the fires burning. That, and his wife definately could use some attention."
____________________________________________________________________
End Quote.
So true, Thoughtbubble, so true!
Indeed, personally, I tend to have a wide latitude in what I think represents lawful and good behavior; from this, it takes a lot for me to consider penalising a paladin for some action or another; unlike many, I don't have some hammer hanging over a paladin's head ready to crush them for the slightest deviance or for taking bold or aggressive action, that may or may not also entail casualties or rough consequences. Holy war is, after all, a bloody business, and I tend to think that in order to make an omelette, ya gotta break some eggs.
Still, whether a paladin should be penalised in whatever situation, doesn't preclude a paladin from being in difficult situations. For example, in my campaigns, intelligent villains are often ruthless and determined, and there isn't some kind of "plot protection" merely because the characters are good, or because they are the players. Evil characters are not going to hold back, because somehow, somewhere, it is written that they are supposed to lose regardless of what the player characters do.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Posted By Thoughtbubble:
____________________________________________________________________
Quote:
"What he deserves is a warm relaxing bath, a few nice cool beers, a long talk with his spritual advisors, and a vision from his diety to keep the fires burning. That, and his wife definately could use some attention."
____________________________________________________________________
End Quote.
So true, Thoughtbubble, so true!
Indeed, personally, I tend to have a wide latitude in what I think represents lawful and good behavior; from this, it takes a lot for me to consider penalising a paladin for some action or another; unlike many, I don't have some hammer hanging over a paladin's head ready to crush them for the slightest deviance or for taking bold or aggressive action, that may or may not also entail casualties or rough consequences. Holy war is, after all, a bloody business, and I tend to think that in order to make an omelette, ya gotta break some eggs.
Still, whether a paladin should be penalised in whatever situation, doesn't preclude a paladin from being in difficult situations. For example, in my campaigns, intelligent villains are often ruthless and determined, and there isn't some kind of "plot protection" merely because the characters are good, or because they are the players. Evil characters are not going to hold back, because somehow, somewhere, it is written that they are supposed to lose regardless of what the player characters do.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
coyote6
Adventurer
The paladin didn't do anything wrong, and little would have changed had he killed Tharnor either time. If he'd ran Tharnor through the first time, the two girls would have been sacrificed, Marlu would have escaped, Drethennar would have been released, the troops would have been slaughtered, and then Marlu and Drethennar would've gone to the city and unleashed the two Apocalypses from the Sky spells as retribution for Tharnor's death. Similarly, if the paladin had executed Tharnor when he surrendered, the two would simply have rained vengeance down and killed 3.8 million.
And it would still be the paladin's fault -- it was payback for Tharnor's death. Plus, in the latter case, if the paladin killed Tharnor after taking the villain's surrender, he could be stripped of his powers for breaking his sworn word. Plus, in the future, no one -- not even actual honorable people who happen to be on the other side -- would easily surrender, since the paladin would be known as one who murders those who do give their lives over to his care. Oops.
As it is, he did a Good thing at each turn, but lost anyways. The only thing he could have done differently would be to have denied THarnor's surrender offer and struck him down. OTOH, depending on how close the fight was, it might have been the paladin getting struck down, followed shortly thereafter by the rain of destruction, etc.
Where the heck were the other players during all this? Why weren't those (presumably unbound by paladin-like codes of conduct) rogues and barbarians quietly slitting the imprisoned Tharnor's throat, when he "made a move" to "try to escape" during their watch? C'mon, the paladin's The Paladin -- somebody else has to take the job of The One That Does The Dirty Work, has to play Wolverine to the paladin's Cyclops.
C'mon, it's a team game! Work together, people!
And it would still be the paladin's fault -- it was payback for Tharnor's death. Plus, in the latter case, if the paladin killed Tharnor after taking the villain's surrender, he could be stripped of his powers for breaking his sworn word. Plus, in the future, no one -- not even actual honorable people who happen to be on the other side -- would easily surrender, since the paladin would be known as one who murders those who do give their lives over to his care. Oops.
As it is, he did a Good thing at each turn, but lost anyways. The only thing he could have done differently would be to have denied THarnor's surrender offer and struck him down. OTOH, depending on how close the fight was, it might have been the paladin getting struck down, followed shortly thereafter by the rain of destruction, etc.
Where the heck were the other players during all this? Why weren't those (presumably unbound by paladin-like codes of conduct) rogues and barbarians quietly slitting the imprisoned Tharnor's throat, when he "made a move" to "try to escape" during their watch? C'mon, the paladin's The Paladin -- somebody else has to take the job of The One That Does The Dirty Work, has to play Wolverine to the paladin's Cyclops.
C'mon, it's a team game! Work together, people!
reapersaurus
Explorer
[my impersonal opinions, as I read it]
SHARK, this looks to me like a very bad example of a Paladin "moral dilemma".
Everything about it looks like ham-handed, railroading, unbelievable, and melodramatic, over-the-top fanboy fiction.
This looks like choose your own adventure, with no actual input by the players - the DM controls almost everything.
This looks like basically a very cheesy fantasy novel, with limited player interaction.
The paladin obviously did nothing against his code.
Do you actually expect anyone to believe that regardless of what the paladin chose, you weren't going to screw him over?
You were in control of all the cards, all the timing, all the dialogue, all the Balance checks
...
It's very transparent, your DM'ing style, and I'm shocked your players welcome that kind of railroading and suspension of disbelief.
This "Paladin dilemma thread" is a weak excuse for you not putting this in Story Hour. [/my impersonal opinion]
But you didn't put it in Story Hour (where everyone's expected to just say "Great stuff" and hold their tongue if they don't like it).
I assume that if people are allowed to say that they dig your campaign, than I'm allowed to say why I don't like your "game".
I'm glad you still have ex-military players that still buy into it.
SHARK, this looks to me like a very bad example of a Paladin "moral dilemma".
Everything about it looks like ham-handed, railroading, unbelievable, and melodramatic, over-the-top fanboy fiction.
This looks like choose your own adventure, with no actual input by the players - the DM controls almost everything.
This looks like basically a very cheesy fantasy novel, with limited player interaction.
The paladin obviously did nothing against his code.
Do you actually expect anyone to believe that regardless of what the paladin chose, you weren't going to screw him over?
You were in control of all the cards, all the timing, all the dialogue, all the Balance checks
...It's very transparent, your DM'ing style, and I'm shocked your players welcome that kind of railroading and suspension of disbelief.
This "Paladin dilemma thread" is a weak excuse for you not putting this in Story Hour. [/my impersonal opinion]
But you didn't put it in Story Hour (where everyone's expected to just say "Great stuff" and hold their tongue if they don't like it).
I assume that if people are allowed to say that they dig your campaign, than I'm allowed to say why I don't like your "game".
I'm glad you still have ex-military players that still buy into it.
Tarrasque Wrangler
First Post
This is why paladins should take vows of chastity. If I've gotta read one more time that some evil overlord has the paladin's wife in some kind of deathtrap, provoking some alignment crisis, I'm going to seriously barf.
Edit: What reapersaurus said.
Edit: What reapersaurus said.
Last edited:
