D&D 5E Player agency and Paladin oath.

[Oofta]

Just make the paladin turn to Oath of Vengeance. Haha.

Then hunt down and get vengeance on the CN PCs who ran around being murder hobos? Sounds about right.

 

[SavageCole]

You are looking at a few actions, and yes ones that either are or lean evil.

Other than murdering someone they’ve abducted here or there, they sound like right upstanding gents.

You’ve received great advice already, but I can suggest a couple fixes.
1) Ask the paladin player if he’d like to play another murder hobo instead.
2) LG is not Lawful Stupid.
3) Don’t worry about alignment. If your players have a legit ethos that makes sense, don’t let detractors like me spoil your group’s fun.

 

[seebs]

"Refuse to torture prisoners for information" isn't good, it's neutral. Good doesn't just mean "not actively being evil".

(Also, it's rational, as it's been very thoroughly established that torturing prisoners for information is basically worse-than-nothing in terms of getting remotely reliable information.)

 

[Oofta]

"Refuse to torture prisoners for information" isn't good, it's neutral. Good doesn't just mean "not actively being evil".

(Also, it's rational, as it's been very thoroughly established that torturing prisoners for information is basically worse-than-nothing in terms of getting remotely reliable information.)

Kind of a side track, but I've banned torture in my campaigns since I don't allow evil PCs. There's just some things I don't want to deal with.

 

[Mort]

"Refuse to torture prisoners for information" isn't good, it's neutral. Good doesn't just mean "not actively being evil".

(Also, it's rational, as it's been very thoroughly established that torturing prisoners for information is basically worse-than-nothing in terms of getting remotely reliable information.)

Sadly, lots of people are influenced by the way torture is portrayed in TV, films and books as being extremely effective if done correctly. Completely forgetting that the only reason the torture works so well is because the writer wants it to and writes it as such (in a work of fiction).

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Sadly, lots of people are influenced by the way torture is portrayed in TV, films and books as being extremely effective if done correctly. Completely forgetting that the only reason the torture works so well is because the writer wants it to and writes it as such (in a work of fiction).

The Antihero Doing Evil Things For Good Reasons is a fairly common protagonist archetype in modern stories.

From Dirty Harry to Dexter, cops and others who Step Outside The Law to punish those they believe deserve it have been glorified in many films and similar media.

It remains to be seen whether that trend will continue.

 

[Mort]

The Antihero Doing Evil Things For Good Reasons is a fairly common protagonist archetype in modern stories.

From Dirty Harry to Dexter, cops and others who Step Outside The Law to punish those they believe deserve it have been glorified in many films and similar media.

It remains to be seen whether that trend will continue.

That's true - but broader than what I was talking about.

I was speaking specifically on how modern media portrays torture as very effective - so that's the view many people hold as fact, even though it isn't.

 

[BluejayJunior]

Explanation: a paladin is a warrior. A soldier of God (or order or concept.) Watching your deadly foe who has not been ransomed or otherwise committed to abstain from the conflict retreat without persecution is stupid. Find a soldier who feels that shooting their fleeing foes is against a moral code anywhere in the world and get back to me. If the prisoner was restrained, injured, swore to leave, etc then the Paladin has grounds to spare him, but as you explained it I see none of that.

You can find tons of stories about soldiers showing mercy to their enemies and not shooting fleeing enemies. Generally the only times people wouldn't show mercy to enemies was when they that enemy had already shown a tendency to not be merciful.

As others have said, it isn't the paladin's fault. It's the other characters who are definitely evil. Sounds like these characters put CN on their characters sheets so they have the excuse to just do whatever they want to, because they think CN means not having any form on consistent or rational thought process for their decisions.
You say they are invading this area and let the giant flee. You could have very easily had the ambush party confront the party and ask why they let the giant go. That would have given the party the opportunity to discuss their purpose with the giants. Depending on how the conversation went, there could still be a fight or they could reach a diplomatic solution or you could just have the giants leave, saying they will spare the party today for sparing the other giant, but that next time they meet it will be a fight.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Actually it works extremely well, but that is tangential to the point.

Many D&D worlds have completely different legal systems from any given part of Europe in the thousand years or so of the Middle Ages. Trying to make authoritative declarations about what The Law is in D&D is just blatantly ridiculous. Any given law being referenced is just one part of the Middle Ages, in one region, at best, and such laws are useful only as vague inspirations.

No published 5e setting has the same laws as 14th century England, Or 10th Century France, or whatever, nor do the vast majority of home games, which aren’t being run by experts in medieval law of a given time and place.

All true. But believing otherwise has synergy with various “correct way to RPG” beliefs.

 

[TheSword]

A session 0 to get a coherent party is always a good idea - but it's mostly on the DM to get that done. If the DM didn't set a session 0 and/or didn't otherwise ensure /encourage a coherent party - don't punish the group as a result.

Talking to them and trying to get a solution where everyone is more in tune - that's not a bad idea.



It is absolutely a punishment to force a player to play something they don't want - especially when it's the other players seemingly causing an issue.

It takes two to tango. If you’re going to play a character with a strict oath it’s on you to make sure that’s compatible with your friends style of play.

In fact I’d go so far as to say any character you want to play that requires other characters to behave a certain way should be checked in. I would include wizards that expect another player to stand in front of them. People shouldn’t assume that the party will curve around.