D&D 5E Player agency and Paladin oath.

[Laurefindel]

So to start with I don't like Paladin PCs. Did not like them in 1Eor 3E, 5E is a little better but they still have that silly oath. They are great for that knucklehead NPC.

We have an oath of devotion Paladin in a game I am DM ing. His Deity is Tyr. He is Lawful good, the rest of the party is Chaotic (CN fighter, CG warlock/rogue and CN Barbarian). As an aside I am not a fan of CN players either but that is another topic.

Well there is constantly friction in the party as to how to handle things. For example they typically want to kill prisoners after interogating and promising to let them go, they have no problem lying and well acting Chaotic. The Paladin tries to role play his character with his oath but it is causing a lot of friction. It came to a head in the last game when they let a stone Giant go after they got done arguing with him. The two CN characters wanted to kill him because they thought he would come back and attack them. the Paladin stood his ground and said no way and drew a line in the sand, the CG warlock rogue sided with the Palidin but would have been fine with "looking the other way" if the Paladin did not make a big deal out of it. OF course they were ambushed by said giant and friends later that session. It could have been a TPK, and would have but I played the Giants poorly in battle, making some bad decisions and the party scraped out of it (barely).

I am really having trouble with this because I think in real life those characters would just part ways - the Paladin can't accept such behavior and the others can't stand the goody-goody Paladin. Of course in the real world parting ways means an end to our game. If it wasn't for his oath I think he would just relent and basically look at alignment as a guideline or belief instead of a code to live by.

As others have said, this is more a good vs evil situation than code vs alignment.

My suggestion would be to ditch alignment and the paladin's code altogether if it makes your games run smoother. Let the character be a follower of Tyr and live by the tenets of Tyr, or even ditch that if you’d prefer. As a matter of fact, a religious fanatic is likely to be more problematic than someone with a romantic knight code of honour.

No alignment, code, or deity should be a pass to legitimize disrupting roleplay or allow a player to be a « dick ». Sometimes character personalities will clash. That’s cool, it’s part of the game. Just don’t let two letters on the character sheets dictate and justify when these clashes happen.

Talk to the players about it. Propose your suggestions. Ear out theirs. Communally come with a solution, and keep on dungeonnin'!

 

[Oofta]

As others have said, this is more a good vs evil situation than code vs alignment.

My suggestion would be to ditch alignment and the paladin's code altogether if it makes your games run smoother. Let the character be a follower of Tyr and live by the tenets of Tyr, or even ditch that if you’d prefer. As a matter of fact, a religious fanatic is likely to be more problematic than someone with a romantic knight code of honour.

No alignment, code, or deity should be a pass to legitimize disrupting roleplay or allow a player to be a « dick ». Sometimes character personalities will clash. That’s cool, it’s part of the game. Just don’t let two letters on the character sheets dictate and justify when these clashes happen.

Talk to the players about it. Propose your suggestions. Ear out theirs. Communally come with a solution, and keep on dungeonnin'!

Which is also fine, but I think the DM put the players into a no win situation. Sounds like the PCs are expected to kill every potential adversary on sight if they can't communicate with them.

What options did the PCs have? Talking to the giant was not possible. Letting the giant go meant an ambush they could not avoid.

Personally I would have allowed some form of crude communication, maybe the giant they let go finds a translator. Something. Anything really other than effectively telling people they have to play evil characters.

 

[Laurefindel]

Which is also fine, but I think the DM put the players into a no win situation. Sounds like the PCs are expected to kill every potential adversary on sight if they can't communicate with them.

What options did the PCs have? Talking to the giant was not possible. Letting the giant go meant an ambush they could not avoid.

Personally I would have allowed some form of crude communication, maybe the giant they let go finds a translator. Something. Anything really other than effectively telling people they have to play evil characters.

Yes, the DM gave reason to the pragmatic "kill the prisoners" side. That has been stated before and I don't have much to add to that.

But short of starting a new campaign, the DM asked for help for this one. Hopefully things will be different moving forward, but I was trying to suggest a solution that can be applied immediately.

 

[Voadam]

What options did the PCs have?

This is 5e so knocking him to zero hp and not killing him they could leave him tied up in the bushes unconscious a la Batman and proceeded.

They could let him go unfettered, which they did.

I don't know if the warlock had any applicable charm type of spells so the giant would not betray them when let go.

 

[Oofta]

Yes, the DM gave reason to the pragmatic "kill the prisoners" side. That has been stated before and I don't have much to add to that.

But short of starting a new campaign, the DM asked for help for this one. Hopefully things will be different moving forward, but I was trying to suggest a solution that can be applied immediately.

Or just new PCs. One thing I do in a session 0 is make it clear that all the players have to agree on PCs that work together. Differences of opinion and conflicts are fine and they don't always have to be in lock-step unison. But basic agreement on goals and approach have to be agreed on first.

In this case, sounds like the DM needs to adjust the game or the players need to switch PCs.

 

[Laurefindel]

Or just new PCs. One thing I do in a session 0 is make it clear that all the players have to agree on PCs that work together. Differences of opinion and conflicts are fine and they don't always have to be in lock-step unison. But basic agreement on goals and approach have to be agreed on first.

In this case, sounds like the DM needs to adjust the game or the players need to switch PCs.

Yes, without a conscious change in the way the game is played, this campaign is heading toward a wall very quickly.

 

[Oofta]

This is 5e so knocking him to zero hp and not killing him they could leave him tied up in the bushes unconscious a la Batman and proceeded.

They could let him go unfettered, which they did.

I don't know if the warlock had any applicable charm type of spells so the giant would not betray them when let go.

The problem with that is that Batman is leaving them for the police. In this scenario 1 of 2 things is going to happen. The giant will die (dehydration or eaten by wandering monsters) or they're going to escape/be rescued. The former is just killing them more slowly the latter only helps depending on timing.

Sounds like killing the giants was inevitable with no option, the only option was whether the giants got in an ambush..

 

[Li Shenron]

3e had the best alignment definitions. CN in 3e was completely playable, and it was easy to see what the difference was between that and evil.

Good suggestion!

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

As others have said, this is more a good vs evil situation than code vs alignment.

My suggestion would be to ditch alignment and the paladin's code altogether if it makes your games run smoother. Let the character be a follower of Tyr and live by the tenets of Tyr, or even ditch that if you’d prefer. As a matter of fact, a religious fanatic is likely to be more problematic than someone with a romantic knight code of honour.

No alignment, code, or deity should be a pass to legitimize disrupting roleplay or allow a player to be a « dick ». Sometimes character personalities will clash. That’s cool, it’s part of the game. Just don’t let two letters on the character sheets dictate and justify when these clashes happen.

Talk to the players about it. Propose your suggestions. Ear out theirs. Communally come with a solution, and keep on dungeonnin'!

Why bother even playing a Paladin then? In any case, even if he dropped the Code, it doesn't mean he'd condone killing prisoners. It is not the problem with the class. The problem is with the disparity between how the characters view the value of a creature's life. A wizard could, just as easily, decide (s)he is against killing prisoners. You are left with the same dilemma.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Its a passage in one of the Drizzt books when normally CG Cattie Brie suddenly advocates genocide against Goblins (bearing in mind her father was killed by one) and expresses a desire to murder Goblin children.

The other heroes (including Drizzt) plus Bruenor etc are horrified by this, and explain to her why that is wrong, that they've literally encountered and even adventured with Goodly Orcs and Goblins before, and are deeply disturbed by what she's saying.

It's then never spoken of again in the books.

She is also depicted being upset and disturbed when she has to kill a human 'because they're like her' but has no pity or remorse or empathy whatsoever for Goblins and Orcs (who she clearly dehumanises).

Its some really weird writing.

Oh, yes, I’m aware of the context. I was using the question to challenge the notion that she is “undeniably good”.

IMO, she is definitely at least morally ambiguous, and the other characters don’t say anything for all the reasons people don’t call out their racist uncle.

Really, it’s just probably bad writing (not saying he’s a bad writer, but even the best have bad bits) applying too much edition specific meta stuff into the novels, but if we ignore that, it paints a picture of a violent racist who only knows empathy for people who look like her. Pretty bleak.