playing a paladin in world that is not black and white

[Anthraxus]

my character is ina rough situation. Betray her king or betray the party.

Maybe an in-character discussion with the party, to let them know why your paladin wants to turn the prisoner over to the Cyrran king, rather than the Breland one?

 

[Elf Witch]

I'm going to have to completely disagree with you, Felix. I think that a well-designed moral dilemma can add a whole lot of depth to a game. If the player never needs to think about how he's going to uphold law and virtue in the face of a dilemma, then a whole dimension of internal conflict is abandoned. In a true damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't type of situation, I think player creativity can shine even more than normal as they find a third path that passes, as it were, between Scylla and Charybdis.

I will say that I find it more interesting to threaten with things other than taking away a character's class abilities. This does rely on the player to have a sense of his character's conscience. Sociopaths Need Not Apply.

But then, a lot of my ideas on How Awesome A Game Can Be come from Sep's Tales of Wyre. What can I say, I'm a fanboy.

Haven

I enjoy morale dilemmas I just don't like damned if you do you damned if you don't there go your paladin abilities.

You need to make sure that there is a way for the paladin to be able to choose a path that won't lead to a fall. If the only choices are choosing the lessor of two evils and regardless of what you choose you fall then that is not fair or fun.

In a Kalamar game I played in with a different DM we had a paladin whose sister was sold into slavery because of a crime she did not commit. We tried to prove her innocence but were unable to.

Now slavery is legal in Kalamar so if the paladin went himself to get her out using other than legal means he would be breaking the law. He did try buying her but her owner (who set her up) would not sell her.

So the paladin did the gray thing he went to the Broken chain a group that is opposed to slavery and told them the story. He did not help with the planning or the freeing of this man's slaves he did not finance it nor did he see his sister after they freed her and sent her away.

The DMs decision was that in this case the paladin did not lose his ability because in this case good over ruled law.

If you play the paladin code as rigid as it is written then you really can't have pladins in gray worlds.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Take him back to the Cyrean king, and let Breland know what is going to happen. Talk with the Cyrean king about the debate -- that another nation also wants a say with this man, and that rash action (such as execution) would be unwise. Acknowledge the debate, but know which side you lie on.

I don't think you're in danger of losing your paladin status or violating alignment for it at all, regardless of what you do. Either situation is "acceptable," there's not a right and wrong answer, there's two right answers: both of them. It's your call which authority is binding on you at which times.

As long as you want to respect Breland's laws, and show respect for them, even in violating them, there's no real conflict. But you're not a citizen of that nation, you're not an agent of that nation, and you have no allegiance to that nation. Let them know as such: "We are taking this man to punish him for crimes he comitted against the people of Cyre, to do justice to him. If you wish to argue this point, you must argue it with the King of Cyre, not me. I am an extention of my king's will."

Even if you have to use secrecy to get him out, let them know once you're safe, and argue their case before the King of Cyre: "We were guests in their lands, and we were rude guests. I am not in your shoes, Majesty, but I would recommend diplomacy to save our honor. I would be happy to volunteer for such service, as I was your agent who wronged our hosts."

There's no one right answer to this, there doesn't have to be. You could be fighting agents of Breland who were also paladins, and neither of you would loose status for killing each other.

 

[Elf Witch]

Maybe an in-character discussion with the party, to let them know why your paladin wants to turn the prisoner over to the Cyrran king, rather than the Breland one?

Maybe ,I have tried subtley in finding out their stand on the situation. My worry about coming out and asking is that they will say no and I will be in the situation of lying to them or having to leave the group.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Remember that in the core D&D world, Law and Good are real, tangible forces; they're not just a character's interpretation of what Law and Good are. A character might very well think they're doing the "Good" thing and might have a million reasons to support that, but in actuality it might not be a "Good" act. That's where it's the DM's job to step in and adjudicate a decision.

If alignments weren't real, tangible forces then the game would be far more complicated as you'd have to debate what is Good and Evil and that's going to vary from person to person. But in D&D, there truly is a Good and Evil and it's ultimately up to the DM to decide what acts fall under each.

In this particular situation, it's not so much Good vs. Evil (or Law vs. Chaos) as it is which act is more Good (in the grand scheme of things, that is). I don't think you can determine what is Good/Evil based on the laws of a particular country. Better to judge based on the "greater good" (or, simply, Good) rather than be bound to a country's laws which may/may not be Good. I think it's fair to say that even a LG society is going to have some laws that aren't LG and a paladin shouldn't be bound by those laws simply b/c some LG laws exist and the paladin is a Lawful character that obeys the law.

If faced with a dilemma in which competing laws are at odds with one another, I'd recommend looking to the greater Law (and maybe use the greater Good as a tie-breaker) rather than trying to justify adhering to one nation's laws over another. Unless, that is, you don't use the core alignment system, in which case you're on your own in this case!

 

[Raven Crowking]

I would think that the only questionable thing here is tricking your party, a group to which you also hold alleigance. The proper thing to do, IMHO, is tell the party what you intend to do. Make it clear that, if they wish to do otherwise, you will part company with them peacefully, but that you will continue to do as you must. Appeal to their sense of fair play and good will. Make sure that they understand that you consider them friends, regardless of the potential differences in your obligations.

Then do what you need to. Catch the bad guy. Hand him over to the Avengers.

You are obligated not to wantonly violate the laws of Breland, but that is not what you are doing here at all.


RC

 

[TheAuldGrump]

GMs shouldn't design moral dilemmas for their paladin players; the normal course of adventuring is moral dilemma enough without someone testing you to see if you answer "correctly".

I heartily disagree with the above statement. When either playing a paladin or running games involving paladin characters I find that moral decisions and quandaries are the best part of the game! It is what shapes a paladin - 'where there is no temptation there is no virtue'.

The Auld Grump

 

[billd91]

I cannot tkae the prisoner openly to the Cyrean King it has to be done in secret. It is important that no one knows that the king questioned this man. That being the case I am pretty sure they are going to excute murder him after questioning him.

Fixed that for you. Your character's king is going to murder the man since he isn't the legitimate legal authority. He knows it. His men know it. And even if the plot against the refugees is in the Breland government, he's dishonoring the country that is hosting him. And asking you to break faith with that government as well.

But why must it be in secret? So you don't tip off the agents responsible for the campaign against the refugees? As soon as the prisoner disappears, they'll be on that scent anyway. But if it must be in secret, what's to prevent the Cyrean king from traveling in secret with some bodyguards to meet you at an inn somewhere out of the way to conduct his questioning? That would be a much better way for him to get his answers while still, outwardly, treating honorably with his hosts.

My paladin does not have a problem with this because this man has the blood of over a 1000 innocent Cyreans on his hands. He will be judged by the rightful ruler of these dead Cyreans.

And yes my character is working in the open her loyalty to the King is well known. Her king asked her to be included in the group.

The king may be the rightful ruler over the Cyreans, but he's not the rightful ruler of the kingdom you're in. Nor does it sound like he is the rightful ruler over the place where the crimes have been committed. His interest sounds more vengeful than just.

Your king may soon have problems with Breland anyway if he keeps this sort of thing up. But it sounds, from the way you're describing it, that your king is using you to disrupt Breland's attempt to bring the criminal in. Would or should a paladin, even one who has sworn an oath to the king, be bound to do anything the king asks her to do?

my character is ina rough situation. Betray her king or betray the party.

It is a rough situation, but one that has ways out of it without seriously betraying anyone. Some of it may require convincing your king to be more delicate with the situation.

 

[jollyninja]

Here is what I would do in such a situation with the details now having been laid out before me.

I would lean toward handing the guy over to breland, waiting for them to prove that they either were going to deal with the problem in a satisfactory manner or further action against the man was required. The reason that I would do this is because I would consider it not paladinly behavior to use the party to get what you want and then deny them the reward. As a DM I would require you to attone and show remorse for this action to continue being a paladin. In effect I think your King sent a square peg to fill a round hole here. One of his more roguish agents would have been better siuted to the task as this task involves lying (to the party), cheating (the nation of Breland out of it's right to self governance), and stealing (the reward from the party though you do not profit from it) none of which are within the realm of a paladin's acceptable behavior.

With that said I have a few other comments. You mentioned that if the man was handed over to the lawmen of Breland he might not be punished. Is it that you lack enough evidence to persuade them of his guilt or that you believe them to be corrupt? If you believe them to be corrupt, do all you can to see that he is punished, a corrupt authority is not one that a paladin must respect. If your evidence is lacking, why are you doing this?

 

[Wolfwood2]

Do whatever you want to do. If the DM strips your paladin of her abilties, drop the character and tell the DM it's a shame the two of you couldn't agree on what a paladin's code means.

I think that as much as possible, tricky and border situations should always be decided by the player and not the DM when it comes to paladins. The DM should only intervene for gross and ridiculous violations of alignment or code.

Why should it fall to the DM to decide what violates a paladin's code when it makes much more sense to leave that determiantion to the player?