Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Agback" data-source="post: 1207108" data-attributes="member: 5328">Let's get something straight. Did he implore, or did he order?But you expected the PCs to continue with futile attempts to do so, rather than adapting to the developing situation.But that goal was infeasible, and continuing to attempt it, at the risk of the little monsters escaping, was not so much Lawful Good as Pointless Stupid.This turns out to have been a good call.Indeed. But your paladin's player has a good case that he did perform at a higher standard. He judged Good and Evil on moral grounds rather than a sentimental judgment of superficial appearances, and he strove as best he could to effect the goal of his orders (that the little monsters be destroyed rather than allowed to escape) after the specifics had been rendered irrelevant by developments.Earlier on the cardinal was imploring. Now it seems he gave the paladin explicit orders. Which was it?According to the 'Paladin's Code' set out on p43 of the PHB, a paladin ought to lose his powers if:1) he ceases to be Lawful Good;2) he willingly commits an act of Evil;3) fails to respect legitimate authority;4) acts with dishonour (lies, cheats, uses poison etc.);5) fails to help those who need help other than for Evil and Chaotic ends;6) fails to punish those who harm or threaten innocents; or7) knowingly associates with Evil characters.Of course, you might have Rule Zeroed that, but you ought to have told the player if you did.I don't think you can make a case that killing murderous cultists while they are in the act of escaping custody, and when it is extremely doubtful (and in fact untrue) that they can be restrained at all without killing them is Evil. Not by D&D standards. There is no question of his acting with dishonour or knowingly associating with Evil characters.So: was the paladin's act Chaotic? Did it disrespect the authority of the cardinal, and was the cardinal's authority legitimate considering that the paladin is not a member of the clergy? Or given the fact taht the situation had developed to the point where the cardinal's instructions were not capable of execution, was this an authority "more honoured in the breach than the observance"?On the other hand, would a futile attempt to arrest the mind-control monsters have run such a risk of letting them escape that it amounted to (1) failure to help the monsters' innocent potential victims, (2) failure to punish the monsters for harming their unwilling adoptive parents, and (3) disobedience of the cardinal's explicit instruction that they not be allowed to escape.I think your paladin player can make an excellent case that killing the beasts ought not to lose him his status, whereas letting any of them escape alive if he could avoid it ought to.So I think you were right not to penalise the paladin.Regards,Agback</blockquote>

Verification