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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="takyris" data-source="post: 1210020" data-attributes="member: 5171">True.  I was under the assumption that, despite a few new posters who come in after reading the first few posts and say, "I think the paladin did fine," most of us have kind of moved on to more general discussions.  You are right that the original situation was not, to the paladin, a moral quandry.I would argue, however, that you are suggesting through tone and word choice that the DM was wrong/stupid for creating this encounter.  Balance issues aside (and everyone has caught up with posts and knows that the children could only cast Dominate once every other round, with a DC14 save, as a collective group, right?  Our fears of 24 Dominates per round were unfounded), it seemed like it did create a quandry, since various members of the party apparently disagreed over the best way to handle the situation.  This means that, in my opinion, his attempt to create moral ambiguity for the group succeeded.  If his attempt were to create moral ambiguity for the paladin in particular, then yeah, he failed.  While this thread started as being about the paladin in particular (and, again, I agree that whacking the paladin for his decision, based on the info that the paladin had at the time, was not necessary), I would posit that, from the info that the DM gave us, this encounter was meant to be a morally ambiguous situation for the whole group -- in which case, it succeeded, up until it became a TPC. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification