Should there be Repercussions for This? (opinions wanted)

[Czhorat]

The more I hear about this the more I think the paladin should lose his special paladin abilities before he atones. I agree with Sigil that the paladin's having his "half-orc bloodlust" kick in is a pretty clear indication of his state of mind - and that state of mind is not a good one. Justice IS part of a paladin's responsibility, but vengeance is not. The group DID have a plan for dealing with prisoners and DID accept the cleric's surrender. It is implied that he'd be treated humanely and kept safe. If the paladin suspected the cleric of being a threat he could have tried to do subdual damage, gag him and blindfold him, or taken some other action to incapacitate him. It sounds as if the player got frustrated and annoyed, so he took the easy way out. I wouldn't consider it actually EVIL, but it is certainly not appropriate for a paladin.

As far as Hong's latest idiocy is concerned, D&D is a role-playing game. While the majority of the rules are for combat, there also plenty of rules for skills such as diplomacy, stealth, disguise, crafts and professions. Overall though, the game is more than its rules. At its best, it is a role-playing game in which players can immerse themselves in a different identity. There aren't many rules for this because not many are needed; it's all part of players' and DMs' imagination and creativity. If you want your new role to be "violent psychopath" then I'm just as happy to not be gaming with you.

 

[Nifft]

Posting stupid one-liners is MY schtick, as I keep having to remind people. Please DO NOT STEAL MY SCHTICK.

Is hong beating someone with a SCHTICK?

-- N, wondering what the world has come to

 

[Hjorimir]

Let's be fair, hong. It is the DMs responsibility to decide if the character broke his paladin code. If it was always up to the player of the character it would probably never happen. That is why atonement is in the game after all. It gives a system of recourse for the DM and the Player and creates a nice story hook.

 

[hong]

As far as Hong's latest idiocy is concerned, D&D is a role-playing game.

Hello, Czhorat! Welcome to our friendly mailing list!

While the majority of the rules are for combat, there also plenty of rules for skills such as diplomacy, stealth, disguise, crafts and professions.

Indeed, I am constantly amazed at the numbers of people who have taken Craft (basketweaving).

Overall though, the game is more than its rules. At its best, it is a role-playing game in which players can immerse themselves in a different identity.

One of these days, I AM going to play Super AC man, from the Sultans of Smack.

There aren't many rules for this because not many are needed; it's all part of players' and DMs' imagination and creativity. If you want your new role to be "violent psychopath" then I'm just as happy to not be gaming with you.

This is making the baby Conan cry.

 

[JDragon]

Once again thanks for all the input, ideas.

I have not really dealt with this issue as a DM, and don't want to screw it up for anyone involved.

I'm sending an email to the player to try and get a better understanding of what his character was thinking.

Hopefully this will give me a direction to go.

Then I'll just have to come up with an appropriate punishment/atonement that will not spoil the game/character for the player.

 

[Hjorimir]

Indeed, I am constantly amazed at the numbers of people who have taken Craft (basketweaving).

Actually, in my last campaign one of my players had that exact skill.

 

[S'mon]

I'd say it was probably fine, unless the Paladin had told the prisoner they wouldn't be harmed if they cooperated - which could be the case implicitly if rules of war are in effect, eg the Geneva Convention - if there are rules of war the paladin ought to abide by them. Even then it's a judgement call - if the paladin thought the NPC prisoner was attacking via spell or psionics it'd be foolish not to kill or incapacitate them.

 

[The Sigil]

At this point, the question to ask is: are you playing the paladin, or is the player?

At the risk of feeding the troll...

Absolutely, the player is playing the paladin.

But I (the DM) am playing the paladin's god (an NPC).

Therefore, when I, in the role of the "god," decide the paladin should be stripped of his powers, he gets stripped of his powers. Not because the DM decided to, but because his god - whom the DM is playing - decided to.

--The Sigil

 

[Czhorat]

Oh for eff's sake. It's _not that hard_ to come up with scenarios that allow good characters to kick butt along with everyone else. Heck, just about every published module since D&D's invention has featured a big bad who wants to do bad things, thus providing characters of all stripes with a reason to fight them.



Yes, yes, you can have PCs who do silly things that no reasonable person would accept as being consistent with their backstory and stated personality. That's not the point. The point is that while a _player_ may want to get into fights, or collect powerups, or be cool and mysterious or whatnot, the mapping to the _character's_ reason for being is far from being one-to-one. You can very easily have players who like fights and treasure hunting, and _also_ want to wear the white hat.

D&D is pretty much built for this sort of player, in fact. That's the whole reason for the alignment thing, plus tons of evil monsters who coincidentally also have cool shiny things; it's a framework in which it's reasonable to go forth and kick monster butt, without getting into all sorts of tedious moral quandaries.

That's certainly one way to play D&D, but to me it seems to be the shallowest and least interesting gaming experience. Playing a paladin would be quite dull to me if every gaming situation were manipulated to the point that I NEVER had a moral quandry and my code of conduct was meaningless. It would likewise be frustrating if the game were manipulated to throw my character into a moral quandry every other session. There are many potential challenged in a D&D game. You could try to explore your character's personality, motivation, and morals -- perhaps growing in a sort of personal "hero quest". A campaign could be focused on mysteries, intrigue, and diplomacy. There could be dungeon adventures with lots of puzzles and riddles. Finally, there could be what you seem to like: adventures centered around combat and treasure. ALL of these are D&D games.

Even the most combat-intense campaign probably has some other elements as well. If ALL you have is combat then you may as well sit at home and play computer games. If you have a group that wants to do nothing more than roll dice and kill things, then enjoy. Just don't delude yourself into thinking this is wht D&D is "about".

 

[S'mon]

I have a simple test for if a paladin's behavior in a situation is warrented. I call it the "Superman Test," or, What Would Superman Do?

People who know comics better than me could probably dispute this, but all I've seen are the movies and a few of the episodes from the recent series.

To me, Superman in the quintissential Lawful Good hero. He battles and destroys evil, but he is always honest and fair, compassionate and just, and never callous or ruthless. This has gotten poor, goody-two-shoes Superman in trouble on numerous occasions, but he still stands by his ideals.

In this situation, would Superman have instantly killed the prisoner? I say no. He would have knocked him out and tried to figure out what exactly was going on.

In an other-than 4-colour game, I think holding a poor human (or half-orc) paladin to the standards of an invulnerable near-omnipotent demigod is a mite unfair. Expecting Paladins to be Superman without the powers is no fun in my book.