Should there be Repercussions for This? (opinions wanted)

[MerakSpielman]

Then it seems like a no-win situation for the poor paladin.

Such is the burden they bear. ("What, you need to attone AGAIN? Well what happened THIS time..." "Well, I couldn't tell if a prisoner was really helpless or if he was magically influencing my companions... I had to make a decision. I guess I was wrong.")

 

[hong]

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.

I didn't say that a paladin (or any other knight-in-shining-armour character) should never have to face a moral quandary. In fact, I'd say that moral quandaries present great opportunities for what players who like playing knights-in-shining-armour are after: a chance to take a stand on an issue, and feel righteous for doing it. (Some people turn righteous into self-righteous, but that's something else.)

However, the fact remains that the whole structure of D&D, the rules, class system, and level system, is built around the assumption that the primary mission of most gaming groups is going to involve killing monsters and taking their stuff. What numbers increase when you go up levels? Your base attack bonus, saving throws and hit points. What do most of the feats revolve around? Ways to kick butt in combat, or survive getting your butt kicked. Where is the level of resolution in the skill point system greatest? In the skills that are directly relevant to combat, or adventuring: contrast Hide/Move Silently or Spot/Listen to something abstract like Profession (bartender). Where are 99% of the spells used? In combat, or adventuring. For every spell like fabricate or open/close, you have dozens like fireball, chain lightning, hold monster, etc; you're not going to see the sort of "everyday" spells in GURPS Grimoire in any core D&D product any time soon. Etcetera.

None of this is to diminish the importance of non-combat encounters in your average D&D campaign. A game that doesn't feature anything except combat will quickly get old, if only because without an overall context or reason for it, combat becomes nothing more than just a pit fight. However, I'll stake money that when it comes to spotlight time, the non-combat stuff still usually takes second place to the big fights.

Yes, you _can_ play a D&D game that doesn't involve violence at all, or not much of it. You can also play it diceless, if you like. That's a function of your own gaming group; and if that's what you want, more power to you. However, that doesn't change how the rules themselves are structured, and what style of play the game is aimed at.

 

[JDragon]

Little Clarification...

No one was killed, the 2 affected characters started acting weird and the party subdued them. (this was a conffusion effect)

The prisoner could not see the affected characters at the time they started acting weird, and had not be able to for several mins.

The prisoner, said nothing, moved nothing but her face (to smile), and had not appeared to even been concentrating on anything.

 

[hong]

I disagree -- the code is part of what makes paladin's special. A paladin isn't simply a lawful-good fighter, he's a holy knight holding himself to a very high and very exacting standard. In a world that recognizes the existence of such knights, think of the bit of extra status a paladin would have. If he swears to something everyone will KNOW that he'll keep his word. People recognizing him as a paladin could always trust him to tell the truth. For the player, a paladin's code lets him be somethign special - a character aspiring to and reaching the highest moral standard possible. Take that away and all you have left is a fighter with a handful of divine spells, a smart magic horse, and other tricks to compensate for a lack of bonus feats. That's nowhere near as fun to me.

I'm not talking about taking the code of honour away from the paladin. I'm saying that there's nothing inherently game-mechanical about a code. You can just as easily have a LG fighter or cleric type who similarly has a code of honour, never tells a lie, always fights fairly, etc, etc. They might even have a similar reputation for being a good guy, especially after they've been adventuring for some time. But for some reason, DMs only seem to have this thing about paladins, never about LG fighters or clerics.

 

[Arnwyn]

Count me in that 1% that disagrees with Hong.

Yep, I'm in that 1% as well... and so are 2658.5 ENWorlders. And 4 out of 5 doctors.

I love internet statistics!

 

[hong]

Such is the burden they bear. ("What, you need to attone AGAIN? Well what happened THIS time..." "Well, I couldn't tell if a prisoner was really helpless or if he was magically influencing my companions... I had to make a decision. I guess I was wrong.")

And see, this is why talking to the player involved is so important. It's not the _character's_ motivation that's the thing, it's what the _player_ finds fun. Because again, I will put money on the bet that most players, especially those who like playing paladins, do _not_ want to bump into an effin' moral quandary every effin' time they step on an ant.

 

[Epametheus]

But for some reason, DMs only seem to have this thing about paladins, never about LG fighters or clerics.

Seriously, the only real difference between a Paladin and a LG Cleric is that the Paladin is far more likely to get screwed over by the DM. Paladins pretty much don't work in campaigns where the DM is always looking for reasons to make an ex-paladin.

Treating an honest mistake as an intentional violation of the Code falls into that category pretty readily.

J -- does the half-orc have any real understanding of how magic works? Though it sounds a bit harder to draw a Cause and Effect for that. If the player's reasoning really was "sweet, an excuse to kill the evil prisoner," then there are some repercussions in order. This is sounding less and less like a mistake.

 

[reiella]

Hmm, I'd let that slide for the Paladin honestly.

The Cleric was evil.

Some Temple EE spoilers follow

Spoiler

It was possible the party knew who the cleric worshipped at this point, or at the least, that the cleric was insane.

At a glance, my reaction to that situation was the cleric just cast a Silent/Stilled spell.

I would perfer the paladin attempt to persuade the prisoner to explain what happened (or stop what happened) than to outright kill.

I would definantively talk with the player and explain that his reaction 'shocked you for a paladin', but that it was ok, but advice him to try to be less rash in the future, if that can be a problem.

If he feels really pensive, suggest to him to pay to have the Cleric he killed (wrongfully in hindsight) raised to face trial and punishment.

 

[jester47]

I agree with the Sigil's analogy on this one. An LG character would have subdued.

Add in the comment about orcish bloodlust and this is my view of the situation:

The paladin had a cause to use violence. However, the paladin when he used that violence did not temper it to the situation. This is due to his relationship with an orc heritage, and thus takes a little off of the fault of the paladin. So where the paladin screwed up is in what kind of force to apply. So without the half orc part I would say that he was half right. And with the orc blod to consider he was 3/4s not at fault. So I would have it be where he would loose 1/4 of his paladin abilities until making atonement.

IMC Paladin is a PrC (waiting for UA!) and ever paladin will have a code that the player and I write. Also, the way I handle alignment (for just this reason) in the game, is that whatever actions the characters take, the motivations for that action are always found in the character's alignment. Thus we do not have so many disputes about "well would a CG character do that?" The answer is almost always "yes" and "the character hs his/her reasons and those come from the character's alignment."

Aaron.

 

[JDragon]

Seriously, the only real difference between a Paladin and a LG Cleric is that the Paladin is far more likely to get screwed over by the DM. Paladins pretty much don't work in campaigns where the DM is always looking for reasons to make an ex-paladin.

Treating an honest mistake as an intentional violation of the Code falls into that category pretty readily.

J -- does the half-orc have any real understanding of how magic works? Though it sounds a bit harder to draw a Cause and Effect for that. If the player's reasoning really was "sweet, an excuse to kill the evil prisoner," then there are some repercussions in order. This is sounding less and less like a mistake.

Hey all, first I'm not trying to screw the player or his character, but he made a choice to play the Paladin to get the up side of its abilities, but this also means he must play it with in the rules as outlined. I have no interest in making an x-paladin but that will not stop me from doing it if the character continues to act outside the bounds of his alignment /code. (with this player it may make it that far depending on the choices he makes.)

As for your question Epamethus - the character is not stupid, his brother is a cleric in the church, they have a wizard in the group.

I don't think the player saw it as an excuse to kill the evil prisoner, but I'm waiting for the response to my email before making that call.