Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BSF" data-source="post: 1165393" data-attributes="member: 13098">Wow!  A lot of activity on this thread.  I think I will split up into two posts.  One specifically addressing the original post.  the other discussing the general thoughts on Paladinhood. Regarding the Original Post:I can see a lot of ways that this can be interpreted.  Many people have pointed out the fallacies that would lead to a loss of powers.  So, I will focus on a possibility that shows a little RP and an interesting character.  Without knowing more about your campaign, I can't provide a strong answer.  Hopefully, I have have all of the information you have provided, listed correctly.The captured cleric is being watched/guarded by the paladin.  I will make the assumption that negotiations for surrender include provisions that the cleric provide information on other dangers as part of a show of good faith.  I would highly suggest that when somebody offers to yield in combat, the party pressure for every condition they can get.  And yes, I realize this is an assumption.Paladin's buddies are out of sight, but not out of hearing range.Paladin's buddies suffer from the confusion affect, paladin is able to hear that *something* is going on.  Note, it doesn't sound like the Paladin character knew what was going on.  Just that something was happening.  You are in an Evil Temple, you are probably going to assume the worst.Paladin notices the smile of the cleric.This is where you need answers from the player, but here are some possibilities.- The Cleric was directly responsible for whatever mess the Paladin is hearing.  This is unlikely since the group is out of sight.- The Cleric surrendured, but did not do so in good faith.  There was still a "challenge" that the cleric could have told the party about.  This "challenge" now threatens the group as a whole.  Paladin is faced with some choices.  - He can ignore what is happening to the group because he is supposed to be guarding the cleric.  I think everyone would agree that this would not be smart, or wise.  You are in a dangerous place and your strength is your unity.  If you enemies can seperate you, they can pick you off one at a time.- He can drag the cleric into the new situation and hope the cleric can't adversely affect the situation as the paladin tries to help the group.  Definitely one possibility, but not a very likely one, for a multitude of reasons.- He can leave the cleric in one room, trusting that the cleric will abide by his word to not try to escape.  The Paladin isn't stupid!  We have a cleric that probably did not surrender in good faith, and is probably a liar anyway.  This whole incident with the rest of the group might be a distraction geared to help free the cleric.- He can disable the cleric, thus leaving the prisoner unable to escape (without help) and unable to make the situation worse.  In my book, this would _normally_ be subdual damage.- He can provide the prisoner with "High Justice" based on the premise that any terms for the clerics surrender were nullified by the cleric not warning the group of other dangers. This makes the assumption that Paladins are able to grant a death sentence in your campaign. Now, the player, playing a half-orc paladin, goes for the bloodlust angle to show why the paladin chose a lethal response rather than subdual.  IMO - This isn't bad, it is interesting.  It might be an excuse to further develop the character.  Later lamenting the giving in to the lethal option when a non-lethal option existed.  It might not have been the wrong decision because he meant to disable, but struck harder than he had to (instead of doing subdual).  Or, perhaps he chose to administer "justice" instead of waiting for a trial by the party, who might be dying at this very moment.  Depending on your campaign, and on the player's response, I might give him a slap on the wrist reminder that he didn't need to use lethal force.  Or, I might begin yanking powers until he figures out why his actions were wrong and he has atoned for them.  Or, I might go for anything in between.  Of course, you already know this.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  You are really just fishing for options and looking for a sanity check to make sure your decision isn't going to have unforeseen backlash to your game.  Besides, it is an interesting question and you couldn't resist posting it to EN World!  That's why we all check these boards, right?Anyway, I hope my theoretical scenario provides somebody with a devil's advocate view on how this situation isn't completely out of line.  Or, that my post provides plenty of fuel for the fire!</blockquote>

Verification