What does the paladin do when...

[MerakSpielman]

Of course, if I were the evil sorcerer, the whole moral dilemma would be a well-crafted illusion. I would be invisible on the far edge of the pit, dropping the baby in while the Paladin is tied in moral knots. His elven wife, of course, would already be dead.

Hey, he's evil, not dumb or suicidal.

 

[Murrdox]

This whole situation screams for a bag of holding filled with Dire Weasels.

This post brought to you by Bag o' Weasels [tm]
"A Party in Every Bag"

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Wow! Elder-Basilisk my friend, you said pretty much exactly what I was thinking! I agree fully.

That said, on the occasions that I have encountered DM's that get a kick out of scenarios such as this, I can't help it--there's this sick, vicious, sarcastic side of me that wants to say, "Oh yeah? How 'bout this!" and proceed to just hammer the evil sorcerer to the floor. Then, take my dead wife's hair, and begin to strangle him with it. Then, roaring with rage, grab his stupid broken body, and leap fully into the demon pit, screaming in maniacal rage all the way down! My child dies, my wife dies, the sorcerer dies. Demonic hell is unleashed, and my paladin dies gloriously. Or, if he survives, he becomes and evil vicious bastard that proceeds to unleash his own hell of rape and slaughter upon the world! Yea!

Either my character triumphs in such a scenario, or turns into an evil bastard, or dies a glorious death. It seems a likely enough way to get that paladin out of the way, and roll up a new character. And yes, I'd roll up a new paladin. I wouldn't marry anyone, and I would retire my parents to an isolated monastery somewhere, and I would play a mentally-deficient paladin that only has the thinnest grasp on morality, who just likes to hack the evil things apart.

After all, isn't this what the DM wants to really happen?

I get so tired of all the DM's who hate paladins. They go well beyond any reasonable way to inject dramatic elements into the game, and instead assidiously work painstakingly to create the ultimate no-win moral dilemma for the paladin character.

Kill 'em all, and let god sort 'em out!

It makes me want to laugh in some ways, heh?

Realistically, what is there for the paladin to do in such a situation? You leap to try and save the child, and then proceed to kill the sorcerer in order to stop the gate from opening. The wife is pretty much dead, and the gate might open anyways. Then, as Elder-Basilisk said, you get to get all those experience points for fighting hordes of demons! It seems to be a no-win situation to me. The paladin can't realistically be expected to do three things at once, all in one round. He can only do so much.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Arnwyn]

Grapple the sorceror. Screws up the spell/pendulum/thingy and can't drop the baby.

Done and done.

(Oh, and bash my head repeatedly against the wall because I went in alone. Duh!)

 

[Angcuru]

It is a given that you are going in alone. I never stated that you are accompanied by any companions. If you were, this would not be such a dilemma. YOU ARE ALONE in this situation.

I just gave an example of a situation, and asked to know what you people would do in that situation. There was no mention of a gaming session or D&D in particular. It's just a SITUATION>

This wouldn't be bad DMing, this is just an example of a DM setting up a situation taking into consideration the intelect and mindset of the villain involved.

Angcru: Right. An epic level Sorcerer is about to complete his dark ritual, using your child as the final component, and when you go to grab your wife, he doesn't kill the child and complete the ritual? And chopping his leg off, as s/LASH said, is completely unfeasible thanks to the way D&D operates. Not to mention the other tactical problems in your approach to the situation. Your second "solution" is even more ridiculous.

There's a thing called stealth. And who's to say that the ritual has to end the moment that the paladin reaches this area?

There's a thing called a CALLED SHOT, and if you were to hit the sorcerer who is for all intents and purposes not moving, not defending himself, etc, chances are that his leg will be NOT ATTACHED to his BODY anymore. Remember that this paladin would of course be epic, so this situation is completely possible.

If you are going to try to counter my ideas, try to do it without that sarcastic/mocking overtone. It makes you come off as an ass.

Oh, so we're allowed to use real world tactics, not just game ones. That changes everything. You can't chop someone's leg off with one blow in D&D once they get past, oh, fourth level? They just have too many hit points to knock them off balance in one attack.

Yeah, stunt men could save the day. Thus rendering the whole moral dilemma moot.

I never said that you had to follow any particular tactics. and as for the chopping off of the leg, see my above reply.

 

[MerakSpielman]

Nice.

Except there is no such thing as a called shot in 3e. Anywhere in the rules. Period.

Called shot = house rule.

edit: This wasn't sarcastic or mocking, was it? I was going for 'blunt.'

 

[Angcuru]

Nice.

Except there is no such thing as a called shot in 3e. Anywhere in the rules. Period.

Called shot = house rule.

yes, there is. Page 30 of the Quintessential Fighter gives rules for Called Shots, rather good ones, too. Know what you're talking about, please.

 

[blackshirt5]

called shots are in Quintessential Fighter, IIRC. So they are a part of the D20 System, just not an "official" one.

 

[MerakSpielman]

Quintessential Fighter. Ah. I thought we were restricting the discussion to core books, and maybe splatbooks.

Third party books throw kinks into about every discussion about rules, because they add things to the core rules that were never intended to be there.

 

[blackshirt5]

Sorry. I think Angcuru operates under the assumptions of MY campaigns(I prefer the Quintessential and Path books to the WotC splats), and I allow the Called Shots rules.