What would you do with this oathbreaking paladin?

[Tzarevitch]

I'd have to say simply....OVER REACTION.
First off an arrow of dragon slaying, not even a greater arrow of dragon slaying is worthless unless you are hunting wyrmlings and even then it could be an easy save for them.
Second. NO WIN SITUATION. You placed the Paladin in a situation to deal with an known Evil dragon. Did you want him to fight it? If he fought the dragon and killed it, no information. If he deals with it in any fashion, gives it anything that could be useful to it, then he has dealt with evil and by most peoples (not all) interpretation he has violated his code of conduct to not deal with evil. Whether you give the dragon gold or a +1 longsword any of it can be used for evil purposes. Even giving the dragon a Holy weapon would do it even though the dragon or it’s minions would not be able to use it, the forces of good would be denied it.
I could see it now....
Paladin: "I pay the 1gp to bartender for the nights stay in the inn."
DM: "You're paladin hood has been stripped from you for dealing with evil. You have supplied gold to evil to be used for evil purposes"
Paladin:” WHAT!!!!!"
DM: "You can detect evil. You should have gone elsewhere to stay for the night."
Paladin: "The next closest inn is 3 days ride!!!"
Player of Paladin: "Screw this and **&$ you I'm outta here!!"

I’d have to agree any dragon would more than likely destroyed said arrow on principal then use it or give it a minion. How comfortable would a human really be if he an arrow of human slaying? Is he going to keep it around just in case or snap it and move on?

If you want the players to deal with evil to get information then you set the paladins up for failure. If you want them to kill every evil creature they come up to then you lose out of good story and role-playing possibilities.

I once did this type of thing, I learned from it. I had a Cavalier in 2E come up upon the world’s best known assassin in an alley; I meant it to be a role-playing situation and something the cavalier could learn information from. The assassin was well-known and hard to catch or kill and used very recognizable items that defined him. The cavalier recognized him and attacked. Even though the cavalier was like 5th level and the Assassin was around 18th. The cavalier was dead after a few shots from the assassin’s bow (his trademark item) and the player was furious. He couldn’t retreat and couldn’t by his code allow the assassin to get away while he was alive. My mistake cost me a good player and character in the campaign, all because we viewed the code differently. The player lost interest after that and toyed with few characters but finally left the group after causing a few problems elsewhere in the campaign.

Is killing evil because it is evil good or evil in itself?
If the evil guy is doing nothing, just has a bad attitude in life in general, and paladin kills him because he is evil, has the paladin committed a good act or an evil act?

Just my opinion of course. But paladins and any character with a code of conduct had best be well understood equally and by both player and DM or someone is going to over react.

RD

The issue had to do with whether or not the paladin broke his oath not whether or not he is making a deal with the devil (or evil dragon). The paladin may not have broken the letter of his oath but he most certainly broke the intent which was clearly explained to him when the arrow was given to him. Since a paladin is always lawful good both the wording AND the intent of the oath matter.

The issue is also not whether a longsword +1 or arrow of dragonslaying is a greater weapon in the hands of evil. The issue is another paladin asked him to give his oath not to do something and he did it anyway.

That being said I also would not strip him of paladinhood. All things considering, the infraction is rather minor. I would probably have a minion of the paladin's deity (or minion of good) appear and require a quest. Another possibility is to have the paladin that gave him the arrow return and express his displeasure at the character breaking his word. The most amusing option is if the dragon found out about the gift (perhaps he used legend lore or bardic knowledge or Gather Information) then launched a campain to inform others that the paladin can't be counted on to keep his word and drag his name through the mud.

The last option is to have the blue dragon actually employ the arrow (or sell it to another evildoer who uses it) to slay a good dragon. Perhaps this particular arrow is a minor artifact or perhaps the evildoers are collecting bushels of arrows of dragonslaying. Let the paladin see the consequences of failure to keep his word.

Tzarevitch

 

[Kaji]

As Silveras pointed out, the purpose of the oath was to prevent the arrow from falling into evil hands and it clearly spelled out that idea.

Punishment is in order for the character. The code doesn't make any distinction for ends justifying the means. This is Lawful good. The rules are the rules and in place to prevent evil - not judge when it is convenient to follow them. If he did it for "the greatest good", lawful good is about sacrifice.

Now the question becomes how much punishment is appropriate? It also depends on your campaign. Do you provide for atonement? Is it possible to restore his paladinhood?

There are some serious metagame issues as well. It should be fun for your players. There is a balance between punishing the character and taking all the fun away from the player. Can your player work with you to play his character as remorseful and resolute to restore not only his paladinhood, but his honor as well?

Let me add some details:
First, this player is famous for saying "My character would not have done that" right after he does something incredibly stupid. As a DM, it gets awfully tiring.
Second, yes, I plan on making atonement an option. It is possible even to redeem yourself by actions alone. The character in question was going to die trying to kill this dragon, but the dragon turned him to glass. And then killed or paralyzed the rest of them. I would have been cool with a dying sacrifice.
Third, we are playing an over-the-top super righteous campaign. The whole party is LG, and pretty much on a holy quest. For these folks, buying lunch is pretty much a holy quest, because it is feeding fuel to the fires that will burn the unrighteous.
Fourth, in retrospect, I wish I had maybe removed his spell access instead, something a little less dramatic but still painful. But in the end, I think the player actually might be more angry at himself for making another incredible mistake. This is the same guy who killed 8 commoners IN A CHURCH (with his last character, a dwarven cleric)to a good god by accident when trying to stop some other evil thing from happening. He killed them because he failed estimate the amount of damage the spell would do to commoners. It was not that much, but you don't need much to kill a guy with 4 hit points.
In our new campaign, one of the players is playing a character who heard about the dwarven clerics misdeeds and is nameing himself "charactername"bane and plans on finding him to destroy this stain upon the honor of all dwarves everywhere.

That being said, points about making sure the code of honor is well understood are well taken. I might be guilty of thinking it seems self-evident to me when its not to others...

 

[Majere]

Hmm Just my 2c but

1) Dont write a plot where a super holy group + Paladin has to deal with evil. If the group really take it that seriously they are going to kill or die trying to kill your plot device.
-> Would this have happened if you had used a good dragon and not an evil dragon ?
-> Would a good dragon have spoilt your whole campeign ?

2) Dont have NPCs the PCs are ment to deal with attack the PCs. Either the NPC or the PC's die, or if the PC's are captured there will generally be such a great resentment of this that they will refuse to deal with the NPCs or try to get revenge.
-> Would you have this problem if you hadnt decided the dragon needed to rough them up ?

3) I dont get the whole "You broke by law 4.65.3 subsection A paragraph 96 of the paladin code.. despite your 25 years good sevice, for the UNHOLY crime of talking to an evil person YOUR FIRED !"

Paladins invest pretty much their whole life in being paladins, and their gods are GOOD. A Good God isnt going to be fickle or vengeful, and they arent going to give up a devoted paladin because he broke some piddyly litte minor point on the code. He MIGHT give the paladin a boot up the ass by removing some powers until atonement, but it takes a majourly evil act before they are going to permanently remove a person from paladinhood.

On the whole the only way to judge a paladins actions are his intentions. Why did the paladin give up the arrow ? Was he frightened, was he trying to gain wealth or power ? Or was he just doing what he thought was best to protect his comrades ? We all make mistakes, making a mistake isnt a breaking of the code. To break a code of conduct you have to knowingly,willingly and deliberately break it.

4) Expecting paladins to die "because its the right thing"
Thats a great way to make noone want to play a paladins.
"Oh hey your all 15th level kewl.. oh cept the paladin whos 3rd level because the DM said he has to act like a goon and suicidally attack everything evil, or stop being a paladin"
Lawful Good != Stupid moron.
A dead paladin protects noone, smites no evil, does no good.
While there might be a few gods who would expect such devotion, most gods arent going to get much milage from their worshipers, if their first level paladins keep trying to take on wyrm black dragons.
Equally, while it is easy to say here in a forum that you would expect the paladin to attack the dragon and possibly die, I suspect that if any of us were in a TPK cause by a paladin moronically attacking an obviously super powerful being you would be miffed. It might be a meta game situation, but campeign ending TPKs are bad, and generally make the other players resent their character being killed because the paladin acted stupidly. At the end of the day its a game you play for fun, and losing a character you spent years with because the paladin "has" to attack the black dragon that your only visint because the DM wrote him in as a plot device is pretty weak.

There is a rule in bridge, and it say:
"If you give you partner a chance to go wrong, he will. So if you can take that decision away from them, do it"

It applies to PCs too.

Majere

 

[Hypersmurf]

This is the same guy who killed 8 commoners IN A CHURCH...

Holy ground, Highlander! Remember what Ramirez taught you...

-Hyp.

 

[Amaroq]

That being said, points about making sure the code of honor is well understood are well taken. I might be guilty of thinking it seems self-evident to me when its not to others...

I'd echo that advice. I'm playing a paladin in one campaign, and one of my favorite parts of it was spending several hours explicitly writing up my paladin's personal Code, bearing in mind my diety's beliefs - balancing mercy with justice, balancing honor with intelligence, etc. After spending a long period with it, by myself, I ran it over with my GM, who went through it point by point.

We each have a copy of the Code, 2-3 pages or so, and my GM has since done an excellent job of working character development by presenting me with dilemmas, points in which one point of my character's Code is in conflict with another, and forcing me to choose between them - sometimes as a "test", in which he has a "right" answer in mind, and other times just to push the character's development.

I agree with a number of the others, that a permanent and instant loss of paladin-hood is far too harsh; a single mistake, no matter how egregious, shouldn't negate a lifetime of service. I particularly like the way my GM has given me "warnings" if I was transgressing: "When you make your morning prayer, you feel cut off from your god. You notice that you haven't recovered any of your spells, also..." That left me wondering whether I had smite, saving throws, lay on hands, etc... and no way to find out until I needed 'em!

Providing ways to atone is cool... and if you do it right, it can be fun for both you and the paladin. Try to paint the quest for atonement as part of the character development. If he truly loves paladin-hood, he'll be into that... and if he doesn't, then "fighter" is a better class for him.

It sounds like there was a lot of emotion involved. (Note, his negative reaction may have been to the way you said it... letting him "discover" what's wrong is much easier to take than saying, "You what? That's it, you're no longer a paladin!") If that's the case, I'd say - have a one-on-one conversation with your player before your next session. Outline what you were thinking; outline what his diety is thinking; make it clear that those are different. Tell him that it doesn't have to be permanent, and see if he's into atonement. Make sure you do not have this conversation in front of the others - and let him vent a little, if he needs to, without getting defensive about it.

If you're into "forgiveness" and are regretting your decision - remember that you're the GM, here. You don't *have* to follow the rules explicitly - you are, after all, role-playing the god in question, who grants or withholds the paladin's abilities. You can certainly let some of his abilities "creep back" to achieve what you feel is a better balance of infraction to punishment. Did he acquit himself well in fighting the blue dragon? Does his character "pray" in apology? Does his character seek out a high priest of his diety to beg atonement? Any of those gives you a plot-hook way to start awarding back paladinly virtues.

 

[Ylis]

Let me add some details:
First, this player is famous for saying "My character would not have done that" right after he does something incredibly stupid. As a DM, it gets awfully tiring.
Second, yes, I plan on making atonement an option. It is possible even to redeem yourself by actions alone. The character in question was going to die trying to kill this dragon, but the dragon turned him to glass. And then killed or paralyzed the rest of them. I would have been cool with a dying sacrifice.
Third, we are playing an over-the-top super righteous campaign. The whole party is LG, and pretty much on a holy quest. For these folks, buying lunch is pretty much a holy quest, because it is feeding fuel to the fires that will burn the unrighteous.
Fourth, in retrospect, I wish I had maybe removed his spell access instead, something a little less dramatic but still painful. But in the end, I think the player actually might be more angry at himself for making another incredible mistake. This is the same guy who killed 8 commoners IN A CHURCH (with his last character, a dwarven cleric)to a good god by accident when trying to stop some other evil thing from happening. He killed them because he failed estimate the amount of damage the spell would do to commoners. It was not that much, but you don't need much to kill a guy with 4 hit points.
In our new campaign, one of the players is playing a character who heard about the dwarven clerics misdeeds and is nameing himself "charactername"bane and plans on finding him to destroy this stain upon the honor of all dwarves everywhere.

That being said, points about making sure the code of honor is well understood are well taken. I might be guilty of thinking it seems self-evident to me when its not to others...

Honestly, I don't think you over reacted. Though some might think that you went overboard by stripping the character of his paladinhood, I think you followed the rules of honor and the paladin's code the way it was meant to be followed. If he does something blatantly against the code (and whether or not he remembered his oath is irrelevant to most deities...he took the oath, he's bound to it until his death), he should, technically, be stripped of paladinhood. Yes, players will get angry, but why play a paladin if you're planning on getting away with breaking the code? The code is one of the challenges of the class. Otherwise, you're just a glorified fighter.

So, I actually commend you for sticking to your guns as a GM. Perhaps your harshness will make players think in the future about their actions. Take it as a learning experience for all...you now have a better idea of what you would do in the future, and your players have a more serious outlook to the paladin.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

Let me add some details:
First, this player is famous for saying "My character would not have done that" right after he does something incredibly stupid. As a DM, it gets awfully tiring.

I was wondering why I was siding with the player instead of the DM. We didn't have the juicy details. It sounds a lot more like this is just another drop in the bucket instead of his first mistake (as I read it before). IF this sort of thing is pretty common then he does need to be shown to be more careful before he thinks. I had a similar player in one of my games, a sorcerer who insisted on going toe to toe with things. It almost evolved into a running joke that I was trying to kill him, when I was just running combat as normal and he just made it harder on himself.

Second, yes, I plan on making atonement an option. It is possible even to redeem yourself by actions alone. The character in question was going to die trying to kill this dragon, but the dragon turned him to glass. And then killed or paralyzed the rest of them. I would have been cool with a dying sacrifice.

It's good that you're offering atonement. I'd let his abilities slowly seep back into him as he keeps up the good work. Going into valorous combat with a balor? The next night he has his Smites back. Helping out pesants all day? He gets back a spellcasting level. But don't make it too hard, don't make it too easy. Like I mentioned before.

Third, we are playing an over-the-top super righteous campaign. The whole party is LG, and pretty much on a holy quest. For these folks, buying lunch is pretty much a holy quest, because it is feeding fuel to the fires that will burn the unrighteous.

So parley with evil is prety well not within the scope of brining righteous pain to all evil? In which case, that's another reason for surprize about trying to deal with evil.

This is the same guy who killed 8 commoners IN A CHURCH

With that sort of player history, I'm surprized he lasted this long.

 

[RuminDange]

Let me add some details:
First, this player is famous for saying "My character would not have done that" right after he does something incredibly stupid. As a DM, it gets awfully tiring.
Second, yes, I plan on making atonement an option. It is possible even to redeem yourself by actions alone. The character in question was going to die trying to kill this dragon, but the dragon turned him to glass. And then killed or paralyzed the rest of them. I would have been cool with a dying sacrifice.
Third, we are playing an over-the-top super righteous campaign. The whole party is LG, and pretty much on a holy quest. For these folks, buying lunch is pretty much a holy quest, because it is feeding fuel to the fires that will burn the unrighteous.
Fourth, in retrospect, I wish I had maybe removed his spell access instead, something a little less dramatic but still painful. But in the end, I think the player actually might be more angry at himself for making another incredible mistake. This is the same guy who killed 8 commoners IN A CHURCH (with his last character, a dwarven cleric)to a good god by accident when trying to stop some other evil thing from happening. He killed them because he failed estimate the amount of damage the spell would do to commoners. It was not that much, but you don't need much to kill a guy with 4 hit points.
In our new campaign, one of the players is playing a character who heard about the dwarven clerics misdeeds and is nameing himself "charactername"bane and plans on finding him to destroy this stain upon the honor of all dwarves everywhere.

That being said, points about making sure the code of honor is well understood are well taken. I might be guilty of thinking it seems self-evident to me when its not to others...

Now that we have more information, it may not have been too much of an over reaction if the player is going around doing something, getting warned or called on about being against the code and then trying to say he wouldn't do that after the fact to avoid punishment. If that is the case, paladin he shouldn’t be. Similar case, I’ve got a player that made a deal with his god, failed on a quest from her and then disobeyed her after she gave him a second chance, because she didn’t give him enough information about the new task and it was against other party members and their gods’ position. He is still angry he has been cursed and cast out as forsaken and trying to blame it on the other players, when it was always his decision.

However, is still seems like a "No Win Situation" in that you have a LG party that contains a paladin having to deal with an Evil Dragon. I personally have players that would look at the wording of the oath and say that since they are not selling the arrow but they are using it to secure the information they need that the oath was not broken. Granted giving it to an evil dragon could be looked at as going against the intent of the oath, but so would allowing such an evil dragon to live and continue to do evil after you have the information. Association with evil doesn’t necessary mean traveling with them but it means dealing with them. Besides according to one of players (and wife) who read this thread and asked, “Who says using the arrow means shooting a dragon with it?” I’d have to look at the oath to see if it was really that ironclad, and if it was, my bad, since it still comes back to dealing with evil. Paladins can’t win either way they go in this situation if not given some leeway in how they do things in concerning the code.

But you have to know my players a little more. My wife is one of those that will look for creative ways around any agreement or situation to use diplomacy over fighting and an evil creature is a creature in need of redeeming unless it is an abomination of nature (she plays a NG Druid). Top that off my players have gotten their hands on Arrows of Dragon Slaying among a few others over 3+ years, looked at the Fort DC of it, a 20, and either destroyed them or laughed and sold them since to them they were worthless. A Fort DC 20 for a dragon is nothing to make, you have to be hoping for a 1 in most cases. Fort save also tend to be the best saves my party has as well, they use themselves as judge to see if something like that would be worth using, and they know unless it is a wyrmling it would be a waste.
Second a +1 arrow probably wouldn't hurt a dragon over adult due to DR (3E when they've gotten them). Of course my players look a fighting a dragon as a last resort and if a dragon came in to "rough them up first" they would flee (unlikely, except for maybe 2 players) or die fighting (once they are fighting they don't normally stop for the other 3 until it or they are dead).

As always, just my opinions based on my years of DM experience.
RD

 

[Kaji]

Now that we have more information, it may not have been too much of an over reaction if the player is going around doing something, getting warned or called on about being against the code and then trying to say he wouldn't do that after the fact to avoid punishment. If that is the case, paladin he shouldn’t be. Similar case, I’ve got a player that made a deal with his god, failed on a quest from her and then disobeyed her after she gave him a second chance, because she didn’t give him enough information about the new task and it was against other party members and their gods’ position. He is still angry he has been cursed and cast out as forsaken and trying to blame it on the other players, when it was always his decision.

However, is still seems like a "No Win Situation" in that you have a LG party that contains a paladin having to deal with an Evil Dragon. I personally have players that would look at the wording of the oath and say that since they are not selling the arrow but they are using it to secure the information they need that the oath was not broken. Granted giving it to an evil dragon could be looked at as going against the intent of the oath, but so would allowing such an evil dragon to live and continue to do evil after you have the information. Association with evil doesn’t necessary mean traveling with them but it means dealing with them. Besides according to one of players (and wife) who read this thread and asked, “Who says using the arrow means shooting a dragon with it?” I’d have to look at the oath to see if it was really that ironclad, and if it was, my bad, since it still comes back to dealing with evil. Paladins can’t win either way they go in this situation if not given some leeway in how they do things in concerning the code.

But you have to know my players a little more. My wife is one of those that will look for creative ways around any agreement or situation to use diplomacy over fighting and an evil creature is a creature in need of redeeming unless it is an abomination of nature (she plays a NG Druid). Top that off my players have gotten their hands on Arrows of Dragon Slaying among a few others over 3+ years, looked at the Fort DC of it, a 20, and either destroyed them or laughed and sold them since to them they were worthless. A Fort DC 20 for a dragon is nothing to make, you have to be hoping for a 1 in most cases. Fort save also tend to be the best saves my party has as well, they use themselves as judge to see if something like that would be worth using, and they know unless it is a wyrmling it would be a waste.
Second a +1 arrow probably wouldn't hurt a dragon over adult due to DR (3E when they've gotten them). Of course my players look a fighting a dragon as a last resort and if a dragon came in to "rough them up first" they would flee (unlikely, except for maybe 2 players) or die fighting (once they are fighting they don't normally stop for the other 3 until it or they are dead).

As always, just my opinions based on my years of DM experience.
RD

Lot's of folks have pointed out a perceived problem with the fact that I forced the party to dea with evil creatures. I'll ad some details:
First, all the party were told was that an object/item/information they needed was near/possessed/guarded or known about by said evil dragon. They were bright enough to go to sages to get info about the dragon, but they did not know why they were seeing her. So they wandered off into the desert to find her, using Wind Walk to canvass a large area where they figured she hung out. When they found a likely spot to explore, they hopped out and started to wander around, with little preparation, investigation, or plan. They are not to be commended.

Second, the whole point was to present a challange where their first instinct was going to be attack/attack/kill, but this was a dragon several CR's above them (party is 15th level, dragon is CR 27). Not designed to be an attack encounter, and I hinted at that several times. (I'm actually a pretty nice guy, but I keep it secret ). Plus, they did not yet know if they were looking for information, goods, a prisoner she had, whatever. Killing her was not going to help. But, it is a complex world, and sometimes we have to make hard choices. If they dealt with evil to get what they needed to stop a greater evil, it might still be an evil act, one that might require fasting, meditation, alms giving, and other goods deeds to atone.

More on this later, work calls...

So they just wandered off and got smacked by a dragon

 

[takyris]

Just as a random side-note. The paladin could have avoided all of this by doing this instead.

"This is an arrow of dragon-slaying. I could fire it at you, and you do not know for certain that you would survive. But because a greater good may be served, I ask that you accept this, not as a gesture of weakness, but as a sign of my desire for a peace between us for this time." And then he breaks the arrow in half and casts it aside.

As a gesture of goodwill, it might impress the dragon. The arrow is not in evil's hands, and, by helping the paladin impress the dragon with his resolve, the arrow has helped the cause of good. It's not exactly what the paladin swore to do, but it's not a violation of the spirit -- it's being used for good, and kept from the service of evil.