PDA

View Full Version : (D&D 3.5) Another Pally thread (sorry)



GeminiVeil
2010-11-26, 05:07 PM
Oh, this scenario has been bothering me for a while, and I just need opinions of others to see what they would do in such a situation.

I was playing in a low-magic custom world. A lot of things were banned as OP. (seperate rant, really) Low level, don't remember exactly. Max of lvl 6. I was playing a Dwarven Barbarian and a Dwarven Paladin. I don't normally play 2 characters, or paladins, but someone left the game when we needed more characters so I volunteered to run the pally.

Our group encountered another group of 'adventurers'. NPC's. We grouped with them in order to take down a young red dragon. They were a few lvls below us, probably 3rd lvl. 'My' paladin detected evil on them and found that most of them were evil, but in the homebrew world, a pally could team up with evil as long as he didn't contribute to evil acts they did or witness anything, or anything to that effect.

Anyway, so we all camped after slaying the dragon. As we were camping, one of the evil ones (the rogue) tries to backstab one of our teammates, but another one of the evil ones (not sure class, but I think arcane caster) shoots and kills the rogue. I had 'my' paladin about to attack the wizard for killing his own party member. I had no intention of killing him, just eliminating the thread, then we could take him to a jail or something.

When I voiced this, not only was pretty much everyone at the table against it, but the DM said that I would lose my paladin-hood for comitting the 'obviously evil act.'

So, what is the opinion of the playground? This has been bugging me long enough that I would REALLY like an answer. Thank you in advance. :smallsmile:

AstralFire
2010-11-26, 05:09 PM
I think your Paladin was being kind of stupid unless he didn't see the rogue trying to doublecross the party. But nothing fall-worthy.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-11-26, 05:14 PM
Attacking the wizard was horribly rash. He was in no imminent danger of aggression, so a talk about his actions with your Diplomacy skill and Charisma would have done the trick. However, stupidity is not sufficient to make a paladin fall.

Ryuuk
2010-11-26, 05:17 PM
Without knowing his alignment, you would have just seen the wizard save one of your own from the rogue. Trying to attack him seems like the pally was looking for an excuse to smite evil.

I think I would have just given the wizard a reluctant thanks, telling him that what he did was overkill though.

GeminiVeil
2010-11-26, 05:23 PM
Attacking the wizard was horribly rash. He was in no imminent danger of aggression, so a talk about his actions with your Diplomacy skill and Charisma would have done the trick. However, stupidity is not sufficient to make a paladin fall.

As I said, I didn't usually play pally. More the brutish melee guy. However, watching an evil person in a party kill another evil person in the same party instead of, I don't know, shouting a warning, seemed like the appropriate thing to me. Then again, I don't really consider myself LG.


Without knowing his alignment, you would have just seen the wizard save one of your own from the rogue. Trying to attack him seems like the pally was looking for an excuse to smite evil.

I think I would have just given the wizard a reluctant thanks, telling him that what he did was overkill though.

As I said in my original post, I used the detect evil. I concentrated long enough to know which were evil and made mental notes of it. The two in question were evil, and my pally already knew it. And, as I already also said, if he had surrendered, I wouldn't have touched him, but I still would have taken him to jail for a murder that could have easily been gotten around my warning rather than death.


I think your Paladin was being kind of stupid unless he didn't see the rogue trying to doublecross the party. But nothing fall-worthy.


How was it being stupid? The wizard betrayed his own party member. That, and the fact I already KNEW he was evil, to me, would make sense to get him to surrender so that he can be held over for a trial. If he had surrendered to me I wouldn't have touched him.

Dracons
2010-11-26, 05:31 PM
Depends on alot of factors.


Does any goverment own that land where the action happened? Being so close to the dragon's lair, I doubt it, and thus he couldn't be held accountable in any law area because it happened outside it. It's like bringing someone from Japan to America for killing someone while in international waters. It just doesn't work.

Did you see the rogue try to murder? Or did you just see him get up and the wizard slay him?

Remember, just because they're evil, doesn't mean that they are worthy to die. People can be evil because they do different things, like too much greed by dungeons and dragons standards, something all PC's generally are.

In that case, the only thing you really could have done, was reprime the wizard, and how he needs to change his ways or one day a friend could too slay him for no reason.


EDIT: In the end it doesn't matter. The DM stated why you shouldn't and he is final judge on when and how your paladin falls.

Starbuck_II
2010-11-26, 05:36 PM
Anyway, so we all camped after slaying the dragon. As we were camping, one of the evil ones (the rogue) tries to backstab one of our teammates, but another one of the evil ones (not sure class, but I think arcane caster) shoots and kills the rogue. I had 'my' paladin about to attack the wizard for killing his own party member. I had no intention of killing him, just eliminating the thread, then we could take him to a jail or something.

When I voiced this, not only was pretty much everyone at the table against it, but the DM said that I would lose my paladin-hood for comitting the 'obviously evil act.'

The Wizard killed the rogue who just went hostile to all of you.
You had no cause for attacking the wizard: he wasn't guilty. So you could call him innocent: one might say the Pally just killed an innocent.

Not that he was, but one say that easily.

hamishspence
2010-11-26, 05:39 PM
Going by the description, the paladin was planning on knocking the wizard out rather than killing him-

but didn't get a chance to do so, since the DM said "attacking the wizard is an Obviously Evil act".

GeminiVeil
2010-11-26, 05:55 PM
Going by the description, the paladin was planning on knocking the wizard out rather than killing him-

but didn't get a chance to do so, since the DM said "attacking the wizard is an Obviously Evil act".

Yes. I don't know exactly where everyone keeps getting 'kill the wizard', since I think I mentioned about twice already that I wasn't going to kill him.



Depends on alot of factors.


Does any goverment own that land where the action happened? Being so close to the dragon's lair, I doubt it, and thus he couldn't be held accountable in any law area because it happened outside it. It's like bringing someone from Japan to America for killing someone while in international waters. It just doesn't work.

Did you see the rogue try to murder? Or did you just see him get up and the wizard slay him?

Remember, just because they're evil, doesn't mean that they are worthy to die. People can be evil because they do different things, like too much greed by dungeons and dragons standards, something all PC's generally are.

In that case, the only thing you really could have done, was reprime the wizard, and how he needs to change his ways or one day a friend could too slay him for no reason.


EDIT: In the end it doesn't matter. The DM stated why you shouldn't and he is final judge on when and how your paladin falls.

Isn't the paladin described in some texts as 'the incarnation of good and law'?
And I actually believe that it was on the fringe outskirts of a kingdom, but my memory is hazy on that. I know it was within a days travel to the kingdom we were going to, and said kingdom was described as 'vast.' Also, pretty sure my spot did not notice the rogue attempting to kill him with the pally char, but my barbarian did notice, I remembered that.
Again, never said I would kill said wizard.
By that logic, btw, DM said I could fall for stepping on too many bugs (thereby, killing) in a day. *shrug*


The Wizard killed the rogue who just went hostile to all of you.
You had no cause for attacking the wizard: he wasn't guilty. So you could call him innocent: one might say the Pally just killed an innocent.

Not that he was, but one say that easily.

That's one viewpoint. My viewpoint was "Hey, wizard just killed his own teammate instead of trying to warn us, need to stop him before he kills again." I think both are perfectly valid for a pally.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-11-26, 06:05 PM
That's one viewpoint. My viewpoint was "Hey, wizard just killed his own teammate instead of trying to warn us, need to stop him before he kills again." I think both are perfectly valid for a pally.

If I were at your table I would be somewhat surprised that the paladin's initial go-to method is violent confrontation. It's perfectly valid given the circumstances, but different enough from the normal culture I experience to perhaps make me say some unwarranted things.

GeminiVeil
2010-11-26, 06:13 PM
If I were at your table I would be somewhat surprised that the paladin's initial go-to method is violent confrontation. It's perfectly valid given the circumstances, but different enough from the normal culture I experience to perhaps make me say some unwarranted things.

Looking back with the more experiance, I probably would have threatened to attack if he didn't surrender rather than just attack, but at the time, it was my first pally, first 'spellcaster' (before that, just fighters and barbarians) and first LG character.

Mark Hall
2010-11-27, 11:05 AM
I don't see it as an "auto-fall" situation, but I think attacking the wizard was over the line, and should definitely cause some questioning (by your deity or one of his servants).

Yes, the wizard is evil (or was, when you checked him a while ago; q.v. Miko, Roy and Durkon (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0202.html)). However, unless you missed the rogue (or have reason to question that evidence afterward), the wizard just saved your party member. He may have been making a step towards good. He may be acting lawfully ("We are teamed with them. We may renegotiate tomorrow, but we're teamed with them now."). He may have an ulterior motive ("They will trust me now. It will make it easier to betray them." "I hate Fingers. This is the perfect excuse to destroy him!"). However, you can't KNOW his motive... even with Sense Motive, you can only guess. So you must judge him on his actions. And his actions may go farther than you would have in this case, but they are reasonably justified.

GeminiVeil
2010-11-28, 12:55 PM
Well, so far, the general consensus is that it was a bit over the line, but almost definately not an auto-fall at the same time. Which I guess is reasonable. As stated before, I really don't play Pallys.

So the mindset that I had for my Pally wasn't accurate? Just to be clear, since I don't think I stated in the OP, the Pally character I was playing did not make the spot check to see what the rogue was up to, but my Barbarian did. But the evil Wizard (which showed up as evil earlier the same day) got Initiative.

Pally's mindset was- "Holy crap! Wiz guy just murdered his own teammate! Justice must be done! He will submit or I will knock him out and take him to the nearest justice system. They will know what to do." The Pally had a little past of going for violence first when it came to evil guys, so I tried to play that a little. That was before I got him, too.

AstralFire
2010-11-28, 12:57 PM
As I said earlier, the Paladin's actions make sense as long as he was not aware that that murdered rogue was trying to backstab your party. Then the Paladin is apprehending a loose cannon murderer.

Mark Hall
2010-11-29, 03:46 PM
Well, so far, the general consensus is that it was a bit over the line, but almost definately not an auto-fall at the same time. Which I guess is reasonable. As stated before, I really don't play Pallys.

So the mindset that I had for my Pally wasn't accurate? Just to be clear, since I don't think I stated in the OP, the Pally character I was playing did not make the spot check to see what the rogue was up to, but my Barbarian did. But the evil Wizard (which showed up as evil earlier the same day) got Initiative.

Pally's mindset was- "Holy crap! Wiz guy just murdered his own teammate! Justice must be done! He will submit or I will knock him out and take him to the nearest justice system. They will know what to do." The Pally had a little past of going for violence first when it came to evil guys, so I tried to play that a little. That was before I got him, too.

I don't see that as wrong, necessarily, but definitely a bit overzealous. If he was unaware that the rogue was about to kill someone, then it's pretty reasonable.

It all comes down to "Did he (or have reason to suspect) that the rogue was about to kill someone?"