Project_Cobalt
2012-06-12, 09:04 AM
([EDIT]: To keep from needing to scroll down to answer the question I should have answered in my original post, I am running 4th Edition D&D.)
I posted previously http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=244848 in regards to the want by my party's Ranger to fill the role of leader already occupied by my party's Paladin. Things came to a head last night, and I'll have to tell a story, but here goes.
The Pledge
The party had been tussling with a tribe of Gnolls in a forest where it's magically always night. The Gnolls had been working with some Ogres and robbing travelers, as well as waging war on the Elves within the forest and burning down the forest in search of an artifact which, according to legend, can only be found through use of cleansing fire.
Eventually, the party ran across a group of Elves who assumed the party was allied with the Gnolls. The PCs were forced to defend themselves and (against the Paladin's direction to take them alive) killed the group of Elves. They made peace with the remaining elves and offered to repent by helping the Elves root out the Gnolls and stop the destruction of the forest.
The PCs raided the Gnolls' stronghold - a red-stone tower that was once a watchtower for paladins of the same order as our party's Paladin. Atop the tower, they found a pair of elven prisoners who were badly brutalized by the Gnolls. They freed them, and fought their way to the Gnollish encampment where the Gnollish leader waited.
The Turn
When they came upon the leader of the Gnolls, they were surprised to find he was a priest of the Shepherd (the same God the Paladin worships). They were doubly surprised when he invited them into his study to talk about what could be done, rather than fighting them. Here's where things get hairy.
Throughout the conversation with the Priest, the PCs discover that he received a vision from The Shepherd (the Paladin has also received a vision in the past which directed him to making some morally gray decisions based on his interpretation of that vision) instructing him to find an Amulet which was stolen by the Elves thousands of years ago. An Amulet which can only be truly verified by cleansing fire (it glows bright and the jewel at it's center changes color). An Amulet that the PCs have, no less (they discovered it when a Hobgoblin warchief was using it to control a White Dragon).
The Priest, knowing about the PCs previous self-defense slaying of the Elves, brings into question how he is any different. He has come to a place to accomplish a divine mission, and the Elves stood in his way violently - so he disposed of them. The PCs, by contrast, are traveling through the area on no particular mission, and fought the Elves to the death in self defense.
All in all, his argument convinces all of the party except the Paladin that, at very least, they need to remand him to the proper authorities. When he brings up that the Church owns the land upon which the forest sits, and that the proper authorities would be the Church, they decide that they have no power to enforce their morality on him and that, despite his callous disregard for Elven lives, he is only defending himself on a mission of (what he insists is) great import. The rest of the party leaves.
When questioned in regards to any activities by the Gnolls (the elven prisoners, the robbing of travelers, etc) he insists that he did not know, and that had he been made aware of these actions, his followers would have been punished.
The Paladin is not having any of that.
The Prestige
And so the Priest gives the Paladin a choice.
"What will you do? Kill me in cold blood when all I have done is serve the God you yourself have devoted your life to? Will you remand me to the justice of corrupt nobles in place of your trust in your faith? Or will you leave, and allow me to continue my divine mission?"
The Paladin knows full well that he is going to have to make a moral compromise. He will either kill the Priest - and hope that his interpretation of the Shepherd's will is correct - or capture him - and take him back to a city where the Nobility's virtue and ability to rule is in deep question - or, leave - and allow a zealot to continue murdering innocents in the name of the Shepherd?
As he has done before (the Party ran into a man who was allowing travelers to stay in his home, and then buying their wives to sell into slavery) - the Paladin insists he is the Shepherd's Sword, and kills the Priest (who does not resist). He burns down the Priest's home, and scatters the tribe of Gnolls who were following him.
Then, he rejoins the party. Only now, things are different. They saw the burning house, and know that the Paladin has killed the Priest. The Ranger and the Barbarian decide that they will no longer follow a man who has decided to take into his own hands the execution of someone who more or less operates under the same moral code that they do.
The party comes to a fork in the road. Both roads lead eventually to the city that was their original destination. The Paladin goes right. The Barbarian and the Ranger go left. The Warlord watches as the party splits, unable to do anything. He decides that someone needs to watch over the Paladin and guide him back to redemption. The party is split.
Now, all of that is mostly just fluff. The important part is that the party is split. I intend to leave them split for a while to work out some things, and really illustrate how fractured the group has become (without a defender or a leader, how will the two main damage-dealers survive?). The Paladin's player has (of his own volition, of course) rerolled his character as a Blackguard to further showcase his moral uncertainty and separation from the man he once was (and as a perfect double whammy, we now have no defender and a Paladin who works less well with others, in a case of RP influencing mechanics).
Can anyone give me some advice to make the split meaningful, and most of all, temporary? How can I guide the players to joining back up as a group? And of course, the obvious question when it comes to anything involving Paladins and their various codes, am I a bad DM for including this moral choice at all?
I posted previously http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=244848 in regards to the want by my party's Ranger to fill the role of leader already occupied by my party's Paladin. Things came to a head last night, and I'll have to tell a story, but here goes.
The Pledge
The party had been tussling with a tribe of Gnolls in a forest where it's magically always night. The Gnolls had been working with some Ogres and robbing travelers, as well as waging war on the Elves within the forest and burning down the forest in search of an artifact which, according to legend, can only be found through use of cleansing fire.
Eventually, the party ran across a group of Elves who assumed the party was allied with the Gnolls. The PCs were forced to defend themselves and (against the Paladin's direction to take them alive) killed the group of Elves. They made peace with the remaining elves and offered to repent by helping the Elves root out the Gnolls and stop the destruction of the forest.
The PCs raided the Gnolls' stronghold - a red-stone tower that was once a watchtower for paladins of the same order as our party's Paladin. Atop the tower, they found a pair of elven prisoners who were badly brutalized by the Gnolls. They freed them, and fought their way to the Gnollish encampment where the Gnollish leader waited.
The Turn
When they came upon the leader of the Gnolls, they were surprised to find he was a priest of the Shepherd (the same God the Paladin worships). They were doubly surprised when he invited them into his study to talk about what could be done, rather than fighting them. Here's where things get hairy.
Throughout the conversation with the Priest, the PCs discover that he received a vision from The Shepherd (the Paladin has also received a vision in the past which directed him to making some morally gray decisions based on his interpretation of that vision) instructing him to find an Amulet which was stolen by the Elves thousands of years ago. An Amulet which can only be truly verified by cleansing fire (it glows bright and the jewel at it's center changes color). An Amulet that the PCs have, no less (they discovered it when a Hobgoblin warchief was using it to control a White Dragon).
The Priest, knowing about the PCs previous self-defense slaying of the Elves, brings into question how he is any different. He has come to a place to accomplish a divine mission, and the Elves stood in his way violently - so he disposed of them. The PCs, by contrast, are traveling through the area on no particular mission, and fought the Elves to the death in self defense.
All in all, his argument convinces all of the party except the Paladin that, at very least, they need to remand him to the proper authorities. When he brings up that the Church owns the land upon which the forest sits, and that the proper authorities would be the Church, they decide that they have no power to enforce their morality on him and that, despite his callous disregard for Elven lives, he is only defending himself on a mission of (what he insists is) great import. The rest of the party leaves.
When questioned in regards to any activities by the Gnolls (the elven prisoners, the robbing of travelers, etc) he insists that he did not know, and that had he been made aware of these actions, his followers would have been punished.
The Paladin is not having any of that.
The Prestige
And so the Priest gives the Paladin a choice.
"What will you do? Kill me in cold blood when all I have done is serve the God you yourself have devoted your life to? Will you remand me to the justice of corrupt nobles in place of your trust in your faith? Or will you leave, and allow me to continue my divine mission?"
The Paladin knows full well that he is going to have to make a moral compromise. He will either kill the Priest - and hope that his interpretation of the Shepherd's will is correct - or capture him - and take him back to a city where the Nobility's virtue and ability to rule is in deep question - or, leave - and allow a zealot to continue murdering innocents in the name of the Shepherd?
As he has done before (the Party ran into a man who was allowing travelers to stay in his home, and then buying their wives to sell into slavery) - the Paladin insists he is the Shepherd's Sword, and kills the Priest (who does not resist). He burns down the Priest's home, and scatters the tribe of Gnolls who were following him.
Then, he rejoins the party. Only now, things are different. They saw the burning house, and know that the Paladin has killed the Priest. The Ranger and the Barbarian decide that they will no longer follow a man who has decided to take into his own hands the execution of someone who more or less operates under the same moral code that they do.
The party comes to a fork in the road. Both roads lead eventually to the city that was their original destination. The Paladin goes right. The Barbarian and the Ranger go left. The Warlord watches as the party splits, unable to do anything. He decides that someone needs to watch over the Paladin and guide him back to redemption. The party is split.
Now, all of that is mostly just fluff. The important part is that the party is split. I intend to leave them split for a while to work out some things, and really illustrate how fractured the group has become (without a defender or a leader, how will the two main damage-dealers survive?). The Paladin's player has (of his own volition, of course) rerolled his character as a Blackguard to further showcase his moral uncertainty and separation from the man he once was (and as a perfect double whammy, we now have no defender and a Paladin who works less well with others, in a case of RP influencing mechanics).
Can anyone give me some advice to make the split meaningful, and most of all, temporary? How can I guide the players to joining back up as a group? And of course, the obvious question when it comes to anything involving Paladins and their various codes, am I a bad DM for including this moral choice at all?