Problem in a campaign. Opinions welcomed.

[DarkEternal]

Hello, playground. So, I'm DM'ing a 3.5 game(published adventure). The basic premise(so far) is that the party had to warn certain villages of an underground invasion. The setting is on a small island and due to the situation at hand, travelling for help abroad is not an option, since the attack will happen in like ten days(and it took the party almost six days to get to the capital to inform the only forces that could stand their ground really). Anyway, their mission was to inform a few more villages that had an army to send their forces to the main capital where the battle will take place.

In one of these villages, the village was overtaken by a mad wizard who wanted to use the town leader's mansion to look at stars(the only house that had a good telescope running at a prime location). As the wizard is powerful and chaotically evil, he also made sure to have a whole load of undead things guard the castle, as well as a few monstrosities there. The family itself had masks fused to their faces(he stormed the mansion while the family was holding a ball, and because it thought it would be appropriate he practically made the masks "alive" on their faces, that can't be taken off by anyone or him, or of course spells that the party can't really use at their current level)

The party itself is as follows: LG Knight, CG(Or CN, I forget) Bard, TN Archivist, LN Swordsage and LN Cleric-Church Inquisitor. They are all level 4.

The wizard at hand was level 11. As such, he is of course powerful, though the party did not know just how strong he is. They managed to find him in the mansion and the man, over the cup of tea told them(in his own erratic way, while laughing out of control and scratching himself as if he had bugs all over) that he would leave the house as soon as an eye piece for the telescope was brought to him and his research was done. He even agreed to let the family go once his job was done since he doesn't care for the mongrels that are too short sighted to see what was necessary.

The party managed to persuade the mad mage to let half of the family go right now, and they would help him. The knight was constantly in the wizard's face by the way, since the character(not the guy behind it) has feelings of grandeur and that he's the greatest knight that everyone should bow to.

When they got down, they assembled half of the family(mother, daughter, and a brother that went crazy) and the wizard did indeed take off their masks. The knight, at this moment still practically intimidated the wizard in letting the people go and sodding off from their home. The wizard pretty much ignored him(his Intimidate failed). After that, the knight did his Test of Mettle skills(basically, if it passes the wizard needs to attack knight and knight only), which is an offensive action. The wizard tried to dominate the said knight, just to calm him down(because the wizard is also pretty much certain that these are fleas that he could stomp down and they could prove useful), but the dominate failed due to the knight rolling very high. Because of that, we rolled initiative.

Rest of the party wanted to intervene, but now that the gloves were off, the combat started. I rolled highest initiative, casted Invisibility and ran out of the room. Archivist cast Entangle(he made a good listen check to know the general direction where the wizard went), bard cast Detect Magic, Inquisitor cast Detect evil, so that they know in what general direction he went. The knight moved as close to the entrance of the library as possible. Bear in mind, three civilians were also in there, and the library was like 20x20 feet.

Next turn, I cast Black Tentacles at the doorway of the room, which was pretty much my victory since nobody of them could save except the cleric who had the travel domain(basically has freedom of movement the number of rounds equal to his level per day). Still, it was enough to strangle the life out of them, killed the mother and the daughter(brother was still alive since he was a former adventurer and as such had more hp).

A few party members tried to plead now with rushed Diplomacy checks. Both archivist and Bard rolled very high, and managed to get(even with a -10 check) the wizard from hostile to indifferent, which was enough for the mage to tell them he will dismiss his spell if they act rationally and dismiss entagle+discuss their offer. He had shown he was a force to be reckoned with by now, and still could use them(he'd perhaps kill them later due to being evil and chaotic because he just felt like it). The party agreed, and tentacles were dismissed.

Still in combat, it was the knight's turn who used the situation to charge and bullrush the wizard the moment he could. This was unfortunate for the mage who actually stood near the stairs. With a good roll, he pushed the wizard down the stairs and it was with enough force that said mage(after a failed balance roll) fell prone and I gave him 8 or so lethal damage.

After this, it was the mage's turn. As I said, it's a written campaign, and I'm not in habit of pulling out stuff that's not there because it would "save" me. The specialisations and spells that the wizard had at his disposal were abysmall, and due to a poor line of sight after being pushed down the stairs, I couldn't rely on area spells in fear that they would catch me. So, I cast a quickened scorched ray on the knight(he has a high touch Ac due to some feats), and 2 out of 4 rays hit. The knight was still standing. After that, I cast Repulsion, which he had in his spellbook, and I think it's a horribly stupid spell for a sixth level spell, considering it's just a sort of better Sanctuary spell.

Swordsage rushed over now and ended his turn. The rest of the party healed in the library.

Knight's turn, he grappled the wizard, who didn't have any escape spells(teleport, dimension step, and so on). This was enough for the swordsage to come and pummel the guy to death with good attacks(the guy only had like 30 hp left).

So, they killed a high ranking wizard. Good job for them, probably not so good for me. What I do however, worry is the consequences. I don't think I did anything wrong as a DM, hell, I was probably too lenient(tentacles would have strangled all of them to death, while the cleric would be dealth with with one fireball.). The things that saved them were the diplomacy checks. Otherwise it would be a team kill. However, me(and the rest of the party, sans knight) think that what he did was certainly not lawful and definetelly not good. He put civilians at risk(which ended with their deaths. His argument was that if his Test of Mettle passed, it would be a one on one match, with no regard to others), tempted the obviously strong wizard(his defense is that he never fought with wizards, what with being a low level, but the counter argument is that he has a rank in Spellcraft which means he knows how magic works), and ultimatelly probably lost the trust of his colleagues.

What are your opinions of his actions?

Also, and maybe more important, how would you think the rest of the party handles it? Theyj ust found the cleric who really could go about it either way, but I handle Diplomacy very seriously. It's a very potent skill, for these kinds of things exactly, and I like to think that by using it, the PC uses "truth", or what they really think(unlike Bluff). So, in my own opinion, they just betrayed themselves and their own beliefs. Well, not yet, but certainly due to the actions of the knight(and to the lesser extent of the swordsage), I would think they would either be outraged at the man's actions to the point of ceasing travel with him, or by demanding some sort of payback(be it with prison time, monetary refunds or some sort of atonement). I don't know. Maybe I'm going at this the wrong way, but it's a specific situation. OOC the party is arguing about whether this was right or wrong, with only the player behind the knight being stubborn about admitting he was wrong to do what he did. I do like he's like that IC, and I agree that he would have attacked the wizard sooner or later for his actions against the small folk, but not when there were said people there in certain death situations against a clearly demented powerful wizard.


TL;DR: Party killed a strong enemy with strange means and now are arguing about it. I don't know if there should be consequences for the knight character, or the bard-archivist characters(in their behaviour towards the knight for doing the complete opposite of what they promised in their diplomacy attempts.

[Zahhak]

I would say that the impact should be that the knight (or maybe the whole party) gets some kind of negative reputation. The ingame impact could be that everyone they encounter is extremely suspicious of them (thinking they might be attacked at any minute for no reason), NPCs might avoid dealings with them, or raise prices on goods and services, etc. The negative reputation can be cleaned up with several known actions where they acted honorably.

I'm not a big fan of atonement spells and such for cleaning up a character being a moron like this, because it ignores that any civilian who saw this go down will immediately go "Well, cannot trust these guys".

[docnessuno]

I would say that the impact should be that the knight (or maybe the whole party) gets some kind of negative reputation. The ingame impact could be that everyone they encounter is extremely suspicious of them (thinking they might be attacked at any minute for no reason), NPCs might avoid dealings with them, or raise prices on goods and services, etc. The negative reputation can be cleaned up with several known actions where they acted honorably.

I'm not a big fan of atonement spells and such for cleaning up a character being a moron like this, because it ignores that any civilian who saw this go down will immediately go "Well, cannot trust these guys".

And how exactly the word would spread, since the only witness that survived is the "brother that went crazy", not a really trustworthy source.

That said, attacking during what is effectivly a parley is one of the biggest incrafction of the knigtly code i can think of.

[DarkEternal]

And how exactly the word would spread, since the only witness that survived is the "brother that went crazy", not a really trustworthy source.

That said, attacking during what is effectivly a parley is one of the biggest incrafction of the knigtly code i can think of.

I agree, but to be fair, the knight never agreed to a parley. The bard and the archivist tried acted on their own, while the knight tried to break the tentacles grasp.

And yeah, the reputation thing would be a good thing if there were any witnesses. They already managed to persuade the lord of the manor that half of his family died due to the wizard being crazy which is "technically" true, even if it could have been done in a much more elegant way.

[the_archduke]

It doesn't matter that the knight didn't agree to the parley. He violated a truce for personal gain. Can knights fall?

[TuggyNE]

The knight owes the surviving family members weregild for causing deaths. Make the amount big enough to really notice and cause the character to stop and think (if possible), though don't go overboard and bankrupt him for the next fifteen levels (:smalltongue:).

His party members might also be rather upset at him for breaking their hasty truce, especially the LN ones. (The bard would likely be mad that he was so careless as to start fighting in the first place with civilians around.)

[zlefin]

i'd say the knight's alignment changed; i'm not sure if knight has consequences for changing alignment; but it sure looks like cause for an alignment change to me.
since dnd alignments tend to be absolutist, it doesn't matter so much what the knight thinks about it, his actions don't match his alignment.

also, jsut because the wizard was cooperative now doesn't mean he'd stay that way, chaotic evil is like that; so i'd say the knight gets a reputation as reckless, but noone's going to hold it against him THAT strongly over a crazy evil mage.

also, id' say being in combat is worth a sizeable negative circumstance modifier to a diplomacy check.

[Kelb_Panthera]

No matter how I look at this, I can't see any obvious or immediate consequences for this particular set of actions, except maybe the knight should lose one of his knight's challenge uses for the day.

Since it's a scripted campaign, it seems unlikely that the wizard will have any allies that note his absence, the only witness that's likely to rat him out is insane, and his code doesn't provide any severe mechanical reprecussions for his actions unless you change his alignment; an action that would only be warranted if this was the latest in a string of chaotic actions.

As for how the other PC's react, that's not up to you. A friendly reminder that alignment follows action, rather than action following alignment is probably in order, but otherwise it's up to them how their characters react to this scenario.

Any argument that goes "Your character would(n't) do that," needs to be quashed as soon as it's uttered. The only one that gets to decide a pc's actions is its player, period. If the argument goes on to use the reasoning "You (or I) are <alignment X> but that's an <alignment Y> action" is equally invalid in all cases. Your alignment is a label assigned to you by the cosmos based on your thoughts and behaviors. The only creatures that can maybe get away with "because I'm <alignment>" are outsiders with the alignment subtypes.

Edit: oh, and tell your knight's player I said, "congrats on getting away with murder." :smallamused:

[Zahhak]

And how exactly the word would spread, since the only witness that survived is the "brother that went crazy", not a really trustworthy source.

Maybe I misread, but it seemed like the place they were in could have had other witnesses (either someone hiding in the room who wasn't noticed originally, or someone who is locked up, but close enough to see). And even then, it seemed like the mad brother was driven insane by the situation, which could be a temporary condition that he'll recover from and immediately start screaming "that jerk is why it happened!", and the negative reputation is back in.

[only1doug]

It doesn't matter that the knight didn't agree to the parley. He violated a truce for personal gain. Can knights fall?

This.

The knight did not object during the negotiations and tell the wizard that he was still going to attack him so he complicitly agreed to the truce. Breaking a truce is chaotic behaviour not lawful behaviour.

You have two choices either:
warn the knight that this is his first strike and further chaotic behaviour will result in an alignment change
or:
skip direct to the alignment change and the knight is now neutral and has lost his challenge class feature (and all features keyed from it) returning his alignment to lawful is easy: truly repent the deed (admit what happened to the family and make restitution for the losses).

[Susano-wo]

Its definitely evil, and un0Knightly (whether he agreed or not, the Wizard was Parleying.
hell, before that, the Knight is already changing up the deal after the wizard has done what he agreed to (letting half the family go). Not Lawful by any means

I don't think this necessarily means he should drop alignement, but if this behavior keeps up he defintiely should

As far as others reactions to it, outrage, both moral and/or pragmatic are approriate from his party members, and I would see various reactions from others, ranging from "he did what he had to do"(rememebr, town taken over by evil crazy wizard) to "he's a loose cannon...and to attack someone during Parley--so despicable!" (Who does he think he is, movie Aragorn? :smallamused:")

of course that's if anyone knows what truly went on there

[Ikeren]

I'm so confused here. The knight is getting in trouble for not yelling "Hey, I don't agree to these negotiations," despite the fact you're only allowed to speak as a free action on your own turn?

If so, a player in your party could swiftly cause the Knight to turn evil by attempting to negotiate with everything that the Knight is trying to kill, either A) forcing the Knight to cease combat midcombat every time, or B) the knight breaks the "negotiations."

Which would be hilarious, and if I was in your game, I'd swiftly have you deciding the knight is now evil. But frankly, you probably don't want to give the diplomancers this much power.

Also, killing the chaotic evil wizard is pretty good.

So:
+10 Good (killing evil, rescuing town)
-0.1 Lawful (breaking negotiations that take place during combat? Are you kidding?)
-3 Good (bystanders)
-0.2 Lawful (not bringing him to trial at local court, as if that would be possible).

Pretty sure I'm good with what the knight did here.

[Chambers]

The Knight was fine up until he bull rushed the Wizard.

Using his Test of Mettle to initiate combat after negotiating a partial release of prisoners seems fair to me. It's certainly fitting in the theme of the Knight to begin a fight by calling out for your foe to attack you. It wasn't the smartest thing to do in terms of worrying about potential civilian casualties, but boldness of action is part of being a Knight as well; I can understand trying to seize the moment and win victory.

However, attacking an enemy that has stopped fighting and agreed to parley is not honorable or chivalrous. It's a base, cowardly deed. It doesn't matter that the Knight personally didn't get the enemy to stop fighting; the foe that he was engaged with agreed to cease hostilities. It's not Lawful behavior to continue to attack a foe that has stopped fighting because of diplomacy rendered in good faith between the enemy and the Knight's allies.

I would warn the player that his action of bull rushing after the Wizard dismissed his spells was not a Lawful act and if he does it or something equivalent again, his alignment will change.

As far as a bad reputation goes, the brother certainly knows what happens. I think he'd have a very good reason now to not trust the Knight.


They already managed to persuade the lord of the manor that half of his family died due to the wizard being crazy which is "technically" true, even if it could have been done in a much more elegant way.

So they basically lied about what happened. The family members died because the Knight initiated combat with the Wizard. Is it safe to say that if the Knight hadn't started the fight then the Wizard wouldn't have attacked them in that situation? If the party is spinning it so that the blame for the deaths is on the wizard, that's another alignment ding. The players and characters know that it was the actions of the Knight that created the situation where the two family members died. To tell the tale any other way is to shade the truth, if not outright lie about it, and that's another step towards not being Lawful.

The way I see it is that the Knight has two strikes against his Lawful alignment. If I were DM'ing I'd tell him that and on the third strike it's gone.

[Susano-wo]

No, killing an evil creature is good/evil depending on the context. The alignment of the creature is irrelevant.

I have a problem with the test of mettle after negotiations, because you are breaking your end of the Bargain. the bargain is we'll let you finish if you just release these prisoners as a show of good faith. He does so and you promptly engage him in combat. :smallconfused: not Lawful, and arguably not Good. Certainly un-Chivalrous

[Augmental]

I'm so confused here. The knight is getting in trouble for not yelling "Hey, I don't agree to these negotiations," despite the fact you're only allowed to speak as a free action on your own turn?

He could have, you know, said he didn't agree to the negotiations on his turn.


If so, a player in your party could swiftly cause the Knight to turn evil by attempting to negotiate with everything that the Knight is trying to kill, either A) forcing the Knight to cease combat midcombat every time, or B) the knight breaks the "negotiations."

If I was DMing and a player in my game did this, I'd tell him to cut it out. That's metagaming and just plain jerkish.


So:
+10 Good (killing evil, rescuing town)
-0.1 Lawful (breaking negotiations that take place during combat? Are you kidding?)
-3 Good (bystanders)
-0.2 Lawful (not bringing him to trial at local court, as if that would be possible).

The alignment system isn't point-based. :smallsigh:

[only1doug]

I'm so confused here. The knight is getting in trouble for not yelling "Hey, I don't agree to these negotiations," despite the fact you're only allowed to speak as a free action on your own turn?



Yes, the knight wasn't allowed a chance to speak, while his party

a) offered a truce

b) received the terms of the truce

c) accepted those terms

Either speech was allowed out of turn sequence (in which case the knight had a chance to speak) or multiple turns were taken (in which case the knight had a chance to speak).
Either way the knight allowed his allies to agree a truce with an enemy whilst intending to continue the combat. The knight broke truce deliberately, after allowing the truce to go ahead for combat advantage.

[docnessuno]

The knight allowed his allies to agree a truce with an enemy whilst intending to continue the combat. The knight broke truce deliberately, after allowing the truce to go ahead for combat advantage.

Exactly.

As already pointed out, due to the circumstances of the whole encounter and due to the fairly weak penalities of breaking the knight's code, i don't think there should be any long-term external consequences. In-party tensions and problems on the other hand are a whole different hing, and should be left to the players.

Still, while imho not sufficent to reach an alignment change, the knight actions were obviously un-lawful, and the player should be warned that, if he contnues on the same road, the character's alignment will change to reflect his actions.

[DarkEternal]

After reading everyone's comments, I'd have to agree that, yes, a slap on the hands would be best. To be honest, I'd like to see that other players at least acknowledge that what the knight did was bad, and not just move on, forgetting entirely that their actions caused two innocents dying, especially since it was their diplomacy checks that he "ruined" with his actions, thus putting a blemish on their word(perhaps without any witnesses, but still they would know).

I don't really think that giving a penalty to the knight would amount to much, as long as he knows that what he did was wrong and unecessary, and the fact that I know that this player is stubborn as a mule when it comes to these things(the sort that will stand his ground, no matter how incredulous the claim is, even if he has written proof and a hundred people against him) and that kind of bugs me, but I guess that can't be settled in any game.

[AzazelSephiroth]

I think one problem not covered in these discussions is not the Knight`s fall for iniating combat, but your whole party`s evil deed for agreeing to work with a known evil.
They bargained and agreed to work with a very evil caster (obviously crazy, holding hostages etc) this is not the work of a good party and unlikely a nuetral party either, the Knight should have acted before by saying NO to the original truce, perhaps, but then again he may have also waited until the only moment he thought he could use the least dangerous power he had, the challenge... if the wizard fails he had to fight the knight one on one...this means no collateral damage. If he had protested earlier then maybe this obviously crazy and dangerous wizard may have done more harm to the innocent people... I think the fault is def with the party here not the Knight.

[Marlowe]

They were working with a known evil, an evil potentially much more powerful than they, in order to rescue innocents without getting them or themselves killed. That's not wrong, that's a pragmatic decision, and very much in keeping with the largely neutral party.

If you think it's wrong for a group of mainly neutrals to try a diplomatic solution against a potentially overwhelming foe, with the aim of saving people, I really don't know what to say to you.

[AzazelSephiroth]

I think the argument that the Knight`s character has somehow violated his good conduct is what bothers me. I do not think the party has crossed any lines personally... I would not drop their alignments for example.
But the Knight is also not in the wrong as well, he believed in character that he could defeat the wizard, and should defeat the wizard in combat. He knew that the wizard was crazy, evil and more than likely willing to kill people, so he used the best ability he had available for the situation- an ability that forces the wizard to engage him in one on one combat... Now there are plenty of ways he could have done this differently, then again there are plenty of ways the party could have attempted to defeat the wizard differently as well... basically he was trying to defeat evil and help people. I did not mean to come off as rude or accusatory, I merely meant that the mostly nuetral party`s actions could have caused his alignment to shift just as much as his decision to attack a known evil monster. I do not think he was in the wrong, in character his Knight should actually be more upset at the party then the party should be with him.

[NichG]

Only the party has witnessed the Knight's dishonor. However, there are still people who will want to know what happened - relatives, law enforcement, whatever. Their likely action is to directly ask the Knight, as the one person in the party sworn to a code of Chivalry and Honor, to directly explain to them what happened so that they may have closure. If the Knight is perfectly cool and collected and spins a tale that doesn't implicate himself but is convincing: congrats to him, publically he's in the clear and there are no social reprecussions, but privately he's slipped from Lawful to Neutral. If he comes clean and tells the truth about the events, he'll have a bad reputation across the land, but he's held true to his code of honor and remains Lawful. Of course the worst case for him is that he spins a lie, but does so unconvincingly, and so loses both alignment and social status. For fairness, let the Knight's player know these possible outcomes ahead of time, so he can make the choice clear-headed. If he finds another way out of the bind, such as swearing to make reparations or to do some quest to atone, then he can even shake the social stigma.

Actions have consequences and its completely reasonable to explore those consequences. Even if there are no external witnesses, the Knight is himself a witness to his dishonor, and how he proceeds from there once he understands that he screwed up will determine the true nature of his character.

[Chambers]

Azazel

The party did not commit an evil deed. They were dealing with an enemy that was more powerful than them and had actually managed to get the Wizard to release some of the hostages without bloodshed. So they acted as a police hostage negotiator did - how is that evil? They didn't collude with the Wizard, they were trying to find a solution to the problem that protected the lives of the innocent.

Honestly it sounds as if you are the player of the Knight and don't want to admit to the characters unlawful actions by spinning the blame on the party. That's just conjecture of course, but you're the only one who has outright defended the Knight by casting blame on the party, going so far as to label them as having done an evil act, which they clearly have not done.

[awa]

on one hand breaking a parley is about the biggest example of dishonorable combat i can think of on the other the knight already has a mechanical punishment for dishonorable acts, in the grand scheme of things it's a slap on the wrist but it's there.

so we're really only trying to decide if his action is non lawful becuase lawful does not necessarily = honorable and the thing is devils are lawful to and using loopholes to get out of contracts is a very devilish thing to do.

Personally I would warn him his actions are not becoming of a knight mention the breaking of parley and all that and continued actions of this type would cause him to become neutral. Paying to raise the non combatants killed in the cross fire would be a very good act but being good is not required of being a knight only lawful.

If he consistently puts civilians at risk in his pursuit of evil then hes not actually good aligned even though that wont affect him being a knight.

[Ikeren]

He could have, you know, said he didn't agree to the negotiations on his turn.

Actions speak louder than words :smallbiggrin:



If I was DMing and a player in my game did this, I'd tell him to cut it out. That's metagaming and just plain jerkish.

And hilarious!


The alignment system isn't point-based.

Oh? How do you measure the difference between "Selfish-Greedy Scrouge who harms everyone financial to personal benefit evil" and "I slaughter towns full of children for fun" evil? Sort of, and very?

Because subbing out non-numerical variance descriptors sacrifices accuracy for identical effect. Or do you just go with a universal "It's all evil once it's evil, who cares about degrees of evil" sort of morality in your games?

Because in my games, there are degrees of evil. And while I might conceal the numbers from players, saying he's "Slightly evil" or "Extra extra world domination torturing civilians for fun evil", the numbers are still there.

[Marlowe]

I think the argument that the Knight`s character has somehow violated his good conduct is what bothers me. I do not think the party has crossed any lines personally... I would not drop their alignments for example.
But the Knight is also not in the wrong as well, he believed in character that he could defeat the wizard, and should defeat the wizard in combat. He knew that the wizard was crazy, evil and more than likely willing to kill people, so he used the best ability he had available for the situation- an ability that forces the wizard to engage him in one on one combat... Now there are plenty of ways he could have done this differently, then again there are plenty of ways the party could have attempted to defeat the wizard differently as well... basically he was trying to defeat evil and help people. I did not mean to come off as rude or accusatory, I merely meant that the mostly nuetral party`s actions could have caused his alignment to shift just as much as his decision to attack a known evil monster. I do not think he was in the wrong, in character his Knight should actually be more upset at the party then the party should be with him.

What you're saying is that the rest of the party should have bent over backwards to suit one person's bull-headedness and recklessness. And I say that's unsupportable.

[Malroth]

Only the party has witnessed the Knight's dishonor. However, there are still people who will want to know what happened - relatives, law enforcement, whatever. Their likely action is to directly ask the Knight, as the one person in the party sworn to a code of Chivalry and Honor, to directly explain to them what happened so that they may have closure. If the Knight is perfectly cool and collected and spins a tale that doesn't implicate himself but is convincing: congrats to him, publically he's in the clear and there are no social reprecussions, but privately he's slipped from Lawful to Neutral. If he comes clean and tells the truth about the events, he'll have a bad reputation across the land, but he's held true to his code of honor and remains Lawful. Of course the worst case for him is that he spins a lie, but does so unconvincingly, and so loses both alignment and social status. For fairness, let the Knight's player know these possible outcomes ahead of time, so he can make the choice clear-headed. If he finds another way out of the bind, such as swearing to make reparations or to do some quest to atone, then he can even shake the social stigma.

Actions have consequences and its completely reasonable to explore those consequences. Even if there are no external witnesses, the Knight is himself a witness to his dishonor, and how he proceeds from there once he understands that he screwed up will determine the true nature of his character.

Definitely this, The only witnesses to the deaths are the people involved and A person driven insane in their presence, I'm thinking the King would probably spring for a speak with the dead or other dinivation to find out exactly what happened, followed up with some very hard questions to a certain Knight which will have repercussions wither or not he he's caught in a Lie.

[NichG]

Definitely this, The only witnesses to the deaths are the people involved and A person driven insane in their presence, I'm thinking the King would probably spring for a speak with the dead or other dinivation to find out exactly what happened, followed up with some very hard questions to a certain Knight which will have repercussions wither or not he he's caught in a Lie.

I think its even more poignant if it doesn't start off as confrontational at all, or even if the rest of the party is blamed but the knight is considered to be above reproach. So they go to the knight to ask what happened, because they trust him to be an honorable person. Its a lot easier to be stubborn and stick to a mistake if people are attacking you about it. But if people are asking for help 'I want to know what happened, so I can finally come to terms with this horrible tradgedy' then its a lot more awkward.

[Killer Angel]

also, id' say being in combat is worth a sizeable negative circumstance modifier to a diplomacy check.

I could agree there's a difference between "hostile" and "hostile 'cause we're fighting each other".
But I give the DM some leeway... He saw an opportunity to continue the adventure without slaughtering the group and not thinking about the stubbornness of the knight.

[Augmental]

Actions speak louder than words :smallbiggrin:

And did he need to speak louder? No, he could've easily shown his dislike of the negotiations by stating it, but he just goes and attack the person they're negotiating with.


And hilarious!

No, it's not. A player ruining another player's fun is never hilarious.


Oh? How do you measure the difference between "Selfish-Greedy Scrouge who harms everyone financial to personal benefit evil" and "I slaughter towns full of children for fun" evil? Sort of, and very?

Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Only the party has witnessed the Knight's dishonor. However, there are still people who will want to know what happened - relatives, law enforcement, whatever. Their likely action is to directly ask the Knight, as the one person in the party sworn to a code of Chivalry and Honor, to directly explain to them what happened so that they may have closure. If the Knight is perfectly cool and collected and spins a tale that doesn't implicate himself but is convincing: congrats to him, publically he's in the clear and there are no social reprecussions, but privately he's slipped from Lawful to Neutral. If he comes clean and tells the truth about the events, he'll have a bad reputation across the land, but he's held true to his code of honor and remains Lawful. Of course the worst case for him is that he spins a lie, but does so unconvincingly, and so loses both alignment and social status. For fairness, let the Knight's player know these possible outcomes ahead of time, so he can make the choice clear-headed. If he finds another way out of the bind, such as swearing to make reparations or to do some quest to atone, then he can even shake the social stigma.

Actions have consequences and its completely reasonable to explore those consequences. Even if there are no external witnesses, the Knight is himself a witness to his dishonor, and how he proceeds from there once he understands that he screwed up will determine the true nature of his character.


Definitely this, The only witnesses to the deaths are the people involved and A person driven insane in their presence, I'm thinking the King would probably spring for a speak with the dead or other dinivation to find out exactly what happened, followed up with some very hard questions to a certain Knight which will have repercussions wither or not he he's caught in a Lie.

I get the distinct impression that a detail is being missed here.

The knight's CoC is spelled out for him in the class's description in PHB2. Upon reviewing that code, it's apparent he hasn't actually breached it.

Good and evil don't enter into the equation at all. Knights can be of any moral alignment they wish, as long as they remain lawful. They don't even lose class-features for becoming non-lawful. They simply lose the ability to continue advancing as a knight. There is quite simply no mechanical recourse to take here.

The only question that's actually in the air here is this; "does the DM feel that this act is chaotic enough to warrant a change in alignment toward ethically neutral?"

The decision should be based on past behavior and the scope of the current act. IMO, this single act isn't enough to warrant an alignment change by itself. It was definitely chaotic, but not so grossly chaotic as to be unthinkable to a lawful character. I don't know enough about the knight's prior actions to know if this would be the straw that broke the camel's back.

Disclaimer: The following is completely irrelevant to the knight mechanically.

This was also an evil act, IMO and going by the RAW guidelines for alignment. Unless he's the biggest half-wit you've ever known, he had to realize that collateral damage is a thing. Recklessly and knowingly endangering innocents like that becomes an evil act when the innocents are harmed.

[Chambers]

Kelb

A Knight that becomes non-Lawful can't use their Knights Challenge ability, so there is a mechanical penalty.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Kelb

A Knight that becomes non-Lawful can't use their Knights Challenge ability, so there is a mechanical penalty.

I don't see that anywhere in the class description. Can you cite me a specific page number?

[only1doug]

Its at the very end of the Class description, I'll look up the page number when I get back to my books (if no one else has beaten me to it).

[Kelb_Panthera]

Its at the very end of the Class description, I'll look up the page number when I get back to my books (if no one else has beaten me to it).

Found it. PG30. PHB2's poor layout strikes again.

Doesn't change the fact that the only real question to answer is whether or not the DM feels an alignment change is warranted or not.

[only1doug]

Found it. PG30. PHB2's poor layout strikes again.

Doesn't change the fact that the only real question to answer is whether or not the DM feels an alignment change is warranted or not.


I completely agree. DM call.


This.

The knight did not object during the negotiations and tell the wizard that he was still going to attack him so he complicitly agreed to the truce. Breaking a truce is chaotic behaviour not lawful behaviour.

You have two choices either:

warn the knight that this is his first strike and further chaotic behaviour will result in an alignment change or:
skip direct to the alignment change and the knight is now neutral and has lost his challenge class feature (and all features keyed from it) returning his alignment to lawful is easy: truly repent the deed (admit what happened to the family and make restitution for the losses).

[Ikeren]

@Augmental: I am glad that you and I play very different styles of games, and I wish you all the best of luck in yours.

[SowZ]

No, I don't think the action was evil. Unlawful though, sure. One unlawful actions shouldn't be enough for an alignment change. If people have to act their alignment 100% of the time, or even 75% of the time, kinda flat if you ask me.

[blazinghand]

Part of it, imo, depends on how it was roleplayed.

What was the Knight's motivation for combat? Did he think that wizard would only betray them again, and he knew that he had to make a stand and not cave in to the hostage-taking demands? Stubbornness even when it's not sensible can be Lawful, even if it involves attacking a maniac who is unprepared. He attacked as soon as he was able, as often as he was able, his mind closed to other possibilities. Being close-minded, uncreative and inflexible is/can be the dark side of being Lawful (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0428.html).

Perhaps, on the other hand, the Knight instead of being stubborn and righteous was just bloodthirsty. Maybe he broke his word not because of some moral fiber him him that wouldn't yield or because of some code he couldn't break by working with a hostage-taker, but because he saw an opening. Did he attack because it would be to his advantage? Maybe he attacked specifically BECAUSE the wizard had stopped and was talking. This would be a chaotic act.

So I'd say, step 1) talk to the player and figure out what the Knight's motivations are. Then work out what kind of consequences the party should face. Will they be seen as heroes, or perhaps with mixed thoughts by the town? Maybe the Knight will see the downcast faces of the surviving family members and become more Lawful, realizing he should never go back on his word again. Maybe he'll embrace Chaos, being NG, and take levels in Fighter, thinking the ends justify the means.

When an incident like this happens, the possibilities for roleplay are endless. Maybe exchange some notes with the Player before the session so you can save some time, but basically I think the answer here is to see how the Knight character develops because of this. Could lead to some serious growth/definition.

[Sith_Happens]

The knight's CoC is spelled out for him in the class's description in PHB2. Upon reviewing that code, it's apparent he hasn't actually breached it.

I'm pretty sure the wizard was flat-footed at the point the knight bull-rushed him, what with having agreed to stop fighting and all.

[Ranting Fool]

The wizard at hand was level 11. As such, he is of course powerful, though the party did not know just how strong he is...

The wizard pretty much ignored him(his Intimidate failed). After that, the knight did his Test of Mettle skills(basically, if it passes the wizard needs to attack knight and knight only), which is an offensive action.

Unless you did a house rule to make his Test of Mettle better (which I've been thinking of as it rarely sees use) it wouldn't work because...

Wizard of the coast says... (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060501a&page=2)

Fighting Challenge (Ex): As a swift action, you can issue a challenge against a single opponent. The target of this ability must have an Intelligence of 5 or higher, have a language of some sort, and have a CR greater than or equal to your character level minus 2. If it does not meet these requirements, a use of this ability is expended without effect.

Braking any parley is rather UN-knightly :smallbiggrin:

[TuggyNE]

Unless you did a house rule to make his Test of Mettle better (which I've been thinking of as it rarely sees use) it wouldn't work because...

Wizard of the coast says... (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060501a&page=2)

The bolded part of the quote says the CR must be >= level - 2; given that the wizard was higher level, that was trivially fulfilled. (A creature that is willing to talk to you does not suddenly lose its CR, after all.) So yeah, that part works fine.

[Ranting Fool]

The bolded part of the quote says the CR must be >= level - 2; given that the wizard was higher level, that was trivially fulfilled. (A creature that is willing to talk to you does not suddenly lose its CR, after all.) So yeah, that part works fine.

You know I feel so foolish right now, I've been reading that wrong for months :smalltongue: so has the knight in the group.

[DarkEternal]

His reasoning was that the wizard was insane, which honestly I didn't really try to hide. After all, he pretty much made the entire aristocrat family his prisoners, trapped in lifelike masks of whatever they were going as during the party. He also gave various twitches, and changed his attitude(speaking softly, then screaming when they talked to him). In the knights player eyes, he did what he did because he couldn't trust him, and thought he would try to prevent him as soon as possible.

Tactically, a small room where he could duel him worked to his tactical advantage so he tried doing it there. I still feel it was uncalled for, and especially the charging after the wizard agreed to a truce which is in my book a violation of knight's code of attacking an unarmed person, but like I said, I think I'll go with the slap on the wrist, and hope that this will bring to some growth of both the character and the party itself.

[SowZ]

His reasoning was that the wizard was insane, which honestly I didn't really try to hide. After all, he pretty much made the entire aristocrat family his prisoners, trapped in lifelike masks of whatever they were going as during the party. He also gave various twitches, and changed his attitude(speaking softly, then screaming when they talked to him). In the knights player eyes, he did what he did because he couldn't trust him, and thought he would try to prevent him as soon as possible.

Tactically, a small room where he could duel him worked to his tactical advantage so he tried doing it there. I still feel it was uncalled for, and especially the charging after the wizard agreed to a truce which is in my book a violation of knight's code of attacking an unarmed person, but like I said, I think I'll go with the slap on the wrist, and hope that this will bring to some growth of both the character and the party itself.

I would never called a wizard with prepared spels unarmed, though. And attacking people during a truce is similar to attacking people unawares, and sneak attacking isn't evil. So it wasn't ane vil thing to do. Ultimately, ridding the world of a high level evil wizard is good. And the knight did it at great risk to himself. Yes, he put the family in danger. But what, is no one ever going to attack evil powerful wizards because of collatoral damage?

Not very knightly and not bery lawful, sure, but also not evil.

[DarkEternal]

I would never called a wizard with prepared spels unarmed, though. And attacking people during a truce is similar to attacking people unawares, and sneak attacking isn't evil. So it wasn't ane vil thing to do. Ultimately, ridding the world of a high level evil wizard is good. And the knight did it at great risk to himself. Yes, he put the family in danger. But what, is no one ever going to attack evil powerful wizards because of collatoral damage?

Not very knightly and not bery lawful, sure, but also not evil.

We will have to agree to disagree here, then. To me, it was an unarmed man who agreed to a truce. For a knight, that's attacking a man who wasn't in combat, or ready for a fight anymore which is a clear violation of his codex. He put innocent lives at risk for the sake of his own ego and version of justice, not to mention that there are countless people across the realm that are functioning members of the society who are "evil". From merchants, to kings, to leaders of armies. I will completelly agree that this one deserved to die for his actions, but not like this, at the very least not from a character like the knight. A rogue or a fighter? Sure. Barbarian, hell yeah. A knight? No.

[Rejakor]

Definitely against the chivalric codes in several points, not that knights use those. Endangering innocents/civilians, attacking an unarmed man, attacking during a truce, attacking without giving fair warning, breaking your sworn word (agreed to initial deal).

Could make the argument that crazy wizard would go crazy and kill hostages if you didn't kill him right then and there, so not necessarily Evil to go all Die Hard on his ass. Just dumb.

But yeah... gave silent agreement to parley.. that's pretty damning.

And got some nobles killed.

There'd be repercussions for both those things.

[ahenobarbi]

They managed to find him in the mansion and the man, over the cup of tea told them(in his own erratic way, while laughing out of control and scratching himself as if he had bugs all over) that he would leave the house as soon as an eye piece for the telescope was brought to him and his research was done. He even agreed to let the family go once his job was done since he doesn't care for the mongrels that are too short sighted to see what was necessary.

The party managed to persuade the mad mage to let half of the family go right now, and they would help him. The knight was constantly in the wizard's face by the way, since the character(not the guy behind it) has feelings of grandeur and that he's the greatest knight that everyone should bow to.

When they got down, they assembled half of the family(mother, daughter, and a brother that went crazy) and the wizard did indeed take off their masks. The knight, at this moment still practically intimidated the wizard in letting the people go and sodding off from their home. The wizard pretty much ignored him(his Intimidate failed). After that, the knight did his Test of Mettle skills(basically, if it passes the wizard needs to attack knight and knight only), which is an offensive action. The wizard tried to dominate the said knight, just to calm him down(because the wizard is also pretty much certain that these are fleas that he could stomp down and they could prove useful), but the dominate failed due to the knight rolling very high. Because of that, we rolled initiative.

The wizard made mistake of letting them near him. If you're playing wizards you generally don't want to let enemies go next to you. Secondly if the knight made some kind of agreement with the wizard he probably broke the agreement by attacking said wizard.



(...)
A few party members tried to plead now with rushed Diplomacy checks. Both archivist and Bard rolled very high, and managed to get(even with a -10 check) the wizard from hostile to indifferent, which was enough for the mage to tell them he will dismiss his spell if they act rationally and dismiss entagle+discuss their offer. He had shown he was a force to be reckoned with by now, and still could use them(he'd perhaps kill them later due to being evil and chaotic because he just felt like it). The party agreed, and tentacles were dismissed.

If I were just role playing the wizard I'd probably kill the PCs. The wizard is chaotic evil so even with indifferent attitude "I don't really care about those foul PCs but I just used one of my most powerful spells, I deserve fun of watching them die".

As DM I'd probably want to avoid TPK so I'd agree to dismiss the tentacles. But I'd negotiate for a few rounds (so they'd get some serious damage). And I'd make sure they threw weapons away before I dismissed the spell. Also I'd move to some safer place during the negotiations. And afterwards I'd warn players that this time I went easy on them because it's first time etc. but they shouldn't expect enemies to let them go just because they are PCs anymore.

Also diplomancy shouldn't work once you start fighting.

The knight certainly didn't act as Lawful Good at all. Warn player that if this continues character's alignment will change (sounds chaotic neutral to me). As there are no credible witnesses there will be no consequences... unless someone can afford to raise killed civilians :smallwink:

As for the other characters - it's up to players but I wouldn't travel with a dude who behaves like that. I could be next.