First-time RP question

[Dovius]

In advance, apologies for my English. It's not my first language, and it tends to fall somewhat apart when typing long posts and lengthy stuff in general.

So, my group is about to start it's first somewhat serious campaign (The pas few have been less than serious, due to them being not only the first ones of the group, but also the first times that our DM's ran any campaigns), and I'm being somewhat unsure about what would fit best with my character and his alignment/godly affiliations.

Anyway, to summarize: I'm playing a Paladin who became one to atone for some pretty horrible stuff he became involved in after some severe childhood trauma (Home city was burned down, family slaughtered before his eyes by the orcs who did the aforementioned burning, brother dragged away to an indeterminate fate in the fighting) caused him to go on a revenge-fueled tour in the military that managed to just slightly avoid true war-crime territory, but not by much.

He eventually, prompted by a few events during said time in the military, come to his senses with the somewhat sane realization that his family probably wouldn't approve of what he had become because of their deaths. He promptly deserted, and while dodging soldiers sent after him to retrieve him (Apparently High Command doesn't like it when rather visible officers pretty much run off.), he took refuge in a monastery devoted to Bahamut, where after a period of self-reflection, attempts to adjust to a non-violent lifestyle and a rather weird incident involving the copying of sacred tomes and a pair of scissors, he decided to use the talents and skills he already had to do good on a more physical level, traveling around as a Paladin of Bahamut who rights injustice, brings hope and all the crap Paladins tend to do.

Anyway, to finally get to my question after this bearwall of background; what kind of justice tends to be followed by followers of Bahamut? The more literal letter of the law type, the one that follows the spirit of it, or one that is simply judged on an individual basis?

For example: My guy is investigating the murder of a young noble, eventually tracking a trail to a small peasant family of whom the patriarch admits to having done the killing, but only because the noble was attempting to force his daughter to do things she did not want to do. Further investigation of the noble's character and behavior confirms that this would not be out of line for him, and this combined with other evidence convinces me that the man is telling the truth.

Now, while the law does seem clear in this situation that the guy should be punished for murder, I would be inclined to simply let him go, seeing it instead as justice against the noble who may have already forced himself upon others in the past, and gotten away with it due to his position and connections. But in the process of letting the man go, this would possibly involve lying to the authorities about my findings and letting someone who is technically a criminal of scot-free.

Would this be justifiable for my character as a Paladin of Bahamut or does this not fit with the deity?

[allonym]

I don't know - would it?

I think the most interesting arc for something like this would be - you do what you think is right. You get hauled in front of a church council to explain your actions. You get to argue your case. They agree it isn't an easy decision to make, but probably the party line would be that the patriarch's actions, while understandable, were still unlawful, etc., and that they are worried about your ability to maintain your post given your past.

You get to choose to try to bow to their wishes or to become more of a cowboy cop (consider the grey guard paragon path...).

Alternatively, you could bring him in, and then be torn up with guilt about it, testing your faith as you see how adhering to what you felt to be the thing you were 'supposed' to do ended up causing what you see as being a non-good sequence of events to occur, and get to play out a crisis of faith, with whatever things that leads to.

In short - make the ambiguous and conflicted nature of the situation be a part of the roleplaying.

One of the reasons I love 4e paladins so much is that the ironclad paladin's code, with all its scope for different interpretations and arguments, and the possibility of mechanical disadvantages for roleplaying differently, is gone. Your choice of a god to follow, a class to play as, and a backstory, should inform your roleplaying and make it more interesting, not restrict your roleplaying. If there was only one right answer which all paladins or all followers of Bahamut took in a given situation, it would be extremely boring - you wouldn't have to choose what your character does, you'd just compare it to a chart and let the game roleplay itself. I cringe whenever I hear someone say "I do this because I'm lawful good".

[Dovius]

I think the most interesting arc for something like this would be - you do what you think is right. You get hauled in front of a church council to explain your actions. You get to argue your case. They agree it isn't an easy decision to make, but probably the party line would be that the patriarch's actions, while understandable, were still unlawful, etc., and that they are worried about your ability to maintain your post given your past.

You get to choose to try to bow to their wishes or to become more of a cowboy cop (consider the grey guard paragon path...).

Alternatively, you could bring him in, and then be torn up with guilt about it, testing your faith as you see how adhering to what you felt to be the thing you were 'supposed' to do ended up causing what you see as being a non-good sequence of events to occur, and get to play out a crisis of faith, with whatever things that leads to.

In short - make the ambiguous and conflicted nature of the situation be a part of the roleplaying.


That's actually a really good point. Hadn't thought about it that way. Thanks!


I cringe whenever I hear someone say "I do this because I'm lawful good".

Seeing as the last time someone used this excuse ended with me tossing a d100 at their head; I think there's little risk of that happening.

EDIT: Going through the description of the Gray Guard (The campaign starts us all out at 11th level, so I need to start with a Paragon path already picked), this brings to mind the possibility of him starting to get so focused on the 'greater good' thing that he starts falling back into old habits without realizing it and having to deal with the inevitable fallout of that.

I'm starting to like the roleplaying aspects of this character more and more.

[Tiki Snakes]

Hmm. I needed to refresh my memory, so I swung by wikipedia.


Dogma

Bahamut is very stern and disapproving of evil. He accepts no excuses for foul deeds. On the other hand, he is very compassionate, and has boundless empathy for the weak and downtrodden. He urges his followers to promote good, but to let people fight their own battles when they can, providing healing, information, or temporary safe refuge rather than fighting alongside those who can fight for themselves.

I don't get the impression that he gives a fig about jurisdiction, legal codes and bureaucratic authority. Bahamut is very much the kind of patron for an 80's TV wandering hero type, travelling the land helping out those who need it most (by kicking ass and the occaisional car chase), only to drift away when the situation is firmly in hand. With a smile, and maybe a generous parting gift.

I think, going from the tiny section on Dogma there, the solution to the situation in terms of Bahamut's approval is to muddy the evidence trail to prevent the possibility of reprisals by the noble's family, share a meal with them, laugh, walk into the sunset.

[Alejandro]

In advance, apologies for my English. It's not my first language, and it tends to fall somewhat apart when typing long posts and lengthy stuff in general.

So, my group is about to start it's first somewhat serious campaign (The pas few have been less than serious, due to them being not only the first ones of the group, but also the first times that our DM's ran any campaigns), and I'm being somewhat unsure about what would fit best with my character and his alignment/godly affiliations.

Anyway, to summarize: I'm playing a Paladin who became one to atone for some pretty horrible stuff he became involved in after some severe childhood trauma (Home city was burned down, family slaughtered before his eyes by the orcs who did the aforementioned burning, brother dragged away to an indeterminate fate in the fighting) caused him to go on a revenge-fueled tour in the military that managed to just slightly avoid true war-crime territory, but not by much.

He eventually, prompted by a few events during said time in the military, come to his senses with the somewhat sane realization that his family probably wouldn't approve of what he had become because of their deaths. He promptly deserted, and while dodging soldiers sent after him to retrieve him (Apparently High Command doesn't like it when rather visible officers pretty much run off.), he took refuge in a monastery devoted to Bahamut, where after a period of self-reflection, attempts to adjust to a non-violent lifestyle and a rather weird incident involving the copying of sacred tomes and a pair of scissors, he decided to use the talents and skills he already had to do good on a more physical level, traveling around as a Paladin of Bahamut who rights injustice, brings hope and all the crap Paladins tend to do.

Anyway, to finally get to my question after this bearwall of background; what kind of justice tends to be followed by followers of Bahamut? The more literal letter of the law type, the one that follows the spirit of it, or one that is simply judged on an individual basis?

For example: My guy is investigating the murder of a young noble, eventually tracking a trail to a small peasant family of whom the patriarch admits to having done the killing, but only because the noble was attempting to force his daughter to do things she did not want to do. Further investigation of the noble's character and behavior confirms that this would not be out of line for him, and this combined with other evidence convinces me that the man is telling the truth.

Now, while the law does seem clear in this situation that the guy should be punished for murder, I would be inclined to simply let him go, seeing it instead as justice against the noble who may have already forced himself upon others in the past, and gotten away with it due to his position and connections. But in the process of letting the man go, this would possibly involve lying to the authorities about my findings and letting someone who is technically a criminal of scot-free.

Would this be justifiable for my character as a Paladin of Bahamut or does this not fit with the deity?

Not related to your question, but: Your written English is way, way better than that of many native American speakers.

[kidnicky]

I was just going to post what the guy above me said. I'm a 33 year old born and raised in USA and OP writes better than I do. He RPs better than I do, too. :)

[WeeohhWeeohh]

Great back story OP!

As to your question, I would still turn him in but also lawyer a bit on his behalf. Murder is still infact murder but his actions were justified. Have him sentanced and then stay said sentence on requirement that he commits no other crimes.

You can put a flourish on your lawyering with comments like, "If this not be the will of my God, let him strike me down with his mighty hand."

That is how i would go about it anyways.

[Dovius]

I don't get the impression that he gives a fig about jurisdiction, legal codes and bureaucratic authority.

I don't have a very in-depth knowledge of the pantheon in DnD besides my memories of their descriptions in the PH and the CB, so I had remembered Bahamut is a much more Lawful kind of god than he actually is. My apologies for that.


Not related to your question, but: Your written English is way, way better than that of many native American speakers.

Why thank you! I blame an early love for video games, fantasy novels and Wikipedia (The Dutch version has way too little detail).


He RPs better than I do, too. :)

Great back story OP!

Wait, really?

No, honestly. Anytime I go over my notes these days I keep thinking that he comes across somewhat Sue-ish.

"Yeah, my guy, like, lost his parents in a war, and stuff, so he's this big emotionless brooding dude. Then he joined the army and was like really good at killing stuff so they made him an officer and ****, but then he didnt want to do that anymore so he ran off and totally beat up teh dudes the army send after him because they didnt want to lose him, and then he joined a monastery and totally became a Paladin and now he's good!"

Which is probably why I'm going to try and play him as a guy who has obviously been through a lot, has done a lot of bad things, but who acknowledges that he did those things, was at fault for committing them, and is trying very hard to overcome the flaws that caused him to do so.

Regardless of that, thanks to everyone for your advice and compliments :D

EDIT:


You can put a flourish on your lawyering with comments like, "If this not be the will of my God, let him strike me down with his mighty hand."

While I admit that I like the idea, there's 2 issues with it:

1) Despite the whole 'gratuitous murder' thing, my character is actually rather devout (Which, being a Paladin, makes sense), so he wouldn't really use something like that lightly.

2) Knowing my DM, he'd call my bluff and spawn an Ancient Dragon right on my character's head. Which would be a Bad Thing :xykon:

[WeeohhWeeohh]

Hahahahahha. Got ya.

[Gavran]

There might be some elements that are tropic* or cliched, but neither of those things are inherently bad. It's only poorly used cliches or tropes that make us cringe, and I will agree that you give the impression that you'll pull this character off well.

As an aside, Bahamut is a "Lawful Good" deity but what lawful should really mean in that case is sort of open to interpretation. In any case, conflict with your deity isn't necessarily a bad thing. Just like your character sunk very low in his darkest hours, after his reformation he shows tendencies to be "more Good" than what he is taught/what is expected of him.

The Lawful/Chaotic spectrum is really sort of poorly defined in the first place, and a good RPer doesn't play their alignment anyway, they play the character and the alignment reflects the character.

*Can I use "tropic" to mean "pertaining of/related to (fantasy) tropes" or am I just abusing my own language?

[Tiki Snakes]

I don't have a very in-depth knowledge of the pantheon in DnD besides my memories of their descriptions in the PH and the CB, so I had remembered Bahamut is a much more Lawful kind of god than he actually is. My apologies for that.

Well, I'm no expert, but as I understand it;
He is a Lawful God. A very Lawful God, and also a Good One.

But not in the sense of The Law, or the laws of man. His law. The kind of laws that say that evil and vileness should not, must not be allowed. So, you know, I can't help but see him vaguely approving of the peasant dealing with the vile, evil noble even if he didn't do it by reporting him to the legal authorities and pursuing him through the criminal justice system. The guy was Evil and Vile, he got what was coming to him. If a father does not have the right, no the duty to protect his daughter, who does?

It feels quite Bahamut to me, is all.

[Lord Haart]

Bahamut is not Pelor. Metallic dragons are not the Spanish Inquisition. So, basically, what others have already said.

[Echobeats]

It strikes me that the whole of the original post could be summarised as "What Would Bahamut Do?" Maybe we should start selling WWBD? bracelets at gaming conventions...

As has been said above, internal conflict makes your character, and thus the game, more interesting. Revel in it.

Also, like some others, I am having a very hard time believing you aren't a native English speaker. You should be proud of yourself.

[Badgerish]

* Uphold the highest ideals of honor and justice.
* Be constantly vigilant against evil and oppose it on all fronts.
* Protect the weak, liberate the oppressed, and defend just order.
When in doubt about the actions of a follower of Bahamut, re-read these rules (hell, say them out loud). These are not iron-clad rules, but strong guidelines, and there are times where one tenant will conflict with another.

For example: My guy is investigating the murder of a young noble, eventually tracking a trail to a small peasant family of whom the patriarch admits to having done the killing, but only because the noble was attempting to force his daughter to do things she did not want to do. Further investigation of the noble's character and behavior confirms that this would not be out of line for him, and this combined with other evidence convinces me that the man is telling the truth.

Now, while the law does seem clear in this situation that the guy should be punished for murder, I would be inclined to simply let him go, seeing it instead as justice against the noble who may have already forced himself upon others in the past, and gotten away with it due to his position and connections. But in the process of letting the man go, this would possibly involve lying to the authorities about my findings and letting someone who is technically a criminal of scot-free.
The peasant-patriarch did commit a murder, but did it to 'protect the weak': there is some honour and justice here.
The young noble was acting dis-honourably, which should have been punished (but not by death, ideally).
Exposing the young noble's dis-honour to the public would be good, but would bring dis-honour to the noble's family.
You may note that while 'justice' is mentioned in the above rules, 'law' is not.

The 'ideal' solution (IMHO) is to get full evidence of the events, confront the noble family with it and ask them to drop the matter. Call upon their honour to keep it quiet and not take vengeance on the peasants.
...
And if they nobles don't stand by that, then fight them with honour!