Killing a paladin, or at least getting him off my back.

[RPGaddict28]

A GMPC paladin is causing a problem for both my character and two of my friends characters. I needed away to get him off of me, so I came up with two ways, but I need you guys to critique my plans.

Plan 1. I read that in the pally's code, he has to respect legitimate authority. My character happens to be the Prince of Elves, and this pally is an elf. My character is now authority over him, and he has to respect me or lose his paladin abilities, right? I could just order him never to mess with my friends and I.

Plan 2 is a lot more convoluted and evil. This plan, I need to get a greater planar mote of the Abyss, plant it on a child, then use the right spells to have the kid poison/kill his parent in front of the pally, then I "arrive" right as I see the pally kill the kid and lose his powers, then I kill him.

Any comment/critiques/questions you guys have?

[Drachasor]

Given (2) something tells me that (1) won't work since you aren't legitimate. Also, (2) won't work.

Why are evil PCs and a Pally DMPC in the same group? Sounds like a group dysfunction that needs to be talked about out of character.

[Grod_The_Giant]

A GMPC paladin
Let me stop you right there.

Working off the usual DMPC assumptions, there's nothing you can do. This is your DM's character; if he so desires he can rule 0 anything you try into ineffectiveness. Especially if your plans hinge on something as dependent on GM interpretation as the paladin's code.

Option 1 might work in a reasonable world, but I'd try talking to your GM out-of-game first.

[Nettlekid]

Inb4 the whole thread says "Talk to your GM about problems you're having, because GMPCs often overshadow the party but retaliation isn't good and this and that and the other."

Both of those plans would work, I suppose, but I like Plan 1 a lot more. It's much more thematic. You haven't described how the Paladin is making things hard for you two, but I'm assuming it's general "goody-two-shoesing" stuff. If you do something morally ambiguous and the Paladin hoists you up on it, you charge back with "I am your Prince, and you are my sword and shield. You are my right hand. And while I rely on you to get things done, the right hand does not question the mind. You have sworn to obey my word as law, and it is my word, the word of my father, my grandfather, and the Elven line before me on which you pledge your heart. Do not speak to me so callously again, lest I gain reason to believe you have lost respect for your superior and act to treat you thusly."

This in turn gives the DM a great chance to play up a side of Paladins that is less frequently looked at. A Lawful Good character will have to make choices between Lawful and Good. If you're doing something bad, it would be Good to stop you. But if you, his superior, tell him not to stop you, then it would be unLawful to disobey that order. But unGood to let you go through with it. And then the Paladin explodes in a 10 ft radius.

[AlanBruce]

Plan 1. I read that in the pally's code, he has to respect legitimate authority. My character happens to be the Prince of Elves, and this pally is an elf. My character is now authority over him, and he has to respect me or lose his paladin abilities, right? I could just order him never to mess with my friends and I.

Did you earn the noble title IC, or was it part of your back story? The DM may rule that there are many elven kingdoms with different knights swearing loyalty to those kings and queens alone.

If you do try that route, be prepared for a few questions from the paladin such as why are you adventuring without a royal guard...or adventuring at all, for that matter. As a lawful character, he might want royal proof that you are indeed whom you claim to be. That would require paperwork or a trip back to your kingdom, which could go back to my earlier point about him not being a paladin of that elven nation in particular.




Plan 2 is a lot more convoluted and evil. This plan, I need to get a greater planar mote of the Abyss, plant it on a child, then use the right spells to have the kid poison/kill his parent in front of the pally, then I "arrive" right as I see the pally kill the kid and lose his powers, then I kill him.


Doable, but if the paladin has any reasons to suspect you want him off his back, it would be within his logic and right use his detect evil SLA.

In the case of the child, the paladin may attempt an alternate route to smiting, being a kid. There are many ways to "save" someone other than using a smite and your appearance on cue should raise some red flags.

[RPGaddict28]

Let me stop you right there.

Working off the usual DMPC assumptions, there's nothing you can do. This is your DM's character; if he so desires he can rule 0 anything you try into ineffectiveness. Especially if your plans hinge on something as dependent on GM interpretation as the paladin's code.

Option 1 might work in a reasonable world, but I'd try talking to your GM out-of-game first.

GMPC may be the wrong word to use, the GM didn't purposely bring this paladin in, a player insisted on having a paladin cohort, without having the leadership feat.



Given (2) something tells me that (1) won't work since you aren't legitimate. Also, (2) won't work.

Why are evil PCs and a Pally DMPC in the same group? Sounds like a group dysfunction that needs to be talked about out of character.

Well, my character is legitimate, 2 was more of a worst case scenario, and I'm more neutral, it's just that this pally has been threatening my PC, and is willing to do a little evil to save his own life.

And since I'm too lazy to quote, Nettlekid, that's exactly the kind of thing Inwanted, but you worded it way better.

AlanBruce, it was background, however he is the prince of all elves, not just a certain region, although the guard part and the kid part it's make sense.

[holywhippet]

Is the paladin annoying your characters because you are doing things that bother him or is the DM using a DMPC to annoy you? If it is the latter, ask the DM to remove that character from the game or refuse to play. If you aren't having fun because of a DM there is no point in playing.

If it is the former then I'd hesitate to make the paladin fall just because he annoys you. That could anger their patron deity. The legitimate authority trick may or may not work. Just because you are royalty doesn't mean he is obliged to take orders from you. On top of that, if you are doing something illegal he is bound by the law to stop you.

[Grod_The_Giant]

GMPC may be the wrong word to use, the GM didn't purposely bring this paladin in, a player insisted on having a paladin cohort, without having the leadership feat.
Ah, OK. In which case, try #1. If that doesn't work, try to convince the rest of the party (including the player whose cohort it is) to ditch him. If that doesn't work, coup de grace him while you're on watch and dispose of the body. No need to mess around with convoluted "make him fall" schemes.

[Drachasor]

Well, my character is legitimate, 2 was more of a worst case scenario, and I'm more neutral, it's just that this pally has been threatening my PC, and is willing to do a little evil to save his own life.

Legitimate is more than just "legally the prince" as far as Paladin is concerned. A tyrant, for instance, is not a legitimate authority, though if it costs too much to take them out a Paladin might treat them as such, somewhat.

Given your whole plan to kill an innocent family and destroy a good man's life (who is supposedly one of your subjects) just to make your life a bit easier, then I don't really buy the "I'm really more neutral." That's Neutral Evil at best. If the Paladin has been threatening you, maybe it is because you go around doing evil things. Thinking of yourself as "neutral" doesn't make it so.

If this Paladin is there and is acting this way because of another player, then this is still an problem that should be solved by TALKING TO THE OTHER MEMBERS OF YOUR GROUP. Fundamentally, your other plans just aren't going to solve anything. You are treating a social problem in your gaming group as just a problem inside of the game. As long as you keep doing that, you can only make things worse. You'll just encourage the other side to one-up you and things will escalate.

[Kelb_Panthera]

If you're willing to kill him, stop *****-footing around and just gank him. Draw knife, apply to kidney. Repeatedly. While he trances.

[cakellene]

Shift alignment to evil and the paladin needs to go away or fall.

[Nettlekid]

Shift alignment to evil and the paladin needs to go away or fall.

Or kill you. In the face.

[Drachasor]

Or kill you. In the face.

Or just stick around and make sure you don't hurt others while he tries to turn you good.

[RPGaddict28]

Legitimate is more than just "legally the prince" as far as Paladin is concerned. A tyrant, for instance, is not a legitimate authority, though if it costs too much to take them out a Paladin might treat them as such, somewhat.

Given your whole plan to kill an innocent family and destroy a good man's life (who is supposedly one of your subjects) just to make your life a bit easier, then I don't really buy the "I'm really more neutral." That's Neutral Evil at best. If the Paladin has been threatening you, maybe it is because you go around doing evil things. Thinking of yourself as "neutral" doesn't make it so.

If this Paladin is there and is acting this way because of another player, then this is still an problem that should be solved by TALKING TO THE OTHER MEMBERS OF YOUR GROUP. Fundamentally, your other plans just aren't going to solve anything. You are treating a social problem in your gaming group as just a problem inside of the game. As long as you keep doing that, you can only make things worse. You'll just encourage the other side to one-up you and things will escalate.

My PC was threatened because he mentioned that their ship was gotten by killing the slavers, who enslaved us, and taking it, and that we stole an evil gem from a man to stop the demons it was allowing in.

And this other player will never let that happen. He begged the DM for this paladin, and even after talking to him in the beginning about bringing in a paladin, he stil wouldn't listen. I have to do this IG, or he won't ever stop complaining.

[Drachasor]

I don't understand why that got you threatened. Explain it, please. And what was the threat?

[Flickerdart]

Or just stick around and make sure you don't hurt others while he tries to turn you good.

Nope. Can't associate with evil.

[Grod_The_Giant]

If he won't compromise out-of-character ("could you maybe play your paladin a little more like Hinjo and less like Miko?"), he definitely won't in-character. All you'll do is cause a scene.

[Drachasor]

Nope. Can't associate with evil.

The Book of Exalted Deeds disagrees. Anyhow, it is pretty clear from the context of the Association bit that this applies to Adventuring Groups and other associations of mutual agreement/whatever. Forcibly following someone evil to make sure they don't harm others and to turn them to the light is quite different from that.

[Red Fel]

If you're willing to kill him, stop *****-footing around and just gank him. Draw knife, apply to kidney. Repeatedly. While he trances.

All of the stuff in this thread, but this especially. If you want to be evil, don't be elaborate. Elaborate plans fall apart. Simple plans are simple to execute. And few plans are simpler than a knife.

All that said, bottom line is this: One of your players asked for this. Someone was bright enough to say, "Please, DM, I know I don't have the feat, but I really want a goody two-shoes moral albatross hanging around the party's neck." Wish granted. And it would be well within my modus operandi to simply smile, nod, and state, "Deal with it."

But you've caught me in an uncharacteristically charitable mood. So in addition to the pile of "Talk to the DM and other players" advice, I'm going to offer my own tidbits.

1: Paladins should recognize legitimate authority. However, failure to do so does not cause them to fall. It's a funny quirk about the Paladin Code - they're required to be Good and Lawful, but they're only punished for being Evil. So even assuming your PC is a legitimate authority - a questionable claim, I think, under the circumstances - he won't fall for disobeying you. He'll only fall for an act of evil.

2: Evil may be arbitrarily defined by the game mechanics, but falling is at the discretion of the DM. He can easily argue - and probably will - that if you contrive a fall scenario, his Paladin bounces. You can argue it, of course, but you will assuredly fail. Why? Because he's the DM. So stop trying to get the Paladin to fall. It won't end well for you.

Let's move on to the murder angle, shall we?

Now, I'm not saying you have to kill him. Torture works just as well, as does abandoning him, selling him into slavery, driving him insane with visions of the Far Realm... Bonus points for creativity.

But if you really want to get rid of someone, it's surprisingly simple to do - just ditch him. Ordinarily, I'd suggest getting him drunk, setting him up for a barfight, and leaving down while he's in the pokey. However, if you don't see him falling for booze, I suggest a method that appeals to a Paladin's sensibilities.

First, roll your Gather Information and Knowledge (Local) checks until you find a settlement that is either (a) of a race openly hostile to elves, such as Orcs, or (b) violently xenophobic.

If (a), inform the Paladin that you're going to drive them away with a show of force, and have him take point. Make the plan elaborate. He will approach the camp from the front, you and the rest of the party will approach the Chieftain's tent from the rear while the population is distracted. Then simply fail to show up. Leave while he's getting pounded.

If (b), send him into town as your peacemaker. After all, he has that marvelous Cha score. Let him be your shining diplomat. While he's being lynched, get out of Dodge.

In either case, discuss the plans with the other players, privately, before arriving at the session. Make sure they're all onboard, including the player who will be losing his impromptu cohort. Further, if there's a player who insists on keeping the Paladin, send them both in. Why not? What could go wrong?

Naturally, the DM (and other player) will be peeved that you ditched this character. "Why didn't you tell me?" he'll ask. "Why did you go to all this instead of just talking to me?" And you'll babble some excuse, and he'll scowl, but you'll all move on, thinking the matter passed. Water under the bridge. But it's not water under the bridge. Emotions unexpressed tend to fester. The DM will come to resent you, and it will start to show in your campaigns. You, in turn, will start to resent how difficult and heavy-handed he will be. Resentment will turn to anger, anger to the Da-

Oh, right. Sorry. Anyway. Short version, just talk to him. (And the other player.) Work it out. Social skills.

Or the knife. Either or, really.

[Flickerdart]

The Book of Exalted Deeds disagrees. Anyhow, it is pretty clear from the context of the Association bit that this applies to Adventuring Groups and other associations of mutual agreement/whatever. Forcibly following someone evil to make sure they don't harm others and to turn them to the light is quite different from that.
BoED is 3.0, 3.5 PHB is primary source on paladins, and it's very specific about what happens if you associate with evil. Given that there are no allowances made for any evil at all, it's not "pretty clear" at all that your opinion is the rule.

[Nettlekid]

*snip*

I realized halfway through because I remembered the purple; you're the one who posted that excellent "How to rule the world" as a charismatic Warblade description. You have a knack for subtle evil.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Nope. Can't associate with evil.

That's not part of the code.

It's its own section in the paladin's class description. If you insist on taking it as RAW, instead of the misplaced roleplaying advice that I believe it to be, there are two interpretations you can take. You can either take the first (run-on) sentence as merely a lead up to the second, with no weight of its own, and that the rule is merely that you can only hire henchmen or attract cohorts and followers that are LG or you can take it more literally and the rule is that a paladin is incapable of associating with evil creatures or those who consistently offend their moral code. In either case it doesn't interact with the code at all.

[Drachasor]

BoED is 3.0, 3.5 PHB is primary source on paladins, and it's very specific about what happens if you associate with evil. Given that there are no allowances made for any evil at all, it's not "pretty clear" at all that your opinion is the rule.


While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code.

I don't see how that isn't in the context of adventuring or the like. Also, what qualifies as a "gross violation of the code of conduct" is up to the DM. I don't see many DMs saying "Oh, stopping that evil guy you can't imprison/kill from causing evil mischief is a gross violation. You should have just let them go free. Definitely never follow evil around. And turning people good is for non-paladins."

Edit: Assuming you treat it as part of the Code, of course.

[Red Fel]

I realized halfway through because I remembered the purple; you're the one who posted that excellent "How to rule the world" as a charismatic Warblade description. You have a knack for subtle evil.

It's so good to be appreciated.

Seriously, though, OP: Just talk to them. Trust me. Evil may be funny (and its victims, hysterical) on paper, but it rarely works out well when you pull it on party members.

Players have feelings, depressing though it may be. Respect them.

... And I have to find that post you mentioned, Nettlekid... I remember it...

[Flickerdart]

I don't see how that isn't in the context of adventuring or the like.
It's in the context of everything. There are no limitations placed on this clause. Adventuring (walking around with dudes and murdering stuff) needs an exception to be made for it because killing things and taking their loot is pretty evil; it's not there because the paladin's allowed to party it up with bad guys whenever he decides he's not "adventuring."



Also, what qualifies as a "gross violation of the code of conduct" is up to the DM. I don't see many DMs saying "Oh, stopping that evil guy you can't imprison/kill from causing evil mischief is a gross violation. You should have just let them go free. Definitely never follow evil around. And turning people good is for non-paladins."
It's too bad that it's being evil OR offending the code, not being evil AND offending the code. Otherwise you might have gotten to be right.

[Alabenson]

BoED is 3.0, 3.5 PHB is primary source on paladins, and it's very specific about what happens if you associate with evil. Given that there are no allowances made for any evil at all, it's not "pretty clear" at all that your opinion is the rule.

Actually, BoED is 3.5, not 3.0. The confusion is understandable since it and the BoVD were printed right as the conversion took place, with BoVD being published as 3.0 and BoED published as 3.5.

[Rakoa]

... And I have to find that post you mentioned, Nettlekid... I remember it...

If you do, any chance you could post it here? It sounds like it would be a fun read.

[Flickerdart]

Actually, BoED is 3.5, not 3.0. The confusion is understandable since it and the BoVD were printed right as the conversion took place, with BoVD being published as 3.0 and BoED published as 3.5.
It's not 3.5 rules compliant. It may be marketed as a 3.5 book, but is really isn't.

[Drachasor]

It's in the context of everything. There are no limitations placed on this clause. Adventuring (walking around with dudes and murdering stuff) needs an exception to be made for it because killing things and taking their loot is pretty evil; it's not there because the paladin's allowed to party it up with bad guys whenever he decides he's not "adventuring."

It's clearly in the context of adventuring given that's what the whole sentence is written contrasts with.


It's too bad that it's being evil OR offending the code, not being evil AND offending the code. Otherwise you might have gotten to be right.

Eh? How does that have anything to do with what I said? Again, IF you have the association thing as part of the code (in the book it is in its own section), then it still requires a GROSS VIOLATION. Not just any violation, but a particularly bad violation. I don't see how trying to redeem someone evil is a particularly bad violation of the association clause.

[Gnome Alone]

Plan 2 is a lot more convoluted and evil. This plan, I need to get a greater planar mote of the Abyss, plant it on a child, then use the right spells to have the kid poison/kill his parent in front of the pally, then I "arrive" right as I see the pally kill the kid and lose his powers, then I kill him.

Geez, what are you, the Elf Prince Machiavellieanwe?

[Nettlekid]

If you do, any chance you could post it here? It sounds like it would be a fun read.

Here's the thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16500927) It made me want to make a Bloodstorm Blade whose signature move is hurling his axe over his back as a show of disarming himself, then it bounces around/whooshes through the air, all the way around the opponent, and stabs him in the back. Later says the baddie tried to run out of cowardice, and got the axe in the back for it.

[nedz]

Geez, what are you, the Elf Prince Machiavellieanwe?

this,
what you do is:

Wait until you are staying at an Inn in some town or other
Kill the Paladin in his sleep
Cut his body in half
Leave it in the town square next to a piece of wood

[Angelalex242]

Before you kill the Paladin, consider this...

If I were the guy who wanted a Paladin Cohort, the first thing I'd do is tell the Paladin's religion just what you did to one of their brave Sir Knights. Enjoy the entire religious order being shoved up your hind end, with clerics and paladins working together to smite you into next week.

The DM, in this case, will probably rule your alignment is now evil for killing him, and hence, the legions of holy roller NPCS coming to kill you can use the full weight of their holy abilities on you.

In short, if you kill him, you'd better be strong enough to take on an entire religion, or your character's life expectancy is very short indeed. Indeed, just trying to survive will probably drive you into further acts of depraved evil, like summoning as many pit fiends and balors and ice assassins thereof to survive one more day against the religious war declared on you.

[cakellene]

this,
what you do is:

Wait until you are staying at an Inn in some town or other
Kill the Paladin in his sleep
Cut his body in half
Leave it in the town square next to a piece of wood


What's the wood for?

[AMFV]

Before you kill the Paladin, consider this...

If I were the guy who wanted a Paladin Cohort, the first thing I'd do is tell the Paladin's religion just what you did to one of their brave Sir Knights. Enjoy the entire religious order being shoved up your hind end, with clerics and paladins working together to smite you into next week.

The DM, in this case, will probably rule your alignment is now evil for killing him, and hence, the legions of holy roller NPCS coming to kill you can use the full weight of their holy abilities on you.

In short, if you kill him, you'd better be strong enough to take on an entire religion, or your character's life expectancy is very short indeed. Indeed, just trying to survive will probably drive you into further acts of depraved evil, like summoning as many pit fiends and balors and ice assassins thereof to survive one more day against the religious war declared on you.


That's unlikely, he's not that high level, or an important official, Paladins die in battle, many of them miserably unavenged. It's a fact of being a Paladin, and vengeance isn't particularly a good trait either. It is obscenely unlikely that killing one Paladin will trigger a crusade. I could see other Paladins trying to kill the character if they chance to meet him, but that's no different than a standard encounter.


Personally I'd play a game of "Hi, Have you met knife!"

"Hi, what's your name?"

"Kidneys!"

"Hi, have you met knife?"

I mean they're not

[Herabec]

That's unlikely, he's not that high level, or an important official, Paladins die in battle, many of them miserably unavenged. It's a fact of being a Paladin, and vengeance isn't particularly a good trait either. It is obscenely unlikely that killing one Paladin will trigger a crusade. I could see other Paladins trying to kill the character if they chance to meet him, but that's no different than a standard encounter.


Personally I'd play a game of "Hi, Have you met knife!"

"Hi, what's your name?"

"Kidneys!"

"Hi, have you met knife?"

I mean they're not

Revenge is not a good trait.

Seeking out righteous vengeance is!

They're completely different things. Like the difference between an elephant and an elephant seal. :smallbiggrin:

[AMFV]

Revenge is not a good trait.

Seeking out righteous vengeance is!

They're completely different things. Like the difference between an elephant and an elephant seal. :smallbiggrin:

I'm pretty sure that justice would be the good trait, and then you'd be inclined to start a trial rather than a war. Particularly for Paladins who are lawful. Now if somebody is beyond redeeming then righteous vengeance away. But a murderer, particularly one whose life was threatened is hardly irredeemable.

[Kioras]

Make it plainly simple to the paladin that he is not wanted with the group unless he becomes less uptight and removes that surgically implanted stick.

Since it is not a player character, but a DMPC, who was foisted onto the group to satisfy player begging anything you do to the character short of murder you might be able to get away without brusing ego's too much.

Turn him into the groups butt monkey, and non lethally offend his moral code as much as you can.

For example, next time you stop at a major city's inn, when he is asleep, tie him to the bed, leave him in his skivies and for all his equipment and goods just have it relocated to a temple of his order, on the opposite side of the town, advising them to hold onto it because he is currently indisposed.

Then go ahead and leave the inn, and just leave him a note that his items are being held by his order at that location.

Go ahead and magically redie his armor and weapons to some awful tie die combination with Prestigiation, ideally while he is trying to act suitably paladin like to other NPC's, or players in the party.

If he is preventing you from having fun, or play your characters as you like, make it so that is is less tempted to 'Smite Evil' and instead it seems more like the paladin is trying to 'Smite Humor'.

[Drachasor]

I'm pretty sure that justice would be the good trait, and then you'd be inclined to start a trial rather than a war. Particularly for Paladins who are lawful. Now if somebody is beyond redeeming then righteous vengeance away. But a murderer, particularly one whose life was threatened is hardly irredeemable.

We don't even know how he was threatened or exactly why. Considering the OP things it is fairly reasonable to kill a family to try to trick the Pally into falling (AGAIN THIS WON'T WORK), I am doubtful on his assessment of the situation.

And sure, the Paladins to arrest him. Do you think the OP is going to submit to that? Again, his considering killing an innocent family just because a Paladin probably made a remark like "don't do that again" to some act he did (which might well have been heinous). I suspect he'd resist and then he'd be dead. Or he'd be put on trial and then sent to jail and the character retires -- chances of him winning seem remote. Either way, the character is done.

OP seems pretty hard-headed about this whole thing. Seems like he wants to piss off his IRL friend as much as possible. At lot of the suggestions here about the Pally will likely do the same.

Really this is something that requires a discussing with the DM and other players as a group. It would be nice if the OP would provide some more info on this threat he got -- because I don't see how killing some slavers who enslaved you gets you a threat (certainly not a threat on your life, though I don't think the OP was clear if it was a threat on his life).

[nedz]

What's the wood for?

The whole thing is a Machiavelli reference.

If you want to know what the block of wood is for then you'll just have to read The Prince :smallcool:

[cakellene]

The whole thing is a Machiavelli reference.

If you want to know what the block of wood is for then you'll just have to read The Prince :smallcool:

I do have it on my tablet, need to get around to actually reading it.

[Bronk]

My PC was threatened because he mentioned that their ship was gotten by killing the slavers, who enslaved us, and taking it, and that we stole an evil gem from a man to stop the demons it was allowing in.

I don't know... unless there's more to this, none of it sounds enough to trigger a paladin's moralometer in the first place. The first part - did you have them captured first? The second part - was the holder of the gem an oblivious good guy or something?

Paladin's are not police officers... they are knights who seek out evil and slay it.

It could be that the paladin is sad because he missed out on the action.

It could be that the DM is confused about what a paladin is.

It is much more likely that your original description is correct... It is a full on DMPC and your DM is using it as a hammer to try to keep you in line.

[RPGaddict28]

Ya know, honestly, I only wanna I'll the paladin because it's gonna cause more problems later down the line, like PKing. After talking with some other party members, but not the one with the pally, it looks like if I can't get rid of the pally OOC, it's gonna have to be killing him. And that idea about abandoning the pally in a fight is a great idea.

[Drachasor]

Do you mean the Paladin is going to cause trouble by trying to kill you when you do evil stuff or that the Paladin is going to cause trouble by stopping you from killing other players?

Eh, you really haven't explained any of the problems you are having very well.

[RPGaddict28]

Do you mean the Paladin is going to cause trouble by trying to kill you when you do evil stuff or that the Paladin is going to cause trouble by stopping you from killing other players?

Eh, you really haven't explained any of the problems you are having very well.

It's gonna cause PK because the pally hates two of us. He's probably going to try to arrest one PC, my PC's closest friend, and the now arrested PC's player is going to be hostile. Then, IG, my PC is gonna be enraged that they did that to his friend, and probably kill them, or die trying, causing even more hostility. And while I can fix the last part, I probably can't change the first part. I mean, hell, the PC with the pally even said, and I quote "Hopefully something happens in which I can stay in the party, even though that more than likely involves turning Lord Xot in." He seems to not want to even change his way to make it work with the party. And all Lord Xot did was put his celestial dog out of its misery.

[Nettlekid]

It's gonna cause PK because the pally hates two of us. He's probably going to try to arrest one PC, my PC's closest friend, and the now arrested PC's player is going to be hostile. Then, IG, my PC is gonna be enraged that they did that to his friend, and probably kill them, or die trying, causing even more hostility. And while I can fix the last part, I probably can't change the first part. I mean, hell, the PC with the pally even said, and I quote "Hopefully something happens in which I can stay in the party, even though that more than likely involves turning Lord Xot in." He seems to not want to even change his way to make it work with the party. And all Lord Xot did was put his celestial dog out of its misery.

I think people mean that you haven't actually TOLD US what it is you did, and what the Paladin did in response to what you did, and how the party reacted to both of those events.

[RPGaddict28]

I think people mean that you haven't actually TOLD US what it is you did, and what the Paladin did in response to what you did, and how the party reacted to both of those events.

Oh, I mentioned that our boat was gotten by taking it from the slavers we killed, he threatened to kill me. The party didn't care when we took the boat, or when I brought that part up, but it was a few IC insults slung, and we moved on to the next thing. Also, if this matters, this is an online campaign on roll20.

[Ghost Nappa]

You could always just send the Paladin on long missions away to foreign countries where they don't have to interact with you for months at a time. Tell him you got a letter and it's absolutely-super-duper important to guard this kid so that evil doesn't destroy the world. If he asks for details, bluff (lie about rhe roll if you must) tell him there's no time and he needs to be there YESTERDAY.

No killing, no falling, just role-laying...and well lying.

[Spuddles]

You're on a boat, right?

Step 1. Slit his throat while he trances.
Step 2. Throw the body overboard.
Step 3. Clean up the blood.
Step 4. The blood doesnt come off your hands, does it?

[Scow2]

Oh, I mentioned that our boat was gotten by taking it from the slavers we killed, he threatened to kill me. The party didn't care when we took the boat, or when I brought that part up, but it was a few IC insults slung, and we moved on to the next thing. Also, if this matters, this is an online campaign on roll20.Why the hell would a paladin have a problem with that!?

You didn't steal the boat. You commandeered it from brigands (Who, being lawbreakers and evildoers, had forfeited any legal claim to property)

[MonochromeTiger]

Oh, I mentioned that our boat was gotten by taking it from the slavers we killed, he threatened to kill me. The party didn't care when we took the boat, or when I brought that part up, but it was a few IB insults slung, and we moved on to the next thing. Also, if this matters, this is an online campaign on roll20.

wait wait wait... a paladin... threatened to kill you... for killing SLAVERS and taking their boat? maybe someone skipped the memo on slavery not being lawful good but threatening to kill you over killing people profiting off the suffering of others and seizing their ship? that takes a special kind of lawful stupid to justify.

personally if you have a situation like that the player is not fit to play paladin, make them fall and make them fall so hard the crater is big enough for every other paladin they try to play to fall into too. I'm a personal fan of hyper-complex schemes that involve paladins in such a way that they aren't capable of existing while knowing the plan without falling...but those require 1 part DM bribing, 1 part really convoluted logic, and 1 part making sure the paladin player doesn't know what you're planning until they're screaming "help I've fallen and I can't get up".

[Faily]

*facepalms*

Are we incapable of having a week or more without threads like "Making Paladins fall/No fun with Pallies because I want to play Chaotic Neutral (Evil)"?


Let's break this down, otherwise I'd have to make a quote-tunnel.

BoED is 3.5. Not 3.0 or 3.25, but 3.5. Is alot of the stuff there bonkers? Yes, absolutely, but that does not deter from the fact that they elaborated further upon the battle of Good that Paladins fight. That kind of written sense goes back as far as when Paladins first appeared. They are Champions of Good, not mindless slaughtermachines the moment something pings of the Evil-Radar. It's easy to just kill something, but it is a true victory for Good to turn someone away from Evil.

The OP's character is not Neutral. Or Chaotic Neutral. But Evil. The moment you go down the lane of thinking "I'm just gonna have this family of innocents killed to ruin the life of this one guy", you are solidly in the territory of evil. Neutral might be selfishness, but responding with harming people who have done no harm towards you, is not selfish. It's evil.
Seriously, when I read that, I had a repeat of Gamers 2's "I'm not evil. I'm chaotic neutral". It's real cute when people claim to be Neutral so they can just do whatever they want without so-called reprecussions.
Evil. Deal with it.

Even if you are the prince, the Paladin is not obliged to obey your orders. I am not sure if the elven Paladins in this campaign are sworn to serve the elven king, but I would feel very certain to say that a Paladin would sooner consider the good for the elf-kin and the orders of the elven gods, than direct orders from a ruling family. They are Holy Warriors, after all.
Now, if they are sworn to the king (Charlemagne's knights-type), they obey the king. Not his offspring. And if said offspring is bringing shame upon the royal house by acting like spoiled little murder-hobos, well, all the more reason to put a leash on them before they bring ruin upon the elves. And if need be, dispose of a possible tyrant before innocent lives suffer. It's a sacrifice a paladin would make, and it would just be an Atonement away if it broke one of their vows.
Just because you're a prince doesn't mean you're in the right. An Evil ruler or lord is not a legitimate authority to a Champion of Good and Justice.

So, have you considered that the reason why this player asked for a Paladin cohort could be because certain other players are always playing the "I'm not evil. I'm chaotic neutral"-moron who in their minds ruin a party dynamic? Seriously, how old are you? Talk it out with the group. Say that "I want to play an Evil character, so a Paladin in the group is really hard for me. Does me playing an Evil character make any of you uncomfortable, or does it disrupt with the planned campaign the GM has planned for us?". That's what an adult does. A roleplaying game is communal effort, and you play games to have fun. My common-sense is telling me that you lot need to communicate properly about this with eachother and talk this out as the adults you are supposed to be (unless you're 12, then I'd tell you to deal with it anyways and show some courtesy to your fellow players).
Respect your other players and their wishes. Consider that you might also be making the game unfun for others with your antics. Be the better man and talk it out instead of scheming to solve problems with pointless events like the ones you posted.

[Spuddles]

You are only evil in D&D if you do more evil than good. After breaking up a slaving ring, you're entitled to kill a few children. How else do you think neutral adventurers stay neutral?

[MonochromeTiger]

*snip*

I sense some unresolved hostility against people dealing with a "I'm totally going to kill you guys later" paladin.

[RPGaddict28]

*facepalms*

First off, all the ideas that I, a human being, have are not what my character, a fictional elf, thinks. I'm not my character and he's not me. I thought about making him fall, not my character.

Secondly, the guy with the paladin only brought a paladin because he likes RPing, and switches character concepts monthly. The only reason why he has a paladin, is because he wanted to RP a frail summoner who is mainly support. And I already tried telling him a paladin wouldn't get along so well with the party, and especially since the way these summoner and the pally are played I'd that they don't get along with anyone who isn't LG. You know who isn't LG? EVERYONE ELSE IN THE PARTY. Now, I haven't talked to the DM or the player in question since the day of the campaign, I have been talking with all the other players, and they all agree that this paladin isn't working. I'm scheming because something needs to be done about this, because it could break up the campaign, and I need IG stuff to do if OOC doesn't work.

[12owlbears]

If the other players agree that the paladin is a problem than you don't need a reason IG to get rid of him.

[Metahuman1]

First off, all the ideas that I, a human being, have are not what my character, a fictional elf, thinks. I'm not my character and he's not me. I thought about making him fall, not my character.

Secondly, the guy with the paladin only brought a paladin because he likes RPing, and switches character concepts monthly. The only reason why he has a paladin, is because he wanted to RP a frail summoner who is mainly support. And I already tried telling him a paladin wouldn't get along so well with the party, and especially since the way these summoner and the pally are played I'd that they don't get along with anyone who isn't LG. You know who isn't LG? EVERYONE ELSE IN THE PARTY. Now, I haven't talked to the DM or the player in question since the day of the campaign, I have been talking with all the other players, and they all agree that this paladin isn't working. I'm scheming because something needs to be done about this, because it could break up the campaign, and I need IG stuff to do if OOC doesn't work.

I would also like to point out that based on what you told us of WHY the Paladin is out to get you, which is, he's out to get you because you broke up a slave ring and stopped an item that allowed Chaotic Evil Demon's onto the material plane form being allowed to funtion properly and uncontrolled. , that Paladin is dangerously close to falling as is. Cause trying to stop someone from stopping Chaotic Evil Demon's from entering the material plane freely should be unconscionable to the Paladin, his Alignment and his code. And trying to prevent the breaking up of Slave Rings also doesn't help your case.

So, no, when because you broke up a slave ring and stopped an item that allowed Chaotic Evil Demon's onto the material plane form being allowed to funtion properly and uncontrolled. is the reason the Paladin is threatening the character with his life. the paladin is the bad guy in the picture, and the character is pretty much justified to get rid of them however they need too.

Now, here's a way to do it. Take Leadership yourself, Bring in an evil character to be your cohort. Make it Lawful Evil just so that there's rules so the Paladin can't utterly say "No, never, can't be trusted." Maybe like a Lawful Evil Assassin who, as long as he's paid under contract, will fulfill the contract even at the cost of his life. Have him hang with the group as your new Cohort, for which you, unlike the other play, took a feat.

And point it out to him when he objects "Hey, I didn't beg the DM for Rule Zero that doesn't fit the party, I took the feat and made a cohort that doesn't drive everyone except me in this party up the wall."

And now his Paladin is faced with a choice.

1: Excuse himself from further adventures and get away for fear of falling.

2: Attack your cohort on sight, in public, who has offered no violence. Bonus points if it's an unarmed combat character who's light on magic so that you can claim if he offs him he killed a defenseless man who posed no threat to him or anyone near buy and offered him no violence. At best, he goes to jail for quite some time and you guys ditch him, at worst, he Falls and goes to jail. More Bonus points if If part of a contract negotiated when the Paladin is not present is that if the Paladin attacks him he has to just stand there and ask him politely to stop with out mounting a defense. Cause now the Paladin murdered a helpless man to boot, in public, while neither a mage nor armed, and with witnesses.

If the problem player or DM raise and issue about it, raise the issue that your doing something legitimately in character, and legitimately with the rules, and it doesn't bother anyone else, were as what there using as grounds to object to it is Rule Zero harassment of the party that is utterly unjustified. And have the entire rest of the party back you up right then and there.

Alternative:

Let a fight happen. Don't let him stand watch with out you ever again and if he asks, point out in character "You have a beef with me for breaking up a slave ring and cutting off a source of easy access to the material plane for the hordes of the abyss itself. You'll have to forgive me if after taking the time to contemplate that, I find you extremely questionable based on that and feel inclined not to trust you. " He'll have a hard time arguing that when all your doing is sharing a watch with him.

And then, wait for him to object, and tell him "well, too bad, I'm your prince, I'm pulling rank, don't get in my way." You want him to take the first swing here, remember that.

Now, you also want to have had a lot of contingency spells put on you to super buff you into the atmosphere and set off as many nasty effects to hurt/impede him as much as possible as soon as he does. Go full munchkin here, make sure you can't loose this one fight. Don't hire your party wizard that has the pally as a cohort, cause he might try pulling something and the DM might allow it. No, you want a different wizard who has no incentive to mess you up to do it. Look at it this way, he attacked you, if the party goes in on the vote with you, you can cash in his gear to recover the cost of the spells to get rid of him.

[RPGaddict28]

Just a heads up, the pally is a cohort of a summoner cleric going Thaumaturge, and I'm the party's wizard.

[Angelalex242]

...WHAAAAAT?

Somebody ask the GM why the Paladin was attempting to STOP the party from dealing with slavers and demon summoners? He should've been first in line to smite them into next week.

I feel like I'm missing massive amounts of backstory here, because there's no excuse for that.

Or possibly the GM just Did NOT Think That Through.

[Drachasor]

What part of killing the slavers and taking this gem did the Paladin object to? Did you torture them or something? Did they surrender to you and get killed while defenseless? What's the story on this gem?

A lot of us don't understand why he'd issue threats over this. It doesn't sound like Paladin behavior at all.

And Paladins can get along with good and neutral characters well enough. It isn't like they violently insist everyone be Lawful Good (because guess, what, violent insistence on that isn't Lawful Good!)

Either more is going on or this Paladin is being run horribly.

[nedz]

... personally if you have a situation like that the player is not fit to play paladin, make them fall and make them fall so hard the crater is big enough for every other paladin they try to play to fall into too. I'm a personal fan of hyper-complex schemes that involve paladins in such a way that they aren't capable of existing while knowing the plan without falling...but those require 1 part DM bribing, 1 part really convoluted logic, and 1 part making sure the paladin player doesn't know what you're planning until they're screaming "help I've fallen and I can't get up".

IIRC the Paladin is a DMPC — which complicates things; Otherwise I agree.

[Drachasor]

IIRC the Paladin is a DMPC — which complicates things; Otherwise I agree.

Well, cohort of another player really. Run by the DM since there's no leadership feat in use. So a bit different. Remember, a player REALLY wanted this Paladin.

[sjeshin]

You are only evil in D&D if you do more evil than good. After breaking up a slaving ring, you're entitled to kill a few children. How else do you think neutral adventurers stay neutral?

You are still evil. Period. This whole statement is nonsense. You clearly didn't break up a slave ring simply to end the suffering of slaves, you did it so you had a boat to float around in while you killed children.

[Kesnit]

You are still evil. Period. This whole statement is nonsense. You clearly didn't break up a slave ring simply to end the suffering of slaves, you did it so you had a boat to float around in while you killed children.

IIRC, the OP's character has not killed a child. Tricking the Paladin into killing an innocent child was one of the OP's ideas to get rid of the Paladin.

[Spuddles]

You are still evil. Period. This whole statement is nonsense. You clearly didn't break up a slave ring simply to end the suffering of slaves, you did it so you had a boat to float around in while you killed children.

Nope. Not in D&D. Save some children and kill some children = neutral.

[Scow2]

Nope. Not in D&D. Save some children and kill some children = neutral.
Not quite... Saving Innocent Lives (Age has nothing to do with it) and let other Innocent Lives die=neutral, not outright killing them, which WILL thrust you into Evil. However, not all children are innocent.

[Drachasor]

Nope. Not in D&D. Save some children and kill some children = neutral.

You really can't make a judgement on so little information. Alignment is more about "best fit" than averages. But, if you go around randomly saving or killing kids...that's probably Chaotic Evil due to the depraved indifference. Randomly saving some people doesn't make you neutral.

[Spuddles]

Not quite... Saving Innocent Lives (Age has nothing to do with it) and let other Innocent Lives die=neutral, not outright killing them, which WILL thrust you into Evil. However, not all children are innocent.

It would thrust you into evil for a little bit, or at least move you down from good to neutral.

I dont know why people flip out so hard over evil acts. Like, save ten million orphans yeah yeah, but murder just one annoying urchin and suddenly you're evil.

Nope. D&D morality doesnt work like that.

[HereBeMonsters]

Your the wizard and you need help killing a guy?

But seriously just you and the other players who dislike him not aide him in combat. Back off defend you and yours and let him die. He threatened your character so IC you have a right not to aide him.

As far a neutral goes you're neutral if you kill a prisoner if he might be a threat later or you walk past a burning building with kids inside and dont try to help.

[RPGaddict28]

Your the wizard and you need help killing a guy?

But seriously just you and the other players who dislike him not aide him in combat. Back off defend you and yours and let him die. He threatened your character so IC you have a right not to aide him.

As far a neutral goes you're neutral if you kill a prisoner if he might be a threat later or you walk past a burning building with kids inside and dont try to help.

I more so needed helped in killing him while looking like the good guy. If I wanted to kill him, I'd invis, then silence myself, sneak into his room while he's trancing, slit his throat, and throw his body into my Bag of Holding.

[HereBeMonsters]

Well you are not killing him. You are a valued member of the party whom he threated to kill. Ask yourself if someone threatened to kill you thrn expected you to just do things to protect them would you?

[Threadnaught]

2: Attack your cohort on sight, in public, who has offered no violence. Bonus points if it's an unarmed combat character who's light on magic so that you can claim if he offs him he killed a defenseless man who posed no threat to him or anyone near buy and offered him no violence. At best, he goes to jail for quite some time and you guys ditch him, at worst, he Falls and goes to jail. More Bonus points if If part of a contract negotiated when the Paladin is not present is that if the Paladin attacks him he has to just stand there and ask him politely to stop with out mounting a defense. Cause now the Paladin murdered a helpless man to boot, in public, while neither a mage nor armed, and with witnesses.

Wouldn't work, there's no reason a Paladin would attack an unarmed, defenceless person, just because they ping Evil. They'd arrest them and have them Lawfully executed.
If people rise to protect the Evil character in question, the Pally doesn't leave the offence unanswered. The Paladin fights back and at the least knocks out (or possibly kills) the defenders, before arresting them and if they ping Evil, they get Lawfully executed. :smallamused:


My PC was threatened because he mentioned that their ship was gotten by killing the slavers, who enslaved us, and taking it, and that we stole an evil gem from a man to stop the demons it was allowing in.

Have words with your DM. The Paladin was played Chaotic Evil and will thusly have their Alignment changed to match. The Paladin must fall, because they have already done enough to do so. They should leave a crater the size of Atropal's screaming maw.
Get your DM to understand this and enjoy the look on the other player's face when the DM describes the Paladin being unable to use their powers due to being a glory hound.

[Augmental]

Wouldn't work, there's no reason a Paladin would attack an unarmed, defenceless person, just because they ping Evil. They'd arrest them and have them Lawfully executed.
If people rise to protect the Evil character in question, the Pally doesn't leave the offence unanswered. The Paladin fights back and at the least knocks out (or possibly kills) the defenders, before arresting them and if they ping Evil, they get Lawfully executed. :smallamused:

Pinging evil isn't sufficient grounds for an execution on its own.

[MonochromeTiger]

Wouldn't work, there's no reason a Paladin would attack an unarmed, defenceless person, just because they ping Evil. They'd arrest them and have them Lawfully executed.
If people rise to protect the Evil character in question, the Pally doesn't leave the offence unanswered. The Paladin fights back and at the least knocks out (or possibly kills) the defenders, before arresting them and if they ping Evil, they get Lawfully executed. :smallamused:


assuming they CAN be arrested. if detect evil were valid evidence for arrest about 33% of any society with a paladin in it would be in prison just for walking around the streets. honestly paladin players kind of overplay what detect evil justifies, just seeing that someone pings as evil doesn't mean you have full rights to kill or imprison them. you may not make it your life goal to crush someone because of a detect alignment spell but you CAN choose to view them with more suspicion. hear about a slaver group and someone pings evil? follow them, if they lead you to the group THEN kill them now that you've seen evidence of them actually doing something. otherwise you're just butchering people with no clear reason beyond "they looked bad".

seriously if a paladin really uses detect evil as something more than icing on an already clearly justified cake of reasons to kill something, or reason to look at something with suspicion, then they're not being lawful good they're being vigilante neutral. and then you can easily just have the authorities arrest them because they're actively murdering people without a clear verifiable reason.

[Threadnaught]

Either the rules are being enforced so that the Paladin must do something to remove the Evil character or fall, and must do so in a non lethal way or fall. Hence the Paladin will be played Lawful Stupid and arrest Evil people on sight.

Or the rules will be enforced with a modicum of common sense and the Paladin will fall for attempting to punish an important act of Good.


Either way the DM must change how they're playing the Paladin.

[Zweisteine]

If your DM agrees that the Paladin isn't good to keep, or if you can just convince him to put in a convenient plot twist, you might be able to set the paladin up for a heroic death.

If the paladin arrests a party member, your character could object, and you could have a bit of in-fighting.

Again, if your DM doesn't mind playing the paladin as a paladin rather than a party member, you could set up a situation in which the moral differences are clear, and the paladin, seeing the irreconcilable differences, leaves the party, because he can't stand the differences and they aren't evil enough to kill.


Really, the issue is probably with the player who wanted the paladin. He should not have that kind of control over the adventure. If the DM was willing to put the paladin in the party, you might be able to convince him to get rid of it over another player's objections. If the other player threatens to leave over this, he doesn't sound like someone you really want to play with...

[Augmental]

Either the rules are being enforced so that the Paladin must do something to remove the Evil character or fall, and must do so in a non lethal way or fall. Hence the Paladin will be played Lawful Stupid and arrest Evil people on sight.

Does the paladin code of conduct say that the paladin must arrest people who ping on his evilddar or fall, even if they aren't actively committing evil acts?

[AMFV]

Pinging evil isn't sufficient grounds for an execution on its own.

Also pinging as evil doesn't necessarily mean one is. Several species of undead tend towards neutral. CN and LN priests of evil God's ping as evil. Hellbred with powerful evil artifacts ping as evil. Anybody carrying motes of the right type will ping as evil. That's why you need better discretion than just "they were evil", that's not grounds for execution, and there's good odds you'd be wrong anyways.

[Renegade Paladin]

This is not the first thread the OP has had about this. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16620639) Since we're not getting a lot of background out of him in this one, what was pried out in that may provide some insight. :smalltongue:

[RPGaddict28]

This is not the first thread the OP has had about this. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16620639) Since we're not getting a lot of background out of him in this one, what was pried out in that may provide some insight. :smalltongue:

True, but we actually had a session in between that point, and that thread was about OOC stuff, this is in character.

[Drachasor]

True, but we actually had a session in between that point, and that thread was about OOC stuff, this is in character.

It would be nice if you bothered answering the background questions we've asked.

[Phelix-Mu]

I'll do my part to aid in the clarification process. If the OP would answer the following yes or no, that would help. Responses of "no" should be accompanied by a brief clarification when possible.

1.) Another player got the DM to allow the paladin as a DM-controlled cohort so that the player could focus on an rp-heavy but less effective summoner.

2.) The DM had the paladin object to the manner in which the party acquired a slave ship from slavers.

3.) The DM had the paladin somehow object to the manner in which the party stopped some kind of demon activity.

4.) The paladin has done nothing significant aside from 2 and 3 to deserve some kind of ire from the other party-members and/or their players.

5.) The DM is aware of the strange nature of the paladin's behavior.

6.) The player who got the paladin admitted never controls the paladin.

7.) The player who got the paladin admitted has another character that is even marginally effective.

[RPGaddict28]

I'll do my part to aid in the clarification process. If the OP would answer the following yes or no, that would help. Responses of "no" should be accompanied by a brief clarification when possible.

1.) Another player got the DM to allow the paladin as a DM-controlled cohort so that the player could focus on an rp-heavy but less effective summoner.

2.) The DM had the paladin object to the manner in which the party acquired a slave ship from slavers.

3.) The DM had the paladin somehow object to the manner in which the party stopped some kind of demon activity.

4.) The paladin has done nothing significant aside from 2 and 3 to deserve some kind of ire from the other party-members and/or their players.

5.) The DM is aware of the strange nature of the paladin's behavior.

6.) The player who got the paladin admitted never controls the paladin.

7.) The player who got the paladin admitted has another character that is even marginally effective.

1. Yes
2. Yes, too unlwaful
3. Yes, too unlawful
4. That's all literally all the paladin has done, other than 5 damage in a fight.
5. Yes, he's trying to play the stereotypical "No Fun Allowed" paladins
6. Yes
7. No, this player just changes through characters constantly, but his last two characters were marginally effective, although nowhere close to optomized.

[Phelix-Mu]

My conclusion: The player that demanded the paladin is trolling the party, and the DM is counter-trolling the player. The paladin is pretty much a joke. Kill him and don't feel bad about it. He'll get a chance to not be so fail LG as a lantern archon in the afterlife.

[Sith_Happens]

1. Yes
2. Yes, too unlwaful
3. Yes, too unlawful
4. That's all literally all the paladin has done, other than 5 damage in a fight.
5. Yes, he's trying to play the stereotypical "No Fun Allowed" paladins
6. Yes
7. No, this player just changes through characters constantly, but his last two characters were marginally effective, although nowhere close to optomized.

My advice based on this post and certain ones from the other thread: Get together with the other players and tell the DM and Summoner's player in no uncertain terms that either the Paladin has a change in attitude or he needs to go.

[Kuulvheysoon]

My conclusion: The player that demanded the paladin is trolling the party, and the DM is counter-trolling the player. The paladin is pretty much a joke. Kill him and don't feel bad about it. He'll get a chance to not be so fail LG as a lantern archon in the afterlife.

Which would be hilarious if the Lantern Archon remembered his past life if you summoned it.

[cakellene]

What about requesting a non-feat evil aligned cohort of your own. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Drachasor]

1. Yes
2. Yes, too unlwaful
3. Yes, too unlawful
4. That's all literally all the paladin has done, other than 5 damage in a fight.
5. Yes, he's trying to play the stereotypical "No Fun Allowed" paladins
6. Yes
7. No, this player just changes through characters constantly, but his last two characters were marginally effective, although nowhere close to optomized.

In what way were these actions too lawful?

I'm pretty much with others. Just talk it over with the other players and DM. Point out that it isn't fun. We can't really give much advise or insight when you are so incredibly sparse on the details.


What about requesting a non-feat evil aligned cohort of your own. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Escalating things is rarely a good idea.

[RPGaddict28]

In what way were these actions too lawful?

I'm pretty much with others. Just talk it over with the other players and DM. Point out that it isn't fun. We can't really give much advise or insight when you are so incredibly sparse on the details.



Escalating things is rarely a good idea.

So, you want me to give more detail on what the paladin thinks. Who I don't play. How am I supposed to know why exactly the paladin was mad? All I said was that we took the boat from the slavers we killed. That's it. And all I said was that we snuck into his house, and stole the gem, and ran away. That's literally al I said to piss the pally off.

[cakellene]

So, you want me to give more detail on what the paladin thinks. Who I don't play. How am I supposed to know why exactly the paladin was mad? All I said was that we took the boat from the slavers we killed. That's it. And all I said was that we snuck into his house, and stole the gem, and ran away. That's literally al I said to piss the pally off.

Sounds like DM is upset y'all got treasure in form of a boat and maybe skipping a fight he had planned.

[RPGaddict28]

Sounds like DM is upset y'all got treasure in form of a boat and maybe skipping a fight he had planned.

Not the case, we had a different DM when we got this boat.

[Augmental]

So, you want me to give more detail on what the paladin thinks. Who I don't play. How am I supposed to know why exactly the paladin was mad? All I said was that we took the boat from the slavers we killed. That's it. And all I said was that we snuck into his house, and stole the gem, and ran away. That's literally al I said to piss the pally off.

Maybe the paladin was mad because you stole the gem? Which would be a shining moment of Lawful Stupididy, but it's possible.

[Drachasor]

So, you want me to give more detail on what the paladin thinks. Who I don't play. How am I supposed to know why exactly the paladin was mad? All I said was that we took the boat from the slavers we killed. That's it. And all I said was that we snuck into his house, and stole the gem, and ran away. That's literally al I said to piss the pally off.

I assume the Paladin said something beyond "GRR RAGE KILL" or the like.

IIRC, you didn't mention sneaking into anyone's house. You did say you stole a gem from a guy, but the exact circumstances (such as whether you killed the guy or not) were unclear.

Not asking for mind reading, just more of the relevant info on what was said, reasons stated, actions took, etc. You've been incredibly vague.

On another thread you indicated you had attacked the Paladin and almost killed him. So it seems like there are a lot of missing details.

[RPGaddict28]

I assume the Paladin said something beyond "GRR RAGE KILL" or the like.

IIRC, you didn't mention sneaking into anyone's house. You did say you stole a gem from a guy, but the exact circumstances (such as whether you killed the guy or not) were unclear.

Not asking for mind reading, just more of the relevant info on what was said, reasons stated, actions took, etc. You've been incredibly vague.

On another thread you indicated you had attacked the Paladin and almost killed him. So it seems like there are a lot of missing details.

That was my barbarian, my current problem is about the wizard, and I'm being vague about what I said relating to the pally, because I was that vague to him. And he said something along the lines of "If you keep committing such unlawful deeds, I may have to kill you.

[Drachasor]

What do you mean you were "that vague to him?"

Does he object to you looting bodies then? I'm going to repeat what I and others have said, you should talk to the DM about how his take on this Paladin just isn't fun.

[Scow2]

Remind the DM that the Paladin is not a Police Officer.

As Elf prince, remind the Paladin that he has absolutely no authority to judge others or enforce laws. HE must hold himself to lawful and honorable behavior, and merely doesn't need to tolerate EVIL, not "Unlawful" behavior. Your activities weren't even Chaotic!

Also, as Elf Prince, your seizing of the ship WAS lawful: As right of nobility in the Elven Courts, you commandeered an unlawfully-operated ship from brigands (Such as slavers), who have forfeited all legal claim to property. The ship is yours by right of nobility and right of salvage.

If the Paladin instigates an attack against you for chaotic/nonevil actions, terminate him with extreme prejudice: This should be easier because he will automatically lose his Divine Grace and all other Paladin powers and protections. Remind the DM that the Paladin WOULD fall for trying to enforce the wrong axis of the alignment he's tied to.

If you can cast 4th-level Necromancy spells, hit him with Fear and Contagion to remind him that he's fallen on his ass.

[Spuddles]

Just kill the paladin. Solves pretty much all the problems.

[Threadnaught]

Does the paladin code of conduct say that the paladin must arrest people who ping on his evilddar or fall, even if they aren't actively committing evil acts?

In order to play a Paladin as Lawful Stupid, you must read this part of the Class descriptor as if it's actually a part of the Code of Conduct.


While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

There you go, you now have a Lawful Stupid Paladin who thinks the creatures they're allowed to talk to or even be in proximity of, must be Lawful Good, or destroyed. That's all there is to it.
You can win just about any argument against a Lawful Stupid Paladin about how they're playing, just by showing them how Associates has little to do with the actual CoC.


"If you keep committing such unlawful deeds, I may have to kill you.

This Paladin is so Lawful Stupid it hurts my brain. You have mentioned that the ship you acquired was from slavers who attacked you, right?
And that the gem you stole, was part of a ritual to bring a powerful Chaotic Evil Demonlord into the world, right?

Okay, I'm happy that everyone is offering up suggestions that involve proving the Paladin has fallen, or ganking him in his sleep, but why not something a little more subtle?
This plan hinges on you still having possession of the Demon summoning gem. Wherever you stole it from, alert some goody two shoes LG Clerics of the Paladin's order, that the demon was about to be summoned there and that you are sending the Paladin to their order with the gem, but to have someone ready at where you got the gem just in case the guy who tried to summon it is still there. Tell the Paladin later on, exactly where the gem was stolen from and what it's purpose is. Give them the gem and leave them stranded halfway between their order's HQ and the summoning spot. Lawful Stupid will try to give it back and be killed in the most hilarious way. Lawful Good will take it to their order's HQ where it will be sealed away.

Make sure you're at the summoning spot ready and waiting for the Paladin, should they have decided to fall. Oh hey, now if your DM is willing to play this through without metagaming or abusing DM fiat, you may have yourself a dead Paladin. Have a chat. :smallamused:

[Pickford]

Red_Fel: Agreed, I mean really, would anyone just ditch something they begged the DM for?

Faily:

It's a sacrifice a paladin would make, and it would just be an Atonement away if it broke one of their vows.

Atonement only works if you regret your actions. If the Paladin remains willing to do again whatever cause their fall, then atonement won't work.

RPGaddict28:

Oh, I mentioned that our boat was gotten by taking it from the slavers we killed, he threatened to kill me. The party didn't care when we took the boat, or when I brought that part up, but it was a few IC insults slung, and we moved on to the next thing. Also, if this matters, this is an online campaign on roll20.

Assuming you're not holding something back, this account suggests the DM is misplaying the Paladin and their motivations. Paladins aren't thugs and it's inappropriate to go around threatening people, especially for doing things that are fairly normal and not at all evil. If you had revealed you were bloodthirsty pirates and had killed a merchant for the ship, that would be one thing...but seriously, killing slavers? That's something the Paladin should be applauding, it has protecting the innocent written all over it.

Threadnaught: Being a jerk isn't a violation of the Paladin code. The out of character thing is that, in terms of motivations, any Paladin should approve of the destruction of a Slaver ring. There's literally nothing not to like there.

I think the best course of action might be just to say to the Paladin: "We did the right thing, if you don't approve, you can go your own way, no one is keeping you here." Then the DMPC is put in the position of either not being insane, or leaving the group.

[AMFV]

Red_Fel: Agreed, I mean really, would anyone just ditch something they begged the DM for?

Faily:


Atonement only works if you regret your actions. If the Paladin remains willing to do again whatever cause their fall, then atonement won't work.

RPGaddict28:


Assuming you're not holding something back, this account suggests the DM is misplaying the Paladin and their motivations. Paladins aren't thugs and it's inappropriate to go around threatening people, especially for doing things that are fairly normal and not at all evil. If you had revealed you were bloodthirsty pirates and had killed a merchant for the ship, that would be one thing...but seriously, killing slavers? That's something the Paladin should be applauding, it has protecting the innocent written all over it.

Threadnaught: Being a jerk isn't a violation of the Paladin code. The out of character thing is that, in terms of motivations, any Paladin should approve of the destruction of a Slaver ring. There's literally nothing not to like there.

I think the best course of action might be just to say to the Paladin: "We did the right thing, if you don't approve, you can go your own way, no one is keeping you here." Then the DMPC is put in the position of either not being insane, or leaving the group.

Not necessarily, Paladins are creatures of Law, so they might not directly support it, but they would be hard-pressed to argue directly against it, since you have the good portion of their alignment. I think they'd be okay with traveling with somebody who had done as much, and might even smile a little, on the inside about it. But they might not be eager to openly support it, since it may have been unlawful.

[Scow2]

Not necessarily, Paladins are creatures of Law, so they might not directly support it, but they would be hard-pressed to argue directly against it, since you have the good portion of their alignment. I think they'd be okay with traveling with somebody who had done as much, and might even smile a little, on the inside about it. But they might not be eager to openly support it, since it may have been unlawful.Paladins are by their nature Lawful not because of any adherence to Cosmic Law, but because of a Lawful adherence to their principals, honesty, and Cosmic Good. This paladin is falling faster than the International Space Station.

[AMFV]

Paladins are by their nature Lawful not because of any adherence to Cosmic Law, but because of a Lawful adherence to their principals, honesty, and Cosmic Good. This paladin is falling faster than the International Space Station.

I don't disagree on that respect, but I was saying he might not be fully in support of their methods in stopping the slavers. Certainly not enough to kill them, but it would be acceptable to say, "I like you, but your crazy, you pull a stunt like that again, and you'll get somebody killed." Kind of a Riggs-Murtaugh thing.

[HereBeMonsters]

The slavers are chaotic if nothing else, chaos is the adverse of Lawful meaning what they where doing was not lawful, stopping them is therefor lawful. Now yes if the region they are in supports slavery then it is unlawful to slaughter the slavers but it is still good. Now yes the Paladin would be hard pressed to find a balancing point except the following.

Laws change with the land you travel, during your champaign you might travel through two or three lands with laws different then where the Paladin begins. He is honor bound to follow those laws, not support them or justify or enforce them.

Good rarely changes except upon circumstance such as killing one person to save a thousand which is good the killing to save or not killing knowing you have condemned thousands, etc.

[AMFV]

The slavers are chaotic if nothing else, chaos is the adverse of Lawful meaning what they where doing was not lawful, stopping them is therefor lawful. Now yes if the region they are in supports slavery then it is unlawful to slaughter the slavers but it is still good. Now yes the Paladin would be hard pressed to find a balancing point except the following.

We don't know that the slavers were chaotic, not even a little bit. I said I thought that a paragon or well developed Paladin would probably be in favor of that, but maybe not so much the methods, certainly not enough to kill.

We have people here arguing for what is an over-smoothing of the alignment system, there can be philosophical differences, like not boarding a slave ship and killing the slavers that aren't that important, I don't think it would be anywhere near a problem though, since it was good, and the Paladin is more beholden to good traditionally than law.



Laws change with the land you travel, during your champaign you might travel through two or three lands with laws different then where the Paladin begins. He is honor bound to follow those laws, not support them or justify or enforce them.

True, I actually think this isn't the best rule, I really loathe the paladin's code in this respect. I didn't argue that he was needing to justify or support the slavers, only that I could understand if he wasn't 100% behind the parties methods.



Good rarely changes except upon circumstance such as killing one person to save a thousand which is good the killing to save or not killing knowing you have condemned thousands, etc.

Good has some pretty complex moments, as we've examined in the roleplaying thread. And several facets as have been examined in the BoED, so good can be very very complex, I think that this was pretty good though, depending on the motivations.

[Blarmb]

Take a moment to step back and try to look at it from the perspectives of the other people involved here. Is there a way to frame it that seems like it could be reasonable, given the experiences they (The DM & Cohort Requester) have had in this context?

That your first reaction to this situation was to come on a forum and ask a whole bunch people how to walk all over other people's play experiences in a rather vindictive and under-handed fashion doesn't fill me with confidence that you're putting in a good faith effort.

Really, you haven't even described any behavior on their part that's all that disruptive.

[Metahuman1]

If your the party Wizard, load yourself up on contingency spells then and when he goes to do something again, say, "Or what?".

The more or less universal response to what ever he says is "Well, here's the deal, I'm gonna go do that thing you just told me not to do cause you don't have the authority to order me around, contrary to your delusions. If you want to stop me, I am already buffed to be immune to anything short of lethal force, so your going to have to try to kill me even though I'm presently not offering you or threatening you with any violence. "

And then when he offers you violence, make that the trigger condition for the Contingency's buffing you into orbit and waste him. He tried to murder you, it was entirely valid self defense.

[Drachasor]

Really, you haven't even described any behavior on their part that's all that disruptive.

What? The Paladin said something he didn't like. TWICE!

That's not a reason to kill him or an innocent family over? What is the world coming to!

Honestly, I really feel like we are maybe get half the story. At best.

[Scow2]

He's described repeated threats against his character from the Paladin for engaging in normal adventurer behavior (Such as saving the day and reaping the rewards).

The paladin in his party isn't the "Holy warrior of Righteousness"-type. It's the "Glorified Traffic Cop"-type.

[HereBeMonsters]

Ok again the killing a family was a general idea the player had not the character. Don't confuse the two.

I agree just because he threatened you doesnt mean he needs to go but yeah if he is just walking around being holier then thou and not doing anything else he is just a problem.

[Drachasor]

He's described repeated threats against his character from the Paladin for engaging in normal adventurer behavior (Such as saving the day and reaping the rewards).

The paladin in his party isn't the "Holy warrior of Righteousness"-type. It's the "Glorified Traffic Cop"-type.

It's far from clear the Paladin didn't have more a reason to do say that (which, from what I gather, has happened twice). It's also far from clear how serious it likely is. It certainly isn't a clear and present danger at the moment. Even from what the OP said it was more of a "I'm watching you" comment than anything else. Traffic cop, indeed.

There are also a lot of other options on how to deal with this. But I notice the OP isn't interested in the more constructive options.


Ok again the killing a family was a general idea the player had not the character. Don't confuse the two.

I agree just because he threatened you doesnt mean he needs to go but yeah if he is just walking around being holier then thou and not doing anything else he is just a problem.

Yes and a Player that is considering that and is so vague on the details raises my suspicions that he is leaving a lot of stuff out.

[Segev]

I dunno. There's a difference between "don't do taht again, or I will have to take action," and "don't do taht again, or I will kill you."

The latter is basically drawing a line in the sand, saying that you'll either comply or you will have to resolve which character is leaving the campaign. Once that gauntlet is thrown down, especially if it's thrown down twice on things that you can't see a pattern to other than "the other PC is being overbearing," it becomes worrisome that either this gauntlet will be thrown down until you're only playing the way you're ordered to by the Paladin, or that the Paladin will decide he's given "enough warnings" and just offs your character when you're least prepared for it.

I don't know about you, but to me, if a party member threatens to kill another party member, that's grounds for immediate intra-party pausing, taking stock, and discussion. And if it's not resolved to both PCs at least mutual agreement that it shouldn't have to happen again, one of the two PCs needs to find a new party.

Any adventurer traveling with somebody who's threatened to kill them for activities they find normal should at the LEAST be preparing traps and contingencies to make sure they shoot first if it looks like that somebody will follow through on the threat, and should likely be considering ways to pre-emptively remove the threat entirely. Good-aligned ones should err on the former side; neutral and especially evil ones should likely be increasingly willing to simply strike first to remove the threat.

[HereBeMonsters]

Here is an idea.. leave the group along with the other players who agree and find a new DM and once the DM realizes he has no one to annoy he will start bugging his summoner buddy *Hopes people get he is being sarcastic*

Drachasor you are arguing a very odd point. Its almost as if you are saying that they have to be doing something wrong for the paladin to want to kill them as opposed to the possibility that the DMPC is being played wrong.

[Drachasor]

Here is an idea.. leave the group along with the other players who agree and find a new DM and once the DM realizes he has no one to annoy he will start bugging his summoner buddy *Hopes people get he is being sarcastic*

Drachasor you are arguing a very odd point. Its almost as if you are saying that they have to be doing something wrong for the paladin to want to kill them as opposed to the possibility that the DMPC is being played wrong.

No, I'm saying the OP is being vague. When asked for specifics he's still vague. I am saying that I don't think he's really telling us a remotely unbiased story. For all we know they tortured and mutilated the slavers, and killed the wife of the guy who had the gem. Not saying that happened, merely that I think we are getting these events without a lot of context. Context matters.

But let's say he has described things accurately. Then the real problem is not "PALADINS ARE HORRIBLE!" but rather talking to the DM and the player that asked for a Paladin about how THIS paladin is ruining their fun. And about how a different sort of Paladin would be ok. Planning on killing the DMPC or trying to make him fall....is just honestly dumb. How exactly is that going to resolve the problems in the group and not make things worse?

[HereBeMonsters]

No one is saying that all Paladins suck just that this one is being the cliche lawful stupid. Again just THIS ONE not all.

[Drachasor]

No one is saying that all Paladins suck just that this one is being the cliche lawful stupid. Again just THIS ONE not all.

Well, the OP has said he was pretty sure before any Pally showed up that any Pally would cramp his style. Makes you wonder.

And again why discuss in-game ways to get rid of the Paladin when the DM is running it at a player's request? How does that make sense? Talk to people. Work it out.

Oh, and plenty of people in this thread have said Pallies (in general) are awful.

[Spuddles]

Paladins are pretty bad. Or maybe they just bring out the worst in people.

[HereBeMonsters]

If I play a Paladin I play them more like the Avatar from the Ultima series. He has to be Alignment of Lawful but he does not have to uphold Lawful.

[Threadnaught]

Threadnaught: Being a jerk isn't a violation of the Paladin code. The out of character thing is that, in terms of motivations, any Paladin should approve of the destruction of a Slaver ring. There's literally nothing not to like there.

It's not being a jerk. It's threatening to kill someone over semantics.


Paladins. Should. Not. Do. That.

[Forum Explorer]

From the sounds of things the DM is trying to get you to kill the Paladin. He didn't want it in the game, but relented to the player's begging. So he's making the Paladin being annoying and unfun so the rest of the team will kill it and that player would have to complain to the rest of the group.


So yeah, I would ask the DM if he cares if the Paladin is killed or otherwise 'removed' from the team.

And if you want a non-evil option? Just throw him overboard when he's asleep and sail away.

[Phelix-Mu]

From the sounds of things the DM is trying to get you to kill the Paladin. He didn't want it in the game, but relented to the player's begging. So he's making the Paladin being annoying and unfun so the rest of the team will kill it and that player would have to complain to the rest of the group.


So yeah, I would ask the DM if he cares if the Paladin is killed or otherwise 'removed' from the team.

And if you want a non-evil option? Just throw him overboard when he's asleep and sail away.

A more sensible and plausibly non-evil option would be to put him in a lifeboat with some oars and a couple weeks' rations and fresh water, and a map to a nearby island or some such. Then abandon him. Now his survival is more likely than if he's in the water while sleeping, and it's on him. You basically turn him into an enemy, though, which is why it's not as expedient as killing him or letting him die.

I agree that it may be the DM's intention to cajole the rest of the party into getting rid of the guy. But, one can never tell, and it's the kind of thing that could be easily sorted out out-of-game, and then laughed about in-game as it should be (as it is pretty clearly not a serious attempt at Paladin).

[Spuddles]

Just miscalculate where you land your fireballs.

[RPGaddict28]

OK, game's tonight. I'm think I'm just gonna kill the pally and be done with it all.

[Lothmar]

Dont know if anyone suggested it, have you considered dismissing the paladin from your service or sending him away or just getting the others together and leaving him behind to find you since most paladins dont have search or survival for track?

On another note there's always the classic drama laced abandonment scene. IE the group takes on a 'righteous' quest like going to clear out a goblin den from the hills and when the goblins spring the ambush on the 'paladin' who the team has designated as their forward the rest of you nod your heads to one another and pull a fighting retreat only killing anything in your way to the exit and leave the paladin to get swarmed.

[Pickford]

Paladins are by their nature Lawful not because of any adherence to Cosmic Law, but because of a Lawful adherence to their principals, honesty, and Cosmic Good. This paladin is falling faster than the International Space Station.

Disagree, alignment is simply a tendency towards something. The paladin's only unusual feature vis alignment is that they may not commit evil acts, whereas all other lawful good characters are explicitly allowed to do so without changing alignment:


In addition, few people are completely consistent. A lawful good character may have a greedy streak that occasionally tempts him to take something .... People are also not consistent from day to day. A good character can lose his temper, a neutral character can be inspired to perform a noble act, and so on.

The Paladin only becomes an ex-Paladin in 3 circumstances:

1) Ceasing to be Lawful Good
2) Willingly commiting an evil act
3) Gross violation of the code (act with honor; respect legitimate authority; help those in need; punish those who threaten innocents).

Being a jerk is simply not a gross violation of the code, it's not an evil act, and it's not an alignment changer. So as much as I think it's bizarre for a Paladin to act that way, given their commitment to helping those in need and punishing those who threaten innocents (i.e. slavers!), it's not actually something that makes a paladin into an ex-paladin.

edit:

Threadnaught: Sorry, just saw your comment above. I think the threatening someone remains a gray area of being a jerk within a medieval universe. The setting appropriate response would be for the PC to tell this piker (NPC Paladin) to take a hike and that he isn't welcome as their traveling companion. The Paladin apologizes (and gets to stay) or leaves.

[Threadnaught]

Threadnaught: Sorry, just saw your comment above. I think the threatening someone remains a gray area of being a jerk within a medieval universe. The setting appropriate response would be for the PC to tell this piker (NPC Paladin) to take a hike and that he isn't welcome as their traveling companion. The Paladin apologizes (and gets to stay) or leaves.

You're kidding me right?

The Paladin is unlikely to go away after being told to by someone he's so obviously planning to kill. In fact, if I were sadistic enough to run that Paladin, I'd instantly take any future request or demand that I leave as criminal intent and bring the PCs in.
Who's to say this DM won't play the Pally that way, or worse. What if they were to be played like Kore?

[MonochromeTiger]

You're kidding me right?

The Paladin is unlikely to go away after being told to by someone he's so obviously planning to kill. In fact, if I were sadistic enough to run that Paladin, I'd instantly take any future request or demand that I leave as criminal intent and bring the PCs in.
Who's to say this DM won't play the Pally that way, or worse. What if they were to be played like Kore?

I personally feel more like this paladin is being a miko. thinks "well they're evil", ignores any and all evidence to the contrary, decides that any good act that has been done is clearly evil and unlawful and deserving of a death sentence, COMPLETELY certain that they are the only source of good in the group and thus the best choice to render judgement on EVERYONE.

[SaintNick]

If slavery is legal, then can you use the paladin as collateral in a loan?

[Drachasor]

You're kidding me right?

The Paladin is unlikely to go away after being told to by someone he's so obviously planning to kill. In fact, if I were sadistic enough to run that Paladin, I'd instantly take any future request or demand that I leave as criminal intent and bring the PCs in.
Who's to say this DM won't play the Pally that way, or worse. What if they were to be played like Kore?

"Obviously planning to kill" ? Really? A Paladin is perfectly allowed to issue threats he has no intention of carrying out. It's far from clear what exactly is going on because the OP refused to really elaborate on anything. We've had scant details to work with.

The real solution to this problem was talking about it with the group. Instead the OP is just going to go kill a Paladin. So I'm standing by my feeling that there's more going on than the six or so sentences the OP was willing to share. Especially since one of those few sentences on the actual situation was that the OP felt ANY Paladin would get in his way. Really this thread was more an example of how not to handle a problem than anything else.

[cakellene]

Disagree, alignment is simply a tendency towards something. The paladin's only unusual feature vis alignment is that they may not commit evil acts, whereas all other lawful good characters are explicitly allowed to do so without changing alignment:



The Paladin only becomes an ex-Paladin in 3 circumstances:

1) Ceasing to be Lawful Good
2) Willingly commiting an evil act
3) Gross violation of the code (act with honor; respect legitimate authority; help those in need; punish those who threaten innocents).

Being a jerk is simply not a gross violation of the code, it's not an evil act, and it's not an alignment changer. So as much as I think it's bizarre for a Paladin to act that way, given their commitment to helping those in need and punishing those who threaten innocents (i.e. slavers!), it's not actually something that makes a paladin into an ex-paladin.

edit:

Threadnaught: Sorry, just saw your comment above. I think the threatening someone remains a gray area of being a jerk within a medieval universe. The setting appropriate response would be for the PC to tell this piker (NPC Paladin) to take a hike and that he isn't welcome as their traveling companion. The Paladin apologizes (and gets to stay) or leaves.

Per part 3 of reasons for fall listed above, I would say threatening an innocent definitely falls under failing to punish those who threaten innocents and thus gross violation of code.

[Drachasor]

Per part 3 of reasons for fall listed above, I would say threatening an innocent definitely falls under failing to punish those who threaten innocents and thus gross violation of code.

Again, with so little information to go on, we certainly can't conclude the OP is innocent. Especially since the OP knew a Paladin would be a problem.

And a Paladin can certainly threaten an innocent if the Pally sincerely believes the person is not innocent.

And someone that responds to a Paladin making a threat to encourage better behavior (however misguided)* with pre-meditated murder doesn't really qualify as an innocent.

To review, here's what we have:
1. OP hates Paladins, said they'd cramp his style before one ever joined the party.
2. They stole a gem that could destroy the planet or something and killed some slavers and took over a ship. The Paladin issues a threat over this behavior. The exact details of this behavior was never made clear DESPITE REPEATED QUESTIONS ON THE MATTER.
3. OP considers how to respond, including having his character kill an innocent family. Apparently this is "extreme" but within the sort of behavior his character would do.
4. OP doesn't want to talk to his friend or DM about how this particular take on a Paladin is problematic. Just talks to another player(s).
5. OP decides to kill the Paladin without any sort of talk or negotiation in or out of game.

Not getting an "innocent" vibe here. Nor am I getting a "we understand the full story" vibe.

*And again, the details we've gotten are so scant I rather expect the OP gave us a very biased story.

[Renegade Paladin]

Per part 3 of reasons for fall listed above, I would say threatening an innocent definitely falls under failing to punish those who threaten innocents and thus gross violation of code.
Define "innocent." I'm fairly certain any character who could conceive of killing an innocent family just to get at a third party doesn't qualify.

[MonochromeTiger]

Again, with so little information to go on, we certainly can't conclude the OP is innocent. Especially since the OP knew a Paladin would be a problem.

And a Paladin can certainly threaten an innocent if the Pally sincerely believes the person is not innocent.

And someone that responds to a Paladin making a threat to encourage better behavior (however misguided)* with pre-meditated murder doesn't really qualify as an innocent.

To review, here's what we have:
1. OP hates Paladins, said they'd cramp his style before one ever joined the party.
2. They stole a gem that could destroy the planet or something and killed some slavers and took over a ship. The Paladin issues a threat over this behavior. The exact details of this behavior was never made clear DESPITE REPEATED QUESTIONS ON THE MATTER.
3. OP considers how to respond, including having his character kill an innocent family. Apparently this is "extreme" but within the sort of behavior his character would do.
4. OP doesn't want to talk to his friend or DM about how this particular take on a Paladin is problematic. Just talks to another player(s).
5. OP decides to kill the Paladin without any sort of talk or negotiation in or out of game.

Not getting an "innocent" vibe here. Nor am I getting a "we understand the full story" vibe.

*And again, the details we've gotten are so scant I rather expect the OP gave us a very biased story.

well OF COURSE it's a very biased story. we're hearing what detail we receive from the perspective of someone whose character is under threat from the paladin, this is not some unbiased third party that can get out of the situation just fine either way. if you are depending on truly unbiased information then you will never find it, anyone in the group they're in will have formed an opinion, anyone who has formed an opinion has formed a bias for or against one side of the situation.

the paladin can threaten, sure. but if they act without a valid reason they're no farther from murder than they think their victim is. and again "they pinged on detect evil" does not qualify as evidence that someone is a puppy kicking tear drinking murderer.

on the things we've heard so far: the proposed plan of "kill a family" may be a bit contrived and very clearly on the evil side of things but so are most plans for making a paladin fall. when dealing with what is essentially a lawful stupid jackhammer in character form it's rare for someone to counter that much blunt force with subtlety. and besides all of that we aren't here to debate whether the OP's character is nice and kind, we're discussing ways to deal with a paladin and how said paladin's actions (whatever the alignment of the people they're acting against) are even valid with the information we're given.

a request for more info is fine but at this point it's a bit late for it and if you feel we've not been given anything to go on asking for more isn't likely to get a result you would like.


Define "innocent." I'm fairly certain any character who could conceive of killing an innocent family just to get at a third party doesn't qualify.

I find it hilarious that you say "define innocent" and then immediately say "innocent family". it's odd how we declare a group that isn't involved in a story innocent when we know nothing of what they've done but if you're involved in any way in the story "well you did something wrong so you're not innocent". everyone is guilty of something, innocence is only valid in the context of a specifically stated act such as "they are innocent of having released man eating sharks at the paladin pool party" or "they are innocent of summoning the arch-demon bob soulbreaker".

[Drachasor]

well OF COURSE it's a very biased story. we're hearing what detail we receive from the perspective of someone whose character is under threat from the paladin, this is not some unbiased third party that can get out of the situation just fine either way. if you are depending on truly unbiased information then you will never find it, anyone in the group they're in will have formed an opinion, anyone who has formed an opinion has formed a bias for or against one side of the situation.

the paladin can threaten, sure. but if they act without a valid reason they're no farther from murder than they think their victim is. and again "they pinged on detect evil" does not qualify as evidence that someone is a puppy kicking tear drinking murderer.

on the things we've heard so far: the proposed plan of "kill a family" may be a bit contrived and very clearly on the evil side of things but so are most plans for making a paladin fall. when dealing with what is essentially a lawful stupid jackhammer in character form it's rare for someone to counter that much blunt force with subtlety. and besides all of that we aren't here to debate whether the OP's character is nice and kind, we're discussing ways to deal with a paladin and how said paladin's actions (whatever the alignment of the people they're acting against) are even valid with the information we're given.

a request for more info is fine but at this point it's a bit late for it and if you feel we've not been given anything to go on asking for more isn't likely to get a result you would like.

Point is we've been given mere scraps of info. Requests for details on how the objectionable deeds were carried out have not been responded to.

I don't see how that doesn't send up warning flags that the OP isn't exactly on the level with his description.

We've got the word of someone who hates Paladins and knew before the Paladin joined or acted in any fashion that the Paladin would be a problem. We've got no info on exactly what the Paladin objected to. Plenty of ways to kill slavers and take a ship that a Paladin WOULD object to. Plenty of ways to steal a gem and save the world that the Paladin wouldn't like either.

In games you just accept whatever the suspicious NPCs tell you at face value too? After all, every source is biased, so why bothering with trying to determine if a source is reliable, if the story is even half-way true, etc, etc. Accepting all things as true can't possibly lead us astray!

And heck, the fact the OP hasn't even seriously tried a non-violent approach or out-of-game conversation with the most relevant parties doesn't change things either, does it? After all, why bother giving good advice or seriously examining a situation when you can join the anti-Paladin bandwagon and advocate killing him? Who cares if that's likely to really upset a fellow player? Not me.

It's not like figuring out the exact nature of a problem has anything to do with solving that problem! BRILLIANT!

[MonochromeTiger]

Point is we've been given mere scraps of info. Requests for details on how the objectionable deeds were carried out have not been responded to.

I don't see how that doesn't send up warning flags that the OP isn't exactly on the level with his description.

We've got the word of someone who hates Paladins and knew before the Paladin joined or acted in any fashion that the Paladin would be a problem. We've got no info on exactly what the Paladin objected to. Plenty of ways to kill slavers and take a ship that a Paladin WOULD object to. Plenty of ways to steal a gem and save the world that the Paladin wouldn't like either.

In games you just accept whatever the suspicious NPCs tell you at face value too? After all, every source is biased, so why bothering with trying to determine if a source is reliable, if the story is even half-way true, etc, etc. Accepting all things as true can't possibly lead us astray!

And heck, the fact the OP hasn't even seriously tried a non-violent approach or out-of-game conversation with the most relevant parties doesn't change things either, does it? After all, why bother giving good advice or seriously examining a situation when you can join the anti-Paladin bandwagon and advocate killing him? Who cares if that's likely to really upset a fellow player? Not me.

hmm, let's see. when we're trying to solve something with limited information given I can A: use what information I receive whether it is true or false to reach a solution safe in the knowledge that it's not something I personally will have to deal with later. if he gives us fake info or depicts everything in a way that will only show his side of the story then it's up to his DM, who as you pointed out he isn't willing to talk to on the matter, to beat the senseless rebellion out of his plan. not us. or B: go on a hyper aggressive spree of accusations and demand that he give us information he's clearly not going to give us so I can then, with a clear conscience, tell him to go away cause I think the paladin was doing just fine.

as you can see I took option A because really are you honestly expecting more details when after multiple times of being asked the most you got was "well I was being vague to the paladin as I'm being here"? the OP actively STATED they were being intentionally vague, that means your chances of getting more out of him on the matter are like getting blood from a stone. as such whether I actively believe we're getting the full story or not is irrelevant, I am operating on what we have and if it blows up in his face because we weren't told everything too bad for him.

but hey feel free to act like I'm being an idiot with no logic or reason. after all simply giving an answer instead of saying "no, give us more or I'll continue to glare angrily at you" is clearly counterproductive. cause y'know getting all the information involved always happens every time no matter who's giving the information or what their circumstances are. and clearly we, as people who have no real impact on what is decided, are fully at fault for SOMEONE ELSE possibly hurting the feelings of a fellow player when we have no clear evidence that it will one way or the other.

in short drachasor.. yes I get it you're upset because you aren't getting everything. that's fine. but when you aren't likely to get more just from sitting there being upset you can either use what you have or leave. instead you're snapping at me for pointing this out, truly I'm touched that I rate high enough on your list that you spend the time to imply I'm being stupid by not phrasing everything as though I think he's not giving us the full story. obviously I'm insane for keeping my views on the information given out of my comments. oh woe is me for not declaring war over a clearly biased view or expecting another biased party would give something different.

[Drachasor]

hmm, let's see. when we're trying to solve something with limited information given I can A: use what information I receive whether it is true or false to reach a solution safe in the knowledge that it's not something I personally will have to deal with later. if he gives us fake info or depicts everything in a way that will only show his side of the story then it's up to his DM, who as you pointed out he isn't willing to talk to on the matter, to beat the senseless rebellion out of his plan. not us. or B: go on a hyper aggressive spree of accusations and demand that he give us information he's clearly not going to give us so I can then, with a clear conscience, tell him to go away cause I think the paladin was doing just fine.

Oh I get it now. You don't care since you won't have to deal with any of the consequences. Hence trying to give good advice doesn't matter. Awesome.


as you can see I took option A because really are you honestly expecting more details when after multiple times of being asked the most you got was "well I was being vague to the paladin as I'm being here"? the OP actively STATED they were being intentionally vague, that means your chances of getting more out of him on the matter are like getting blood from a stone. as such whether I actively believe we're getting the full story or not is irrelevant, I am operating on what we have and if it blows up in his face because we weren't told everything too bad for him.

Oh right. If someone tells you upfront they aren't going to be straightforward, then it is best to just act on what the tell you as though that's the whole story. If it blows up in their face, then what does it matter if you don't have to deal with it?


in short drachasor.. yes I get it you're upset because you aren't getting everything. that's fine. but when you aren't likely to get more just from sitting there being upset you can either use what you have or leave. instead you're snapping at me for pointing this out,

Encouraging and supporting his dysfunctional gaming is doing him a disservice. Even more significantly, it is doing the rest of his group a disservice.

I never said you didn't have reasons for what you have said/thought. I just don't think they properly take into account the fact this could seriously damage the game this guy is in. If you agree to help someone, I believe you are responsible for the quality of that help. Of course, like you said, you don't care. Not exactly going for the moral high ground here, are you?

[MonochromeTiger]

Oh I get it now. You don't care since you won't have to deal with any of the consequences. Hence trying to give good advice doesn't matter. Awesome.

and you're assuming that after already deciding on a course of action, in this case getting rid of the paladin (which is what the thread title IS), I'm supposed to think that a few words from me over the internet telling him "no. bad player. stop being mean" are going to change his mind? that perhaps I'm going to solve all the game's problems by prying into each and every reason presented and throwing in my own personal view of what's right? a moral view was not asked for, one of how to rid the player of a paladin was. somehow I don't think putting my moral view out there will change their mind so I will settle for the hope that somewhere in this thread someone gave a view on how to kill the paladin that doesn't anger the other player or DM. I am not a person who thrives on false hope, that will not change simply because I think that an action already being taken may be wrong.




Oh right. If someone tells you upfront they aren't going to be straightforward, then it is best to just act on what the tell you as though that's the whole story. If it blows up in their face, then what does it matter if you don't have to deal with it?

actually, yes, if they're going to lie to me or manipulate me I don't see any particular reason to care about what happens to them. I could sit here waiting patiently for some form of verifiable information, which I have no guarantee of getting since for all I know it would just be him presenting the same information with different wording. OR I could use what I have and move on, if he succeeds and what he said was true good for him. if he succeeds and he lied to me he was going to do this anyway and not much I can say would sway him from it even if I knew for certain he wasn't being honest. if he fails having lied to me then that's just justice playing out. if he fails while being entirely honest? well then that's the game for you.




Encouraging and supporting his dysfunctional gaming is doing him a disservice. Even more significantly, it is doing the rest of his group a disservice.

and what evidence do we have that he is doing this out of spite? no more and no less than the fact that we aren't being told everything. if he is telling the truth it's better to get the advice out now rather than wait for some confirmation that may never come. if he isn't then, as stated before, nothing I say will actively sway him from his path any more successfully than the many demands for more information made earlier in this thread.



I never said you didn't have reasons for what you have said/thought. I just don't think they properly take into account the fact this could seriously damage the game this guy is in. If you agree to help someone, I believe you are responsible for the quality of that help. Of course, like you said, you don't care. Not exactly going for the moral high ground here, are you?

moral high ground really doesn't hold up when the only way I can have it is to get information I clearly will not receive. unless I'm provided with the necessary information, verifiable from multiple sources containing EVERY DETAIL of their game since the paladin was added I think the most I can aspire to is answering a question and hoping things don't end badly. perhaps you'd find more comfort if I pretend to swat his nose with a newspaper if it turns out he's not telling the truth? maybe rub his nose in the game he gets himself tossed out of and say "bad"?

[Scow2]

I think he's made it clear why he doesn't like paladins - His character is chaotic, and between Good and Evil (Which I've interpreted, through the information he's given, to mean he has good ideals and does the "Right thing" whenever the option pops up, but has more power than he can handle responsibly - such as when his life is threatened by a Paladin). In addition, it seems the overwhelming number of paladins, at least as played by this DM, are of the Lawful Stupid Party Police variety. That latter point is enough to make ANYONE not want paladins in the party.

A paladin that breaks his code or commits an evil act in ignorance still falls (Though he's capable of Atoning). The best course of action is for our Elfprince to tell the Paladin to shape up or ship out, and if the Paladin refuses, carry out justice against him.

[Drachasor]

and you're assuming that after already deciding on a course of action, in this case getting rid of the paladin (which is what the thread title IS), I'm supposed to think that a few words from me over the internet telling him "no. bad player. stop being mean" are going to change his mind? that perhaps I'm going to solve all the game's problems by prying into each and every reason presented and throwing in my own personal view of what's right? a moral view was not asked for, one of how to rid the player of a paladin was. somehow I don't think putting my moral view out there will change their mind so I will settle for the hope that somewhere in this thread someone gave a view on how to kill the paladin that doesn't anger the other player or DM. I am not a person who thrives on false hope, that will not change simply because I think that an action already being taken may be wrong.

Just saying there's such a thing as due diligence. Insisting on answers to blatantly obvious questions is part of that.

Someone coming into the forums and making a thread on a problem they are having in a game, one that seems to be something that should be discussed out of game...yeah, that's a situation when you start "prying" into the obvious details. Otherwise you really aren't in a position to give any sort of advice.

Then again....


actually, yes, if they're going to lie to me or manipulate me I don't see any particular reason to care about what happens to them. I could sit here waiting patiently for some form of verifiable information, which I have no guarantee of getting since for all I know it would just be him presenting the same information with different wording. OR I could use what I have and move on, if he succeeds and what he said was true good for him. if he succeeds and he lied to me he was going to do this anyway and not much I can say would sway him from it even if I knew for certain he wasn't being honest. if he fails having lied to me then that's just justice playing out. if he fails while being entirely honest? well then that's the game for you.

So you're saying there's not much a reason for you to be in this thread, I suppose. If you're just going to cheerleader him into doing whatever he wants anyhow...well, what's the point? Moreover, why give someone asking for more details a hard time? Do you have a problem with someone who actually WANTS to help out this guy and his group? Seems you take offense to the effort just because you don't see the reason to bother.


and what evidence do we have that he is doing this out of spite? no more and no less than the fact that we aren't being told everything. if he is telling the truth it's better to get the advice out now rather than wait for some confirmation that may never come. if he isn't then, as stated before, nothing I say will actively sway him from his path any more successfully than the many demands for more information made earlier in this thread.

I never said he was doing it out of spite. I'm just saying there's a whole host of unanswered questions that leave a great deal of things in doubt. Therefore assuming he is correct in his interpretation of these very vague events, especially given his professed bias, is jumping to conclusions.

Also, killing or getting rid of the Paladin that another player asked to exist is not a very reasonable way to go about things. I'm a bit surprised when it comes to this thread people advise "sabotage what another player likes in the game" as opposed to "talk to the players and DM and explain how it isn't working." Seems like if this WASN'T a Paladin, then saner advice would be given. At least that's how it seems compared to other threads where people have expressed game problems. And guess what? Not all of those start with the player being clear on the situation either. People usually ask and sometimes being insistent is necessary.

Somehow though, if you toss in the word "Paladin" then half the people get bloodthirsty and not helpful. Pardon me for not toeing the line or shrugging while encouraging him to engage in disruptive behavior.


moral high ground really doesn't hold up when the only way I can have it is to get information I clearly will not receive. unless I'm provided with the necessary information, verifiable from multiple sources containing EVERY DETAIL of their game since the paladin was added I think the most I can aspire to is answering a question and hoping things don't end badly. perhaps you'd find more comfort if I pretend to swat his nose with a newspaper if it turns out he's not telling the truth? maybe rub his nose in the game he gets himself tossed out of and say "bad"?

Actually, given that he made a minor attempt to give more information, there's reason to think he'd have been more forthcoming if a couple more people had been a bit insistent on the matter.

But if you can't aspire to more than you do...well, I guess you tie your own hands there.

There are many levels to "not telling the truth." There's not telling the whole truth. Forgetting facts you find irrelevant, but end up mattering. Trying to present your case in a positive light because you view it was a black/white issue and don't see other solutions. Just being forgetful. Etc, etc, etc. There are definitely enough flags to indicate something more is going on here. Seems a couple loud people in this thread have decided further investigation is not only not worth it, but should be argued against. I disagree.

[Drachasor]

I think he's made it clear why he doesn't like paladins - His character is chaotic, and between Good and Evil (Which I've interpreted, through the information he's given, to mean he has good ideals and does the "Right thing" whenever the option pops up, but has more power than he can handle responsibly - such as when his life is threatened by a Paladin). In addition, it seems the overwhelming number of paladins, at least as played by this DM, are of the Lawful Stupid Party Police variety. That latter point is enough to make ANYONE not want paladins in the party.

A paladin that breaks his code or commits an evil act in ignorance still falls (Though he's capable of Atoning). The best course of action is for our Elfprince to tell the Paladin to shape up or ship out, and if the Paladin refuses, carry out justice against him.

Most of that is guesswork. We aren't even clear on the chaotic bit. And "somewhere between good and evil [obviously inclusive]" basically says we have no idea what his alignment is.

What he has said is consistent with Lawful Good through Chaotic Evil. Steal a gem to save the planet? Lawful Good could do that given the stakes. Chaotic Evil could do that, given he doesn't want to die. Kill slavers who enslaved you? Again, any alignment could do that.

A Paladin that commits an evil act in ignorance does not fall. They have to WILLFULLY commit an evil act. Tricking them into doing something evil does not count.

It seems to me a lot of people are using this thread as an opportunity to live out their personal biases against Paladins, rather than focus on helping this guy out with his problem.

[MonochromeTiger]

Just saying there's such a thing as due diligence. Insisting on answers to blatantly obvious questions is part of that.

Someone coming into the forums and making a thread on a problem they are having in a game, one that seems to be something that should be discussed out of game...yeah, that's a situation when you start "prying" into the obvious details. Otherwise you really aren't in a position to give any sort of advice.

Then again....

so what you're saying is, if I want to give a bit of advice based on information I need to keep demanding details until I know absolutely everything. because clearly they're incapable of forgetting a bit of what happened or having a personal reason not to expand on something they say, everything that's stated definitely is a lie and taking the risk that it's NOT a lie means I'm encouraging dysfunctional behavior... so when they open up with more information, details in support of something you already see as suspect, you will instantly believe them? if suddenly there's an account on the forums called "thread maker's DM" that supports everything he said you will immediately say "nope I was wrong it's ok now guys you can give a response"?




So you're saying there's not much a reason for you to be in this thread, I suppose. If you're just going to cheerleader him into doing whatever he wants anyhow...well, what's the point? Moreover, why give someone asking for more details a hard time? Do you have a problem with someone who actually WANTS to help out this guy and his group? Seems you take offense to the effort just because you don't see the reason to bother.

I don't take offense to the effort, nor do I think asking for details is wrong. what I did was point out that with the OP already at the session to kill the paladin more information, and more advice for that matter, isn't going to do anything. and even if he hadn't gone yet asking for more wasn't yielding a result and was likely to just result in him continuing to ignore the request until he DID leave to kill the paladin. and I am not "cheerleading him into doing whatever he wants", I just understand the difference between set in their task and receptive to input. I'll flaunt my moral views gladly in a thread where they'll actually be received but if someone clearly will not listen to them, if they are already certain of their goal and seek only a means of reaching it.. all I would be doing is talking to a wall.

PS: saying I take offense to things simply because I don't view this situation the same way at you doesn't change my mind. it only makes me more certain you're looking at this from an emotional perspective.




I never said he was doing it out of spite. I'm just saying there's a whole host of unanswered questions that leave a great deal of things in doubt. Therefore assuming he is correct in his interpretation of these very vague events, especially given his professed bias, is jumping to conclusions.

and so we're to wait until he convinces someone else in the group to join this forum and tell a different perspective? we're to delay all possible answers based on the assumption on our part that this isn't the truth so we can be more sure of ourselves?



Also, killing or getting rid of the Paladin that another player asked to exist is not a very reasonable way to go about things. I'm a bit surprised when it comes to this thread people advise "sabotage what another player likes in the game" as opposed to "talk to the players and DM and explain how it isn't working." Seems like if this WASN'T a Paladin, then saner advice would be given. At least that's how it seems compared to other threads where people have expressed game problems. And guess what? Not all of those start with the player being clear on the situation either. People usually ask and sometimes being insistent is necessary.

yes it is more common for a paladin problem to be answered with "kill them or make them fall". and the reason for that is that most stories involving paladins involve them being played TERRIBLY with no thought beyond "well it's a paladin that gives me free reign to boss others around". when that precedent is set it makes it rather easy to believe that the behavior will be repeated in other paladins. in that I won't disagree with you. nor will I say that it's the greatest thing to simply go behind a player's back and kill off a character that is ruining the game for you...unless they absolutely refuse to stop and the DM doesn't get involved at all. then it's a simple matter of the other side not backing down and there not being a clear reason not to return that sentiment..



Somehow though, if you toss in the word "Paladin" then half the people get bloodthirsty and not helpful. Pardon me for not toeing the line or shrugging while encouraging him to engage in disruptive behavior.

oh don't worry, I forgive you for painting my actions in a certain light so that you can continue to make me look like an uncaring person and try to claim victory. why wouldn't I also forgive you for not hating paladins you have no reason to hate?




Actually, given that he made a minor attempt to give more information, there's reason to think he'd have been more forthcoming if a couple more people had been a bit insistent on the matter.

again, I love how you view SOME of the information as suspect and question the morality of the OP's actions and views but if he gives even slight appeasement to keep the thread going you use it as evidence to say "LOOK HE'S WILLING TO SHARE!"



But if you can't aspire to more than you do...well, I guess you tie your own hands there.

I don't aspire to certainty but I aspire to the fact that whether the information was true or false I had an opportunity to help. even had he given his whole life story I wouldn't be able to say it was completely honest and not altered to make him look good. he could've told me every detail of the game and I wouldn't be able to verify any of it because I AM NOT THERE. so I either answer and hope he's telling the truth or sit here waiting till there's no point in answering and then if he was telling the truth I was useless.



There are many levels to "not telling the truth." There's not telling the whole truth. Forgetting facts you find irrelevant, but end up mattering. Trying to present your case in a positive light because you view it was a black/white issue and don't see other solutions. Just being forgetful. Etc, etc, etc. There are definitely enough flags to indicate something more is going on here. Seems a couple loud people in this thread have decided further investigation is not only not worth it, but should be argued against. I disagree.

OH LOOK, going back to the "the man is trying to shut me down by saying 'we get what information he gives'!" yeah sure you can view it as an attempt to shut down argument, alternatively you could look at it from a logical perspective for half a second and notice that WE REALLY AREN'T GETTING MORE INFORMATION THAN HE IS GIVING. as I said before you can keep questioning and questioning but between him not being receptive to a view that doesn't get rid of the paladin and him not personally choosing to give more you won't get anything. if you do get more out of him now that he's at his game session already killing off the paladin..what? will you feel justified in demanding more? will you gloat that you didn't help if he lied?


oh and edit: if you want to keep saying that I'm immoral and unhelpful on the matter or keep saying that me and a few others are somehow the only reason more information wasn't provided...yeah I have no reason to believe you intend to remain civil. I am willing to respect your views, I am not willing to be blamed for you not achieving everything you wished to.

[Drachasor]

so what you're saying is, if I want to give a bit of advice based on information I need to keep demanding details until I know absolutely everything. because clearly they're incapable of forgetting a bit of what happened or having a personal reason not to expand on something they say, everything that's stated definitely is a lie and taking the risk that it's NOT a lie means I'm encouraging dysfunctional behavior... so when they open up with more information, details in support of something you already see as suspect, you will instantly believe them? if suddenly there's an account on the forums called "thread maker's DM" that supports everything he said you will immediately say "nope I was wrong it's ok now guys you can give a response"?

Yeah, advice 101 is "don't give advice unless you know what you are talking about." If you don't know what you are talking about in a game and encourage him to go kill something another player values...then yeah, you're encouraging dysfunctional behavior.

Advising has a lot of nuances, which the rest of your post indicated you don't appreciate. It helps to bear in mind that people and social situations are complicated though.

PS. You're the person who said if someone didn't give all the information upfront and was even slightly resisting to talking you couldn't be bothered to care. If you feel that me pointing the implications of that out makes you look uncaring....then maybe you should rethink your position. Instead you seem to want to have this debate.

[MonochromeTiger]

PS. You're the person who said if someone didn't give all the information upfront and was even slightly resisting to talking you couldn't be bothered to care. If you feel that me pointing the implications of that out makes you look uncaring....then maybe you should rethink your position. Instead you seem to want to have this debate.

funny thing, you're the one who added that I wouldn't care. and I quote "Oh I get it now. You don't care since you won't have to deal with any of the consequences. Hence trying to give good advice doesn't matter. Awesome." which by the way, impressive attack on my character AND advice I just have to say. you also repeatedly put on big black and white glasses when you looked at each of my comments.

I'm not rethinking my position because my position is still true, the OP has already gone to carry out the action they had decided on back at the creation of the thread, they have actively stated in the thread that they were simply looking for a way to kill the paladin that they could still look like the good guy while doing. none of that lends itself to the belief that I'm going to magically change his mind, nor that I have any evidence that compels me to do so, nor that he will GIVE any evidence that would compel me to do so.

but here we are continuing to argue over a flawed view that somehow yelling for someone who doesn't want to share more to do just that will solve the issue. saying I want to debate because I'm defending said view after you try multiple character attacks to invalidate what I say. instead of providing an actual bit of reason beyond "well they MIGHT be lieing" or "well they WOULD have given more if you'd just joined in on the yelling" or "well duh they didn't say more, you were being mean and saying they wouldn't" you sit here saying I don't understand people or that I can't put forward a moral view simply because I'm applying logic.


Yeah, advice 101 is "don't give advice unless you know what you are talking about." If you don't know what you are talking about in a game and encourage him to go kill something another player values...then yeah, you're encouraging dysfunctional behavior.

Advising has a lot of nuances, which the rest of your post indicated you don't appreciate. It helps to bear in mind that people and social situations are complicated though.

by all means, tell me where in the "nuance" of advice 101 it shows that "hit the problem with a stick till you get a 100% clear view or don't advise at all" fits complicated people and situations every single time. or where, with no guarantee that one side is really better than the other morally speaking, it's wrong to simply provide a straightforward answer to the one seeking advice.

[Drachasor]

funny thing, you're the one who added that I wouldn't care. and I quote "Oh I get it now. You don't care since you won't have to deal with any of the consequences. Hence trying to give good advice doesn't matter. Awesome." which by the way, impressive attack on my character AND advice I just have to say. you also repeatedly put on big black and white glasses when you looked at each of my comments.

[quote]A: use what information I receive whether it is true or false to reach a solution safe in the knowledge that it's not something I personally will have to deal with later.

That's the position you advocate. Not mine.


but here we are continuing to argue over a flawed view that somehow yelling for someone who doesn't want to share more to do just that will solve the issue. saying I want to debate because I'm defending said view after you try multiple character attacks to invalidate what I say. instead of providing an actual bit of reason beyond "well they MIGHT be lieing" or "well they WOULD have given more if you'd just joined in on the yelling" or "well duh they didn't say more, you were being mean and saying they wouldn't" you sit here saying I don't understand people or that I can't put forward a moral view simply because I'm applying logic.

Yes, because yelling or accusing people of lying is all that's going on. Saying someone isn't giving the whole story isn't the same as saying they are lying. Being insistent on being provided details isn't the same as yelling. Fact is a little bit of pubic pressure can get people to talk and give more details quite readily.

You make a lot of strawmen.


by all means, tell me where in the "nuance" of advice 101 it shows that "hit the problem with a stick till you get a 100% clear view or don't advise at all" fits complicated people and situations every single time. or where, with no guarantee that one side is really better than the other morally speaking, it's wrong to simply provide a straightforward answer to the one seeking advice.

If you're disinterested in the actual situation, given advice is a bad idea. You've already said you don't really care about finding out the actual details. Again, it is a bad idea to give advice when you don't understand what is going on.

I never said "hit the problem with a stick" or anything close to it.

I'd like to say I'm surprised that you don't understand how giving advice when you don't understand the situation can cause problems. Unfortunately for us both, I cannot.

It's a pretty simple concept. You start telling someone to do X when it works in some vaguely defined situation A can cause a lot of problems when you don't remotely care enough to discover you're actually in situation B, C, or D. For instance, advising someone to discuss their differences of opinion over something serious with a friend might be generally good advice if it seems that misunderstandings are causing friction. It's stupid if that friend has Borderline Personality Disorder. Bad advice can do worse than that of course.

[MonochromeTiger]

That's the position you advocate. Not mine.

so, saying that I am not at risk of reprisal in a situation where I'm at least trying to help...yeah that clearly means I don't care, if I didn't care I wouldn't post at all. if I didn't care I wouldn't so much as open the thread and read the question.



Yes, because yelling or accusing people of lying is all that's going on. Saying someone isn't giving the whole story isn't the same as saying they are lying. Being insistent on being provided details isn't the same as yelling.

You make a lot of strawmen.

what can I say, when you refer to me as a "loud person" opposing your questions I tend to reply similarly. when you question the quality of what is said and believe they're leaving something out it IS an accusation of a lie. a lie of omission is a lie, a lie which distorts the truth is a lie, you have been implying both for a while now.



If you're disinterested in the actual situation, given advice is a bad idea. You've already said you don't really care about finding out the actual details. Again, it is a bad idea to give advice when you don't understand what is going on.

I am NOT disinterested in finding out the details, I just don't feel like the details are going to be provided. there's a distinct difference between not wanting to know more and facing the fact that, at least until it's far too late to act on the information, I will not be told more.



I never said "hit the problem with a stick" or anything close to it.

repeated demands for more information, unwillingness to act on provided information, a clear view that despite no change if you just keep at it you'll get something...ok sorry I see my issue was saying "hit it with a stick" and not "be a blunt instrument".



I'd like to say I'm surprised that you don't understand how giving advice when you don't understand the situation can cause problems. Unfortunately for us both, I cannot.

yes yes, generalized disparaging of my person for trying to contribute while I actually can. again, I'm touched that I'm high enough on your list to receive all these character attacks. really, I'm looking forward to the poison laced Xmas card and negative comments about my mother that will follow if I somehow manage to get higher up. love you too drachy.




It's a pretty simple concept. You start telling someone to do X when it works in some vaguely defined situation A can cause a lot of problems when you don't remotely care enough to discover you're actually in situation B, C, or D. For instance, advising someone to discuss their differences of opinion over something serious with a friend might be generally good advice if it seems that misunderstandings are causing friction. It's stupid if that friend has Borderline Personality Disorder. Bad advice can do worse than that of course.

and at what point can I guarantee every detail of every situation I give advice on. the world doesn't hand you a background check and psych profile on everyone you run into, it does not give you a line for line image for image recreation of every event you are asked for help with. I can look at the worst case scenario for any given advice and see some way that it spirals into something five times worse, if I assume everything will happen like that or that somehow even WITH all the information I am going to be able to achieve nothing but the best case result..all I wind up with is the knowledge that it's pointless to even try to give advice unless I can see a big neon sign over the one good answer, and even then it better have a freakin choir of angels holding it up and some random good aligned non-trickster deity swearing up and down "yes this is the right one".

even "good" advice is never certain to be good when applied, even "bad" advice may wind up going well. people and situations are indeed complicated, that doesn't mean an identical situation always requires an identical answer.

[Drachasor]

what can I say, when you refer to me as a "loud person" opposing your questions I tend to reply similarly. when you question the quality of what is said and believe they're leaving something out it IS an accusation of a lie. a lie of omission is a lie, a lie which distorts the truth is a lie, you have been implying both for a while now.

There's a difference between an intentional lie and a lie of innocent omission.

yes yes, generalized disparaging of my person for trying to contribute while I actually can. again, I'm touched that I'm high enough on your list to receive all these character attacks. really, I'm looking forward to the poison laced Xmas card and negative comments about my mother that will follow if I somehow manage to get higher up. love you too drachy.

You're the one that acted like it was ridiculous that poorly understanding a situation could lead to really bad advice. You even expressed it in a patronizing manner. And a bit overly dramatic too. Much like you are doing now.

I'll grant responding in kind is something I probably shouldn't have done, but, to be childish for a moment, you started it. Point taken though, I'm done with this meaningless back and forth. I'll just put you on ignore.

[Renegade Paladin]

I find it hilarious that you say "define innocent" and then immediately say "innocent family". it's odd how we declare a group that isn't involved in a story innocent when we know nothing of what they've done but if you're involved in any way in the story "well you did something wrong so you're not innocent". everyone is guilty of something, innocence is only valid in the context of a specifically stated act such as "they are innocent of having released man eating sharks at the paladin pool party" or "they are innocent of summoning the arch-demon bob soulbreaker".
Did you miss the part where he proposed giving a child an abyssal planar mote, dominating said child to kill his parents in front of the paladin, and then showing up right as the paladin smote the child? Fine, substitute "uninvolved third party" if you must, though I say children by default qualify.

[The Insanity]

I'll just put you on ignore.
Lol. gggggggg

[Angelalex242]

I still a smell a crusade being launched against the op's character once he kills this Paladin.

DM:Okay, you carry out your plan to kill him. It works...

The next day, 5 18th level clerics of the Paladin's order and 5 18th level Paladins packing Holy Avengers of the Paladin's order show up. Your alignment has switched to chaotic evil. Roll initiative. :smallamused:

[MonochromeTiger]

Lol. gggggggg

I know, isn't it just adorable?


I still a smell a crusade being launched against the op's character once he kills this Paladin.

DM:Okay, you carry out your plan to kill him. It works...

The next day, 5 18th level clerics of the Paladin's order and 5 18th level Paladins packing Holy Avengers of the Paladin's order show up. Your alignment has switched to chaotic evil. Roll initiative. :smallamused:

yeah, always found it weird how no one ever thinks that might happen when they kill a paladin being played by a DM....especially when the DM has already made the player miserable enough with the paladin there to cause thoughts of killing it.


Did you miss the part where he proposed giving a child an abyssal planar mote, dominating said child to kill his parents in front of the paladin, and then showing up right as the paladin smote the child? Fine, substitute "uninvolved third party" if you must, though I say children by default qualify.

oh I wasn't saying that it's never true they're innocent, just that in a big game world you can generally find a "peaceful happy family" fully capable and willing to do some random butchering and cannibalism. but if children were half as innocent as people claim parenting would be MONUMENTALLY easy, the entire reasoning behind "children are innocent" is that they're too young and uninformed to know that when they're doing something wrong it's a bad thing.

that aside yes, 99 out of 100 cases would result in "stupidly evil" being the alignment result for that paladin removal plan.

[AMFV]

I still a smell a crusade being launched against the op's character once he kills this Paladin.

DM:Okay, you carry out your plan to kill him. It works...

The next day, 5 18th level clerics of the Paladin's order and 5 18th level Paladins packing Holy Avengers of the Paladin's order show up. Your alignment has switched to chaotic evil. Roll initiative. :smallamused:

Why? Why would 18th level clerics or paladins really care that much about a member of their order getting killed, they have a lot bigger things to deal with. I mean they might hire bounty hunters, or that sort of thing if they're really wanting that. Furthermore, they'd have to take him to trial, since y'know, the paladin threatened him, and that's mitigating circumstances at least as far as the law goes, being threatened with death, for something that really might not even be a crime, is pretty unlawful in many places and in some is ground for violent retribution.

[Angelalex242]

Because a DMPC is often the DM's 'pet.' It'll turn out those 18th level characters are his brothers, father, and maybe a couple of his cousins. And since they won't be played any better (or worse) then the original Paladin, because the DM is unlikely to somehow magically get better at roleplaying...

Well, Crusade. Nobody expects the Order of whoever's Inquisition!

[AMFV]

Because a DMPC is often the DM's 'pet.' It'll turn out those 18th level characters are his brothers, father, and maybe a couple of his cousins. And since they won't be played any better (or worse) then the original Paladin, because the DM is unlikely to somehow magically get better at roleplaying...

Well, Crusade. Nobody expects the Order of whoever's Inquisition!

Well the DMPC in this case is another character's pet, and results from another character asking for his presence, so it is a different scenario or at least partially a different one.

[Renegade Paladin]

I still a smell a crusade being launched against the op's character once he kills this Paladin.

DM:Okay, you carry out your plan to kill him. It works...

The next day, 5 18th level clerics of the Paladin's order and 5 18th level Paladins packing Holy Avengers of the Paladin's order show up. Your alignment has switched to chaotic evil. Roll initiative. :smallamused:
Are crusades launched whenever one of your PCs is killed?

[Drachasor]

Why? Why would 18th level clerics or paladins really care that much about a member of their order getting killed, they have a lot bigger things to deal with. I mean they might hire bounty hunters, or that sort of thing if they're really wanting that. Furthermore, they'd have to take him to trial, since y'know, the paladin threatened him, and that's mitigating circumstances at least as far as the law goes, being threatened with death, for something that really might not even be a crime, is pretty unlawful in many places and in some is ground for violent retribution.

You're asking why a Lawful Good organization, who cares about EVERYONE is going to care if someone in their order is killed? Not only that, someone who is rare and valuable (possessing PC class levels, and Paladin ones at that)?

What?

Validity of accusations depends on the source. So that gets into a whole tangle on its own.

In any case, yeah, they'd certainly care.

[Renegade Paladin]

You're asking why a Lawful Good organization, who cares about EVERYONE is going to care if someone in their order is killed? Not only that, someone who is rare and valuable (possessing PC class levels, and Paladin ones at that)?

What?

Validity of accusations depends on the source. So that gets into a whole tangle on its own.

In any case, yeah, they'd certainly care.
They would care, but they may or may not have the resources to actually dedicate to do anything about it in the immediate term. Sure, some paladin buddy of his might take it as a personal quest, but to dispatch an EL=APL+5 or more response team for every paladin that dies would rapidly leave them doing nothing else.

[MonochromeTiger]

They would care, but they may or may not have the resources to actually dedicate to do anything about it in the immediate term. Sure, some paladin buddy of his might take it as a personal quest, but to dispatch an EL=APL+5 or more response team for every paladin that dies would rapidly leave them doing nothing else.

not to mention the fact that, as AMFV mentioned, if they have 18th level clerics and paladins out in the world they have bigger things to worry about than a vendetta against some people that killed just one of them. by that late in the normal levels they'd be working against some bigger names than an adventuring party that they let have their most annoying paladin.

[Drachasor]

They would care, but they may or may not have the resources to actually dedicate to do anything about it in the immediate term. Sure, some paladin buddy of his might take it as a personal quest, but to dispatch an EL=APL+5 or more response team for every paladin that dies would rapidly leave them doing nothing else.

Sure, not a huge hit squad, but they'd have someone investigate it unless their resources are really, really, really taxed. They can't afford to let their members get killed off without any response. It is an open invitation to the forces of evil or whatever to start killing of their junior members.

But yeah, if a prince does it, probably standard legal methods would be fine. Depending on the country. There's no reason to think it would be a minor trial. It's a pretty big deal with a member of the royalty kills a member of a religious order.

[AMFV]

Sure, not a huge hit squad, but they'd have someone investigate it unless their resources are really, really, really taxed. They can't afford to let their members get killed off without any response. It is an open invitation to the forces of evil or whatever to start killing of their junior members.

But yeah, if a prince does it, probably standard legal methods would be fine. Depending on the country. There's no reason to think it would be a minor trial. It's a pretty big deal with a member of the royalty kills a member of a religious order.

Depends on the laws of the land to be honest, and as we've demonstrated, he was threatened directly on no less than two occasions, that is certainly enough to justify self-defense or at least a mitigating circumstance. Furthermore nobility killing religious officials, often would lead to favors or fines, not necessarily an execution, particularly in this case since there are mitigating factors, especially if the prince is contrite and agrees to help the cause of the church overall.

[Scow2]

Most of that is guesswork. We aren't even clear on the chaotic bit. And "somewhere between good and evil [obviously inclusive]" basically says we have no idea what his alignment is.

What he has said is consistent with Lawful Good through Chaotic Evil. Steal a gem to save the planet? Lawful Good could do that given the stakes. Chaotic Evil could do that, given he doesn't want to die. Kill slavers who enslaved you? Again, any alignment could do that.

We know exactly what the wizard's alignment is: Chaotic Neutral. The DM is having the Paladin overreact to "Unlawful" acts such as Theft (Even if it's to stop a demon) and "Stealing" a ship (Instead of lawfully buying it and getting deed+title transferred) from others (Nevermind that they're slavers).


A Paladin that commits an evil act in ignorance does not fall. They have to WILLFULLY commit an evil act. Tricking them into doing something evil does not count.

It seems to me a lot of people are using this thread as an opportunity to live out their personal biases against Paladins, rather than focus on helping this guy out with his problem.Hmm... it seems your right. I'm so used to the 3.0 version of the code, which made it so that you fell if you committed an evil act unwittingly (but not unwillingly), but couldn't atone if it knowingly committed an evil act.

Actually, it still says they fall if they commit an Evil act in ignorance: Unwittingly is not the same as unwillingly. Otherwise, Miko wouldn't have fallen when she did.

[Angelalex242]

Well, Miko was "I believe you are guilty!" *STAB!*

Gods:We believe you are wrong. *ZAP!*

Miko:*Powers Free*

Lesson to be learned:Make very very sure the person you're smiting is actually evil before smiting!

[HaikenEdge]

Since the OP said last night they're just going to straight up kill the Paladin, I'd like to hear about the results.

[Threadnaught]

A Paladin that commits an evil act in ignorance does not fall. They have to WILLFULLY commit an evil act. Tricking them into doing something evil does not count.

So are you saying, that if someone stabbed another person to death out of anger, they were tricked into killing the dead guy?
Are they completely innocent of murder?


It seems to me a lot of people are using this thread as an opportunity to live out their personal biases against Paladins, rather than focus on helping this guy out with his problem.

When I see Miko Miyazaki or Kore, I don't see a Paladin worthy of the title. Even though I dislike the Class because it's basically a MAD Fighter with more limitations, I have respect for anyone who can effectively play one, so long as they don't attempt to scream me into liking them.

Anyway, Miko Miyazaki and Kore are at all times, a single standard action away from losing their powers. I'd always make sure they were surrounded by hostiles or other Paladins at all time, so that when they finally do take that one step over the edge, they're forced to fight without their powers, to the death, against a force they'd struggle to survive with their powers.
If they walk out of that alive, then I'd tip my hat to the player and make sure whoever the Paladin slew, has friends/relatives who seek revenge. For example, Paladins of the same order who were killed while trying to kill the now fallen Paladin who refused to let them arrest him after he killed someone for stealing an Evil Artifact out of Sauron Hitlecter's house.
The rest of the order would want to have strong words with the ex member who killed half of them.

[Angelalex242]

Well, considering a Paladin is SUPPOSED to look like King Arthur's Court (Galahad is an Exalted Paladin with the Saint Template...), yeah, you can imagine what King Arthur would say about Miko if she somehow switched worlds and ended up at his Round Table.

[MonochromeTiger]

Well, considering a Paladin is SUPPOSED to look like King Arthur's Court (Galahad is an Exalted Paladin with the Saint Template...), yeah, you can imagine what King Arthur would say about Miko if she somehow switched worlds and ended up at his Round Table.

"who gave this woman armor and a sword, why do they look like that, and what witchcraft turned their arms and legs into sticks"?

[Angelalex242]

...ignoring the whole '2D stick drawing' thing, and on women, I imagine Arthur would've been okay with Joan of Arc (another Exalted Paladin with the Saint Template...GalahadxJoan of Arc OTP?), it's Miko's attitude he'd have a problem with.

[Drachasor]

Hmm... it seems your right. I'm so used to the 3.0 version of the code, which made it so that you fell if you committed an evil act unwittingly (but not unwillingly), but couldn't atone if it knowingly committed an evil act.

Actually, it still says they fall if they commit an Evil act in ignorance: Unwittingly is not the same as unwillingly. Otherwise, Miko wouldn't have fallen when she did.

You're reading atonement, which doesn't govern when a Paladin loses his powers. A Paladin only loses his powers if he wilfully commits an evil act, otherwise he does not.

Wilfully doesn't mean they'd call the act evil, as Miko demonstrates (if you accept her as a good example, which I do). It means you understand the situation and you choose to act in a way the game defines as evil.

Miko killed an innocent. She can make make all the excuses in her head she wants, but the guy was an innocent. She can rationalize it all day, but the guy was an innocent. The reasons she killed him for...basically being Chaotic Good rather than Lawful Good, do not make the guy a non-innocent. She wasn't deceived by the situation. She wasn't tricked. She understood who she was killing and why....which is precisely why she fell.

She did a number of evil acts before then, such as getting in the way of a party trying to save the world. Essentially she was acting against the existence of everyone (ok, granted, maybe not given that the gods might be filthy liars). Sure, it was minor evil stuff, but it was evil (which is all the difference for Paladins). But she had no way of knowing their story was true, and so she can't lose her powers for simply not knowing everything.


So are you saying, that if someone stabbed another person to death out of anger, they were tricked into killing the dead guy?
Are they completely innocent of murder?

In D&D terms, unless they were not in control of their faculties (mechanically speaking), then they wilfully stabbed the guy to death. Unless there's some sort of complex trickery going on. Being angry, sad, or whatever has nothing to do with it.

Not sure how you misread me like that. I don't believe I implied that anger somehow lets you off the hook.

(IRL it is much more complicated given a number of disorders that can cause you to have uncontrollable rage).


When I see Miko Miyazaki or Kore, I don't see a Paladin worthy of the title. Even though I dislike the Class because it's basically a MAD Fighter with more limitations, I have respect for anyone who can effectively play one, so long as they don't attempt to scream me into liking them.

Sure, there are Paladins that aren't worthy of the title. But we really don't know much about the situation. Specific questions about the incidents in question weren't answered. And honestly, with memory how it is the threat might just have been "I don't want to have to bring the law down on you" in intention. We have very, very little context in which to place any of this and there are a good number of indicators that more is going on that has been described.

I'm just as much against a Pally issuing death threats for acts of Chaotic Good as anyone else. I just don't think we can be reasonably sure that is what is going on given the OP's vagueness.

[Angelalex242]

That, yeah. This is why you ALWAYS use detect evil before even drawing your sword. Cause you NEVER know. (And if the other guy doesn't ping, your sword stays sheathed unless they attack first)

[Drachasor]

We know exactly what the wizard's alignment is: Chaotic Neutral. The DM is having the Paladin overreact to "Unlawful" acts such as Theft (Even if it's to stop a demon) and "Stealing" a ship (Instead of lawfully buying it and getting deed+title transferred) from others (Nevermind that they're slavers).

Closest he got was saying he was "More neutral [than evil]". If anything that implies he has some evil going on, such as being neutral with evil tendencies. He never talked about where he falls on the law/chaos axis.

He's certainly willing to kill Good people because doing so is convenient, so that would typically be considered Evil. The most convenient option is to kill here, rather than talk or try to work things out.

And he clearly indicated he didn't remember what was said precisely, so like I just said, I'm not certain how accurate this vague picture we have is. Human memory just isn't all that good. With so little context, we really can't be sure of much.

[AMFV]

That, yeah. This is why you ALWAYS use detect evil before even drawing your sword. Cause you NEVER know. (And if the other guy doesn't ping, your sword stays sheathed unless they attack first)

And even if they do ping, that's not really just cause for randomly attacking somebody.

[Spuddles]

OK, game's tonight. I'm think I'm just gonna kill the pally and be done with it all.

Is it dead yet?


Define "innocent." I'm fairly certain any character who could conceive of killing an innocent family just to get at a third party doesn't qualify.

You are guilty of thought crime, Citizen. Please report for re-education immediately.


I still a smell a crusade being launched against the op's character once he kills this Paladin.

DM:Okay, you carry out your plan to kill him. It works...

The next day, 5 18th level clerics of the Paladin's order and 5 18th level Paladins packing Holy Avengers of the Paladin's order show up. Your alignment has switched to chaotic evil. Roll initiative. :smallamused:


lol what ****ty DMing that would be

[cakellene]

As the PC is an elf prince and paladin is also an elf, couldn't a case be made that threatening viiolence against said prince is an act of treason and if religious order doesn't rein in the paladin could lead to a war between elf nation and religious order?

[Angelalex242]

Presumably, the clerics have already cast commune spells asking if killing the prince was a good idea, and then cast divinations to make sure they didn't get anything bad for considering the idea. Cause offing a prince without doing your fact checking is just kinda silly.

[Threadnaught]

In D&D terms, unless they were not in control of their faculties (mechanically speaking), then they wilfully stabbed the guy to death. Unless there's some sort of complex trickery going on. Being angry, sad, or whatever has nothing to do with it.

Not sure how you misread me like that. I don't believe I implied that anger somehow lets you off the hook.

(IRL it is much more complicated given a number of disorders that can cause you to have uncontrollable rage).

I didn't misread you, I was alluding to people who get so highly strung, that whenever they become angry, it's an uncontrollable rage. Someone like Miko, where the slightest bit of bad news caused her to reach for the swords she named Slashy and Stabby, so she could show why she used those names.


Sure, there are Paladins that aren't worthy of the title. But we really don't know much about the situation. Specific questions about the incidents in question weren't answered. And honestly, with memory how it is the threat might just have been "I don't want to have to bring the law down on you" in intention. We have very, very little context in which to place any of this and there are a good number of indicators that more is going on that has been described.

We know what we've been told. Unless we've been lied to, that's what happened. And the Paladin is being put on a retirement programme because of using death threats over CG actions.


I'm just as much against a Pally issuing death threats for acts of Chaotic Good as anyone else. I just don't think we can be reasonably sure that is what is going on given the OP's vagueness.

Oh?

Then pray tell, using the information we have so far. What is going on?

You obviously don't believe the OP and find distasteful any suggestions by people on how to actually get the Pally to shove off, so to speak. So could the Paladin be in the right? Even if the Paladin is reported here in the next post, to have slit the OP's character's throat in his sleep?


We who have offered help, were asked for it and gave it based on the information we were given. If the OP uses it to annoy their group and experiences a whole bunch of negative consequences because of it, that isn't our fault. The OP had already decided to kill the Paladin, our advice was to lower the number of moving parts in his plans, or find some way to deal with it non lethally. The more information we got, the more the Paladin appeared to need killing if the OP were to do anything non Lawful (especially Chaotic) and survive.

We were told afterall, that the Paladin had effectively told the OP's character "you commit any more unlawful acts and I will kill you." This has allegedly happened on more than one occasion, if this is accurate, then the Pally is likely to be watching the OP's character like a hawk. Just looking for any reason, no matter how petty, to run them through with Stabby.
This is the information I have about the OP's problem and thus, what my responses are based on.

Think of the forum as a sort of call centre of sorts, if someone makes a thread asking for help, they're like a customer. As a call centre worker, it is not your fault if your customer doesn't know what they're talking about and asks for the wrong information, you're giving them the information they asked for.

[MonochromeTiger]

I didn't misread you, I was alluding to people who get so highly strung, that whenever they become angry, it's an uncontrollable rage. Someone like Miko, where the slightest bit of bad news caused her to reach for the swords she named Slashy and Stabby, so she could show why she used those names.



We know what we've been told. Unless we've been lied to, that's what happened. And the Paladin is being put on a retirement programme because of using death threats over CG actions.



Oh?

Then pray tell, using the information we have so far. What is going on?

You obviously don't believe the OP and find distasteful any suggestions by people on how to actually get the Pally to shove off, so to speak. So could the Paladin be in the right? Even if the Paladin is reported here in the next post, to have slit the OP's character's throat in his sleep?


We who have offered help, were asked for it and gave it based on the information we were given. If the OP uses it to annoy their group and experiences a whole bunch of negative consequences because of it, that isn't our fault. The OP had already decided to kill the Paladin, our advice was to lower the number of moving parts in his plans, or find some way to deal with it non lethally. The more information we got, the more the Paladin appeared to need killing if the OP were to do anything non Lawful (especially Chaotic) and survive.

We were told afterall, that the Paladin had effectively told the OP's character "you commit any more unlawful acts and I will kill you." This has allegedly happened on more than one occasion, if this is accurate, then the Pally is likely to be watching the OP's character like a hawk. Just looking for any reason, no matter how petty, to run them through with Stabby.
This is the information I have about the OP's problem and thus, what my responses are based on.

Think of the forum as a sort of call centre of sorts, if someone makes a thread asking for help, they're like a customer. As a call centre worker, it is not your fault if your customer doesn't know what they're talking about and asks for the wrong information, you're giving them the information they asked for.

*slow clap* you have just summarized everything I've said to him, my only hope is he doesn't go into another "you're wrong because I think there's more to it even if I can't prove otherwise before it's too late to act on the information" debate.

[Threadnaught]

*slow clap* you have just summarized everything I've said to him, my only hope is he doesn't go into another "you're wrong because I think there's more to it even if I can't prove otherwise before it's too late to act on the information" debate.

I was actually going to bring up the argument you two were having, but it seemed poor etiquette to bring it up the way I would've and wouldn't have been effective if I'd been polite about it.


Obviously there's more to it, but it's already too late to do anything about it as the session the OP planned on killing the Paladin in has already happened, we're just waiting to learn what happened.
I'm hoping they sent the Pally to give Sauron Hitlecter a replica of the gem they stole from him as "penance" for their crime against him. :smallamused:

[MonochromeTiger]

I was actually going to bring up the argument you two were having, but it seemed poor etiquette to bring it up the way I would've and wouldn't have been effective if I'd been polite about it.


Obviously there's more to it, but it's already too late to do anything about it as the session the OP planned on killing the Paladin in has already happened, we're just waiting to learn what happened.
I'm hoping they sent the Pally to give Sauron Hitlecter a replica of the gem they stole from him as "penance" for their crime against him. :smallamused:

agreed, honestly that entire argument would've been avoided if he had just noticed the very obvious "even if we got more information on the cause it's already too late to give advice since they already went to kill the paladin". I honestly wish it hadn't happened because I had to take a very set view in order to keep stating that one point in the hope that it would eventually be noticed.

if the way you would've brought it up would be (in your view) insulting to me I'm fine with it. this is the internet if I'm unwilling to let my ego get trampled a bit to point out logic I shouldn't be trying to use logic in a place where so many arguments seem based around thinly veiled insults.

and yeah the gem plan has to be one of the more amusing solutions I read, the poetic justice component just mixes so well with "lawful stupid" being the problem.

[Threadnaught]

agreed, honestly that entire argument would've been avoided if he had just noticed the very obvious "even if we got more information on the cause it's already too late to give advice since they already went to kill the paladin". I honestly wish it hadn't happened because I had to take a very set view in order to keep stating that one point in the hope that it would eventually be noticed.

I thought it was supposed to be Pickford who did that sort of thing. I like Pickford's determination, but I don't like how he can't admit defeat when arguing a lost cause. Nice guy.


if the way you would've brought it up would be (in your view) insulting to me I'm fine with it. this is the internet if I'm unwilling to let my ego get trampled a bit to point out logic I shouldn't be trying to use logic in a place where so many arguments seem based around thinly veiled insults.

Oh no, it was about you, but not what you're thinking. I'll PM you exactly what I typed so you can judge for yourself why I chose not to submit it for the mods to spit roast me over.


and yeah the gem plan has to be one of the more amusing solutions I read, the poetic justice component just mixes so well with "lawful stupid" being the problem.

Why thank you. I helped run a Whodunnit RP game for Oblivion and relied heavily on irony whenever characters were voted off. After the first killing, the assassin started using irony with their kills too.
Shame the first guy to get voted off didn't appreciate the irony and the second victim was a munchkin. He bought an extra life in a murder mystery RP, Sheogorath ate his character's soul rather quickly.

Reminded me of the player who's character bound his soul to the Gatekeeper in the earlier RP, the Gatekeeper, who's soul was bound to Sheogorath, allowed for plenty of fun with that player's character. Well, I was actually using the character's player as my personal chew toy.
That game was fun. :smallbiggrin:

[Drachasor]

I didn't misread you, I was alluding to people who get so highly strung, that whenever they become angry, it's an uncontrollable rage. Someone like Miko, where the slightest bit of bad news caused her to reach for the swords she named Slashy and Stabby, so she could show why she used those names.

In D&D terms, characters typically don't have uncontrollable rage. That's not how the mechanics work. If you RP one like that, then in game terms whatever you do is a deliberate choice.

As for Miko, overall her anger WAS controlled. She did end up reaching a breaking point, however.


We know what we've been told. Unless we've been lied to, that's what happened. And the Paladin is being put on a retirement programme because of using death threats over CG actions.

We've been told very little. The OP has been deliberately vague. Has described their character as something like Neutral with Evil tendencies. Doesn't remember exactly what the Paladin said. Didn't say what precisely the Paladin objected to regarding the slavers or gem, even when asked direct questions about it.

If you want to call the OP a liar because they haven't described the situation very well and seem to have a fuzzy memory on events...that's your call. Personally, I only use the term "lie" when it is deliberate, which I don't think is the case here. But a lot of details and context as certainly been omitted.


Then pray tell, using the information we have so far. What is going on?

Like I have said. The details are fuzzy.


You obviously don't believe the OP and find distasteful any suggestions by people on how to actually get the Pally to shove off, so to speak. So could the Paladin be in the right? Even if the Paladin is reported here in the next post, to have slit the OP's character's throat in his sleep?

I've said the following...
1. I think the OP has left out a lot of details. Though I think the scant details the OP has given are more or less true.
2. I think the problem here is a gaming group problem that's best handled out of the game.
3. I think people haven't really focused properly on #2 in favor of "kill the Paladin" which encourages the OP to increase the group dysfunction.
4. The OP's willingness to kill good-aligned characters out of convenience doesn't support the idea they are totally innocent.

There's plenty of room for the Paladin to be in the right. For instance, the OP could have sold the other slaves for money. That would contradict nothing that has been said. Questions were asked about this sort of thing and went unanswered.


We who have offered help, were asked for it and gave it based on the information we were given. If the OP uses it to annoy their group and experiences a whole bunch of negative consequences because of it, that isn't our fault. The OP had already decided to kill the Paladin, our advice was to lower the number of moving parts in his plans, or find some way to deal with it non lethally. The more information we got, the more the Paladin appeared to need killing if the OP were to do anything non Lawful (especially Chaotic) and survive.

Giving bad advice certainly is the fault of whomever gives it. Giving advice when presented with what is clearly fuzzy details that seem to be missing a lot of context (which is asked for but not given) certainly doesn't seem prudent. Especially when that advice is "kill this NPC that another player specifically asked to exist" as opposed to "talk to the group about the problem."

It's not like people don't change their minds or that you are limited to giving advice that the OP initially expects. There are plenty of threads where someone comes in asking for one thing, and someone points out that there are better ways. In fact, there have been threads similar to this that went another way. But people seemed to get fixated on killing the Paladin rather than focusing on the fact the group mechanic has a very clear problem that needs out of game discussion.


We were told afterall, that the Paladin had effectively told the OP's character "you commit any more unlawful acts and I will kill you." This has allegedly happened on more than one occasion, if this is accurate, then the Pally is likely to be watching the OP's character like a hawk. Just looking for any reason, no matter how petty, to run them through with Stabby.

The OP clearly indicated he did not remember exactly what was said. At best he remembered only roughly. Human memory being what it is (e.g. crap), means that we could have lost quite a bit of the context and particular words used (e.g. such as "bad and unlawful acts" for starters). Again, the OP's self-professed character that's neutral with evil tendencies, willingness to jump to killing innocents and good-aligned characters lends support to the idea more is going on, and lack of serious interest in trying the authority angle lends support to the idea more is going on.

Also, according to the OP the Pally sucks in combat. So he's not really a mortal threat.


Think of the forum as a sort of call centre of sorts, if someone makes a thread asking for help, they're like a customer. As a call centre worker, it is not your fault if your customer doesn't know what they're talking about and asks for the wrong information, you're giving them the information they asked for.

Yes, there's a difference between a lazy call center worker, an adequate one, and one that does a great job. The latter actually makes sure they understand the problem first. Actually, the adequate one probably does too.

[RPGaddict28]

Since the OP said last night they're just going to straight up kill the Paladin, I'd like to hear about the results.

Didn't have the chance to kill him, as we never got a chance to sleep that session, but the paladin pissed everyone off, because he tried to stop us from interrogating the cultists of Tharizdun, the god who is trying to destroy the universe. Now, everyone in the party won't object to me killing him, but now I have to deal with kill stealers.

[Drachasor]

I really do think the best solution is to talk to the DM about it, especially since another player explicitly requested a Paladin in the party.

Questioning = torture, I assume? Edit: Torture really doesn't do much in D&D except make a mess.

Edit: Though if the player who asked for the Pally doesn't want him around anymore then I don't see why you couldn't all just make the Paladin leave.

[RPGaddict28]

I really do think the best solution is to talk to the DM about it, especially since another player explicitly requested a Paladin in the party.

Questioning = torture, I assume?

Well, it depends on the definition of torture. It was standard adventurer fare, we looted him, tied him down, and demanded answers, or we'd kill him.

[Drachasor]

Well, it depends on the definition of torture. It was standard adventurer fare, we looted him, tied him down, and demanded answers, or we'd kill him.

That does fit under the definition of torture and being an evil act. Understandable a Paladin would object. Intimidate or Diplomacy work without any explicit threats needed.

Anyhow, if everyone doesn't want the Paladin around, then there's no need to kill him. Everyone can tell him together he has to leave. Though I suggest talking to the DM about it first.

[MonochromeTiger]

Didn't have the chance to kill him, as we never got a chance to sleep that session, but the paladin pissed everyone off, because he tried to stop us from interrogating the cultists of Tharizdun, the god who is trying to destroy the universe. Now, everyone in the party won't object to me killing him, but now I have to deal with kill stealers.

if by this point the entire party wants him dead, and you aren't being given a quick and quiet option...find somewhere secluded and gang up on him. simple, quick, entire group gets combat xp.

[Kesnit]

That does fit under the definition of torture and being an evil act. Understandable a Paladin would object. Intimidate or Diplomacy work without any explicit threats needed.

Not really. Actually killing the evil cultists while they are tied up would be an Evil act. If all they did was tie them up and ask questions, I'd call that a bonus to any Intimidation checks.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Why is it, whenever anyone wants to "deal with" a Paladin, the first and only idea that comes to mind is to trip him over his own Code?

AMF up (to turn off Divine Grace) and stick a poisoned knife in him in his sleep if he's that much of a problem. Or fly up and blow him to bits with no-Save spells. Or challenge him to a one-on-one duel and have your People (you're royalty, right?) crash the duel and stick him full of (poisoned) arrows for you. Or hell, if you're feeling nice, just order him on a quest to the other side of the planet on behalf of The Elven Peoples.

Paladins are people, same as everyone, not just collections of badly-written class feature prerequisites.

[UmpteenthDoctor]

Ok threatening to kill someone is not an Evil act its a Neutral act unless they actually do kill them.

So no the Paladin should have had no reason to say anything unless of course they should try and actually kill the helpless foe.

[Drachasor]

Not really. Actually killing the evil cultists while they are tied up would be an Evil act. If all they did was tie them up and ask questions, I'd call that a bonus to any Intimidation checks.

Good point. If they don't have an intention of carrying it out then it isn't evil and they'd get like a +2 bonus or some such.

Though, some groups make threats like that and then kill the person no matter what.

RPGaddict28, what do you do with prisoners after you question them?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Didn't have the chance to kill him, as we never got a chance to sleep that session, but the paladin pissed everyone off, because he tried to stop us from interrogating the cultists of Tharizdun, the god who is trying to destroy the universe. Now, everyone in the party won't object to me killing him, but now I have to deal with kill stealers.
To hell with it then. Gang-shanking time. Get the others in the party to help out and spit-roast is shiny butt. If you're feeling generous give him the old "leave or die" ultimatum.

Don't get me wrong. I like a well played paladin. This is not a well played paladin and poorly played paladins tend to earn my ire -very- quickly. Paint the town* red with his blood.

*substitute whichever terrain you happen to be in, as appropriate.

That does fit under the definition of torture and being an evil act. Understandable a Paladin would object. Intimidate or Diplomacy work without any explicit threats needed.That's not torture under the D&D definition. In D&D torture refers to the inflicting of physical pain to coerce behavior. Simple death threats are coercive but they're not torture.


Anyhow, if everyone doesn't want the Paladin around, then there's no need to kill him. Everyone can tell him together he has to leave. Though I suggest talking to the DM about it first.

They could ask him to leave. I suggest they do so with swords and wands drawn and make it less of a request than a demand.

As for the DM, he's either not a very good DM or he's deliberately baiting them toward aggressive action anyway, up to and including killing the bastard. If they've been together for any length of time then the player's can almost certainly make this call for themselves and, consequently, decide whether a discussion that will, necessarily, take time away from the game is needed or not.

Good communication is of the utmost importance but most of the talking on this matter has likely already been done. The paladin was requested, he was deliberately played in one of the worst ways possible, now he's going to be ejected from the party one way or another. If the DM is going to make a reprisal for this ejection then the group has bigger issues than an unpleasant NPC. In summary; talking it over with the DM is either unnecessary or going to happen fairly soon regardless of how this specific scenario plays out.

[MonochromeTiger]

Not really. Actually killing the evil cultists while they are tied up would be an Evil act. If all they did was tie them up and ask questions, I'd call that a bonus to any Intimidation checks.

if threatening death is argued as "ok if they don't intend to act on it" when it's being used to force a behavioral change it doesn't exactly make sense later in the thread for it to be "an act of evil and torture" when getting information vital to the continuation of life as the group knows it.. gotta love those double standards.

I agree that a threat alone does not torture make. if it was then 50% of what is used in police interrogation (where a fairly simple tactic is to bring up possible sentencing to keep the suspect on edge, a threat in the hopes they will slip) would be in violation of some pretty big anti-torture issues. torture is more than just mean spirited words and not liking someone, it is the use of physical and psychological means to drive someone to the breaking point in the hopes that they will willingly give information to make it stop. a threat of death to an enemy you would've killed regardless is simply interrogation with the target under duress. as you stated killing a helpless prisoner IS an evil act.

again, I advocate killing the paladin as a group at this point. go to the next game, agree with the other players, and make it clear to the DM who by this point is likely the only person actually backing the paladin as a character if the entire group dislikes them this much, that if the character were played differently this might not have been the result. or that it should've been clear earlier that a character like this really doesn't fit with the style of the group.

edit: pleasure to see you join in kelb.

[UmpteenthDoctor]

It shouldn't matter. As long as they do not do anything in front of the Pally then he has no reason to complain. Even if they did wait for him to leave and then killed him the Pally would be annoyed but if they killed him for the greater good then they can pawn it off. Also easy way to handle this.

Hand the cultist a dagger and leave him in the room with your best martial fighter or Gish if he has spell casting powers and let him have a one on one. Its an honorable death in one on one combat and he is a threat to the party member so death is a legit answer.

[Drachasor]

Good communication is of the utmost importance but most of the talking on this matter has likely already been done. The paladin was requested, he was deliberately played in one of the worst ways possible, now he's going to be ejected from the party one way or another. If the DM is going to make a reprisal for this ejection then the group has bigger issues than an unpleasant NPC. In summary; talking it over with the DM is either unnecessary or going to happen fairly soon regardless of how this specific scenario plays out.

The OP has indicated that not much talking has been done overall. And if the guy who requested the Pally doesn't want him around anymore, then the situation has changed enough to warrant talking again in any case.

I'll repeat that I'm not sure how badly the Pally has been played, since we don't have a great deal of context for his actions. The situations have been too vaguely described considering the OP indicated his character is neutral with evil tendencies.

In any case, better to talk to the DM first -- and make sure everyone in the group is included. That's more likely to have things end well. Surprising the DM next session by forcing the exit of the Pally is a good way to generate an ill-thought response on the DM's part. If the DM is going to walk away from a conversation like that and plan something to get revenge, then they are screwed by a bad DM anyway.

[Scow2]

You're reading atonement, which doesn't govern when a Paladin loses his powers. A Paladin only loses his powers if he wilfully commits an evil act, otherwise he does not.

Wilfully doesn't mean they'd call the act evil, as Miko demonstrates (if you accept her as a good example, which I do). It means you understand the situation and you choose to act in a way the game defines as evil.

Miko killed an innocent. She can make make all the excuses in her head she wants, but the guy was an innocent. She can rationalize it all day, but the guy was an innocent. The reasons she killed him for...basically being Chaotic Good rather than Lawful Good, do not make the guy a non-innocent. She wasn't deceived by the situation. She wasn't tricked. She understood who she was killing and why....which is precisely why she fell.

She did a number of evil acts before then, such as getting in the way of a party trying to save the world. Essentially she was acting against the existence of everyone (ok, granted, maybe not given that the gods might be filthy liars). Sure, it was minor evil stuff, but it was evil (which is all the difference for Paladins). But she had no way of knowing their story was true, and so she can't lose her powers for simply not knowing everything.As far as Miko knew, Shojo WASN'T innocent - He was destroying Azure City from within, consorting with those who threaten the existence of the world (She was getting in the way of a party who is currently out to destroy the world, not save it. She gathered information to confirm that the party had committed a multitude of crimes, and used Detect Evil as a final confirmation of Greenhilt's evil before attacking.)

And... when she got back, she found that Shojo had completely corrupted Azure City's political system - Rigging trials, trampling rights, consorting with servants of a Lich, and selling out Azure City's defenses. Yes, she jumped to a lot of conclusions... but as she saw the situation, Shojo was a Manipulative Evil Overlord who needed to die so his corruption of the system could be purged by Hinjo, who wouldn't tolerate the shenanigans of the corrupt nobles.

She acted willingly but unwittingly. And as for "Scan first" - She'd probably know that Aristocrats have their alignments constantly concealed (Not only is Undetectable Alignment a level 2 Divine Spell, it's also one of Kubota's class features). And, even when she did scan, Roy picked up as Evil the first time.

[MonochromeTiger]

The OP has indicated that not much talking has been done overall. And if the guy who requested the Pally doesn't want him around anymore, then the situation has changed enough to warrant talking again in any case.

I'll repeat that I'm not sure how badly the Pally has been played, since we don't have a great deal of context for his actions. The situations have been too vaguely described considering the OP indicated his character is neutral with evil tendencies.

In any case, better to talk to the DM first -- and make sure everyone in the group is included. That's more likely to have things end well. Surprising the DM next session by forcing the exit of the Pally is a good way to generate an ill-thought response on the DM's part. If the DM is going to walk away from a conversation like that and plan something to get revenge, then they are screwed by a bad DM anyway.

while I fully understand you will neither read this nor care..

if the DM walks away thinking "I know how to get rid of the paladin in a cool way!" and then steals the limelight for the next big event with a huge character development and XP leeching heroic sacrifice that the players resent.. oh look they're still trying to be a good DM they just went about getting their pet paladin out of the way in an odd manner.

if the DM walks away thinking "wow if the paladin is that much of a foil to these guys maybe I should make him a recurring enemy" then what would have been a simple short battle to rid the group of an annoying badly played character now turns into 10 sessions of story where that terribly played and annoying character has somehow got enough pull over everything in the game to FORCE the players to put up with him until they can finally wring the life from him.

if the DM walks away thinking "ok but I'll send him off with a fight", powers up the paladin to be a challenge to the group, throws in some minions, and sets up the venue to be against the group's favor..then yet again a simple quick way of ridding themselves of an annoyance turns into an effort filled facepalm-tastic expedition through frustration land until they get what should have been an easy kill.

the idea that after actively SEEING the players in a constant state of dislike towards this paladin the DM will either send them off without a word or spite the group just for the heck of it is about as presumptuous as the idea that we can't work with the information we're given to reach a solution.

[Drachasor]

As far as Miko knew, Shojo WASN'T innocent - He was destroying Azure City from within, consorting with those who threaten the existence of the world (She was getting in the way of a party who is currently out to destroy the world, not save it. She gathered information to confirm that the party had committed a multitude of crimes, and used Detect Evil as a final confirmation of Greenhilt's evil before attacking.)

And... when she got back, she found that Shojo had completely corrupted Azure City's political system - Rigging trials, trampling rights, consorting with servants of a Lich, and selling out Azure City's defenses. Yes, she jumped to a lot of conclusions... but as she saw the situation, Shojo was a Manipulative Evil Overlord who needed to die so his corruption of the system could be purged by Hinjo, who wouldn't tolerate the shenanigans of the corrupt nobles.

She acted willingly but unwittingly. And as for "Scan first" - She'd probably know that Aristocrats have their alignments constantly concealed (Not only is Undetectable Alignment a level 2 Divine Spell, it's also one of Kubota's class features). And, even when she did scan, Roy picked up as Evil the first time.

I just read it again. She knew that he was doing Chaotic acts. That's it. Beyond that she leapt to a bunch of very ridiculous conclusions because she has Borderline Personality Disorder or something (e.g. her way or you are EVIL). She even says everyone is evil regardless of what their alignments register as. And she has no proof of any of this.

So basically she kills someone because she didn't like what he did and it is easier to just blame everything on him rather than do any thinking That shows a disregard for life. That's killing because it is convenient. That's evil.

She tries to rationalize it, but that doesn't change the basic fact that given everything she knows there just isn't enough evidence that Shojo is working for the bad guys or doesn't have the City's best interests at heart. Nor is there really any evidence he has corrupted the system so much that putting him on trial would be a farce.

Again, a Paladin can rationalize things however he wants. Anyone can. But that doesn't mean if they kill someone based on circumstantial evidence at best that they aren't committing an evil act. And they certainly have enough information to know their reasoning is very shoddy.

It would be a very different thing if Miko had be tricked into killing Shojo because of planted evidence and clever deceptions she never saw through and together were damning (faked) evidence. Assuming legal means weren't possible (again, her 'evidence' for this is scant at best). Or if an illusion was placed on Shojo that she had no way of suspecting and made it look like he was killing innocents left and right. None of this was the case. The only person deceiving her was herself. That makes the responsibility of the act entirely on her shoulders in D&D terms.

To put it another way, if Shojo were evil then she'd still have fallen, because she had nothing substantial to base her decision to murder someone on and no sound reason to think there were not alternatives worth trying.

[Threadnaught]

That does fit under the definition of torture and being an evil act. Understandable a Paladin would object.

That's not torture, it's an interrogation. Yes, sometimes an interrogation does involve torture. No, they are not synonyms.
This interrogation involved no torture.


*snip*

So she was effectively portrayed the same way this Paladin is supposed to have been played. Yet, you're constantly claiming that the Paladin is in the right.

Miko was tricked into jumping to the conclusion she came to, because a specific series of events played out and she was rather unbalanced. She thought killing Shojo was a Good act, she also thought killing the OotS and the Sapphire Guard after they tried to arrest her, was a Good act.
Y'know, the same stuff I described this Paladin being likely to do. Their egos have been allowed to run rampant unchallenged and this will have dire consequences for everyone involved.



Are you the DM, or playing another Paladin like this one perhaps?
It's just that, you seem very interested in the continued survival of the Paladin and their ability to control the group through explicit threats of murder. I dunno, maybe you should just go ahead and slit one of the other PC's throats in their sleep to warn them against unlawful acts. Right after you send a message to your order that if they don't hear from you every x days, to hunt down and kill the rest of the party. To bring divine retribution on your killers.

You seem to have no problem with the OP's party Paladin dancing with the Evil Alignment in the name of law enforcement, but when it comes to players doing anything less than Lawful, you scream "Eeebul!"
It just seems as though there's a double standard somewhere.

[Drachasor]

So she was effectively portrayed the same way this Paladin is supposed to have been played. Yet, you're constantly claiming that the Paladin is in the right.

Everything isn't black and white. Me disagreeing with you does not mean that I am taking the polar opposite stance.

In other words: no, I have not once claimed the Paladin was in the right. I have expressed that the situation is unclear based on the extremely limited information we have been given.

And yet somehow I have been constantly expressing that, and you didn't get the message. Your post kind of illustrates my point. People have a tendency to jump to conclusions without all the facts. Or to construe what few facts exist as supporting their view even when they don't. Confirmation bias and all that fun stuff.

[Threadnaught]

Everything isn't black and white. Me disagreeing with you does not mean that I am taking the polar opposite stance.

Except when you disagree with us, you do it on both situations. When the PC does something vaguely Chaotic which the DMPC Paladin disagrees with and makes threats over, you've called the PC Evil.
When the DMPC Paladin has threatened to kill the PC for doing more Good than the Paladin seems likely to do and is likely to follow through, you're fighting for the Paladin's right to "pursue justice".

So yeah, you pretty much are taking the exact opposite stance.


I have not once claimed the Paladin was in the right.

I'm not going to treat you how you did MonochromeTiger and rub your face in it, but you did. That's all I'll say on that point.


I have expressed that the situation is unclear based on the extremely limited information we have been given.

And I agreed, but there's not much we could do about the amount of information given anyway.
What if the reason the OP was so vague, is because this is a PbP game on this site and they didn't want us to spam their DM's inbox? It's entirely possible.


And yet somehow I have been constantly expressing that, and you didn't get the message. Your post kind of illustrates my point. People have a tendency to jump to conclusions without all the facts. Or to construe what few facts exist as supporting their view even when they don't. Confirmation bias and all that fun stuff.

No please explain. Should we keep trying to help the OP as we've been doing the whole time? Should we just stop? Should we demand more information about how and why the Paladin was offed? Should we hack their account and demand answers at gunpoint?

Several responses by more people than, just you. Involved speaking with the DM and the other players, try to come to a peaceful solution and all that. Some (like you) asked for more information, which has been trickling in far too slowly to have a major impact on what transpires. Others, like myself, have offered advice that leans more toward letting the Paladin personally experience justice at the hands of his order.


I'll go back to the customer service example that you oh so brilliantly ignored. Instead of a Call Centre, you are now a Sales Assistant at a DIY store. A customer walks in and specifically asks for a number of tools they state they need for a project they're working on. The tools mentioned are badly suited for the project they're working on, but they assert that, they know what they need, it's the customer who is working on the project, not some sales guy at [DIY Store]. Whether they stated what project they're working on or not, if they insist on buying tools that won't help them, that's their problem.

In this thread, the OP asked for advice on how to kill a Paladin.
We gave advice on killing a Paladin and a few alternatives to killing a Paladin for him to consider. No matter how it turns out, the OP has what they asked for and more, if it goes wrong it's their (http://notalwaysright.com/tag/home-improvement) problem.

[UmpteenthDoctor]

Everything isn't black and white. Me disagreeing with you does not mean that I am taking the polar opposite stance.

In other words: no, I have not once claimed the Paladin was in the right. I have expressed that the situation is unclear based on the extremely limited information we have been given.

And yet somehow I have been constantly expressing that, and you didn't get the message. Your post kind of illustrates my point. People have a tendency to jump to conclusions without all the facts. Or to construe what few facts exist as supporting their view even when they don't. Confirmation bias and all that fun stuff.
Not really you have been indicating the Paladin is in the right because the OP as a player not the character considered killing off a npc family for this endevour and began to claim that the Character was Chaotic Evil and that the Paladin was in the right because he was threatening the Character.

However, spitballing an idea as a player does not do anything to the character. Also the activites as we have been given here are not Evil acts. Yes they might have actually been evil acts but as we were told they where not. But yet you continued to claim they were at the very least most likely evil acts by suggesting multiple events that could have possibly happened.

You where arguing that the Paladin was in the right through suggestions that the OP is not telling us about selling the slaves he got off the slavers and the like. This is supporting that the Paladin was in the right. Are you wrong in that the OP could have done evil acts and got on the Paladins bad side of course, but from the information we have we have no suggestion of that.

Also just because someone does not want the moral boyscout babysitter paladin type around does not mean they are attacking all Paladins. As someone who currently is running a Paladin this thread is not an attack on me.

Honestly my Paladin would have beat this Paladin's backside in a duel to get him to knock his antics off. It is dishonorable to 1 threaten your prince (and by default the Law for which you follow) and 2 stand in the way of stopping evil in many forms simply because it may not always be lawful.

[Drachasor]

I'm not going to treat you how you did MonochromeTiger and rub your face in it, but you did. That's all I'll say on that point.

Maybe you could dig through my posts and find one instance where I didn't qualify it, but I doubt it.

I have said that HYPOTHETICALLY the Paladin could be in the right. There's a world of difference between that and saying he is right. Talking about how the vagueness leaves plenty of room for scenarios where the Paladin behaved properly is not the same thing as saying he behaved properly.




And I agreed, but there's not much we could do about the amount of information given anyway.

Yes, if only we could talk to the OP and put a little weight behind asking for more info.



What if the reason the OP was so vague, is because this is a PbP game on this site and they didn't want us to spam their DM's inbox? It's entirely possible.

Sure that's possible, but it seems rather unlikely. I never really talked about whether the OP being vague made sense, merely that being so vague meant the ability to give helpful advice is limited.


No please explain. Should we keep trying to help the OP as we've been doing the whole time? Should we just stop? Should we demand more information about how and why the Paladin was offed? Should we hack their account and demand answers at gunpoint?

Slippery slope fallacy. More people asking for more details doesn't imply doing most of that.


Several responses by more people than, just you. Involved speaking with the DM and the other players, try to come to a peaceful solution and all that. Some (like you) asked for more information, which has been trickling in far too slowly to have a major impact on what transpires. Others, like myself, have offered advice that leans more toward letting the Paladin personally experience justice at the hands of his order.

Here's the thing though. If the Paladin is being played badly, he's not going to experience justice at the hands of his order. It won't happen because the DM has a screw loose about how to play Paladins and/or is being mean to the guy who asked for one (and everyone else). The solution there must happen out of game. Killing the Paladin isn't likely to actually solve any real problems in the game because the problem is with the DM.

If the Paladin isn't being played badly, then there's a different sort of group problem going on. One involving what people want out of the game.



I'll go back to the customer service example that you oh so brilliantly ignored. Instead of a Call Centre, you are now a Sales Assistant at a DIY store. A customer walks in and specifically asks for a number of tools they state they need for a project they're working on. The tools mentioned are badly suited for the project they're working on, but they assert that, they know what they need, it's the customer who is working on the project, not some sales guy at [DIY Store]. Whether they stated what project they're working on or not, if they insist on buying tools that won't help them, that's their problem.

I didn't ignore it. I pointed out that a good customer service representative will try to understand the situation and work with the customer to solve their real problem. A mediocre to bad one just wants a sale (and really has no purpose, since if the customer just wants X he doesn't need a representative).

But your situation isn't all that similar to this thread. The OP came in with a problem with a Pally that he'd like to get rid of. Possibly it is a solvable problem whilst keeping the Pally (which another player requested). Possibly it isn't. While he eventually decided to kill the Pally, he certainly wasn't insistent on murder the whole time.

In any case, you certainly shouldn't recommend options that won't work or provide a specific and extreme plan that has a high chance of causing problems. Especially if the situation is unclear.

If someone comes into a hardware store with a potentially* ill-conceived notion that could cause harm to themselves or others, then the customer service representative should try to talk them out of it at the very least. Helping them along and going "well, whatever they want, I don't care" is the last thing they should do.


In this thread, the OP asked for advice on how to kill a Paladin.
We gave advice on killing a Paladin and a few alternatives to killing a Paladin for him to consider. No matter how it turns out, the OP has what they asked for and more, if it goes wrong it's their (http://notalwaysright.com/tag/home-improvement) problem.

In fact he did not start the thread asking for advice on how to kill a Paladin. He asked for advice on how to deal with a Paladin that was making his game unfun. One of his ideas was killing the Paladin and another was not. He rather overlooked the idea of talking to the DM, the player that requested the paladin, and other players and trying to work things out. A lot of people latched onto the "kill the Pally" motif and it snowballed into dominating the thread discussion. Despite the fact, as even you note, the exact circumstances surrounding the moments of friction were rather unclear.

*Note the conditional. This implies I am not passing some sort of absolute judgement, but instead am referring to a range of possibilities along a broad spectrum.


Not really you have been indicating the Paladin is in the right because the OP as a player not the character considered killing off a npc family for this endevour and began to claim that the Character was Chaotic Evil and that the Paladin was in the right because he was threatening the Character.

Is there some problem here with people understanding hypothetical arguments?

I said the OP seemed biased. Big surprise, most people are. People also have shoddy memory (everyone does, it's a fact).

I said he described his character as neutral with evil tendencies.

I said that the OP hadn't answered specific questions about the ethics of his character's behavior in the friction-causing events.

I said that as such, it is within the realm of possibility that the Paladin wasn't behaving improperly.

But saying it is within the realm of possibilities is NOT the same as saying it is certain. I never said that. I said there was sufficient cause to not immediately accept things at face value without further investigation.

That does not mean the OP lied or even intentionally mislead us. That does not mean the Paladin was right. That does not mean the OP was right. That means simply that there's insufficient information to make a good judgement, imho. It means that, imho, declaring that the Paladin was certainly wrong is leaping to conclusions.

Under the circumstance that the Paladin was played wrong, does that mean that everything is great and OK and the OP should just suck it up? No. I never said that. I in fact have repeatedly said that this whole situation is indicative of a problem that needs to be discussed out of character. It's just that precisely what sort problem is unclear. It's not clear if it is a DM handling a Paladin badly or if it is simply a failure to communicate what sort of game is desired or something else.

Do not misconstrue me playing a Devil's Advocate for firmly holding a particular position...beyond the obvious belief I hold: the situation is too unclear to give good advice on what to do with the Paladin.

[The Insanity]

Yes, if only we could talk to the OP and put a little weight behind asking for more info.
Yes, it's not like we did and still didn't get much, right?

[Drachasor]

Yes, it's not like we did and still didn't get much, right?

Some did, a lot didn't. But I stand by the principle that if you do not understand a situation, you should be very, very careful about any advice you give. There has not been much care here.

[The Insanity]

Some did, it didn't work, they moved on. Apparently you have trouble in doing that. If you want to be careful, no one is stopping you, but don't chastise others if they're not sharing your opinion.

[Drachasor]

Some did, it didn't work, they moved on. Apparently you have trouble in doing that. If you want to be careful, no one is stopping you, but don't chastise others if they're not sharing your opinion.

Really this just started as me saying "this situation is very vague." Hmm, maybe with a note that caution was in order. To which several people responded with "How dare you take the Paladin's side!", "It's weird you are taking the Paladin's side", "the situation is very clear", etc, etc. Recently "I don't care if it is vague, I'm giving specific advice anyway".

A great deal of what I've written has just been explaining why I think it is vague. Much less, but some, has been about my thinking giving advice when you don't understand the situation is a bad idea. A lot of it lately has apparently been me responding to people who don't seem to understand my hypotheticals are hypotheticals.

It has snowballed more than I'd like. I can get a bit stubborn over certain things now and then. Usually when I think harm has been done or could have been done. I really do think giving specific advice for problems in vague situations is a very bad idea. Particularly if there's a good chance strong feelings are involved, which is quite possible here.

I also think somehow the problem being with a Paladin has made things worse. I do not think most people would advise "kill the troublesome DMPC" in other circumstances. Nor "kill the troublesome DMPC another player specifically asked for". On these and other boards, the approach to DMPC problems has traditionally be one of treating it as a problem that must be handled beyond the game. Antagonizing the DM is not a good idea, and usually makes the problems worse.

And I've seen many times where a thread starter was insistent on a particularly bad idea and people were quite comfortable continuing to disagree and advise against it. The vein of "well just encourage him and give him ideas for this bad idea" is legitimately worrisome.

But if someone can tell me why killing a DMPC is not likely to cause any problems in a game, I'm all ears. I honestly do not see how it is anything but a terrible idea. And I'm a bit stubborn at times -- you might have noticed. :smallsmile:

Edit: Ok, I think I've wasted too much time talking about what actionable conclusions one should reach based on scant evidence and and so forth. None of that is the real critical issue here. I'll just focus on what I ended with above:

How does anyone expect killing a DMPC is not very likely to cause more problems, not less? Why is it a good idea to encourage the OP to do something that's likely to make things worse?

[The Insanity]

You seem to not understand. No one does. That doesn't change the fact that the OP will do (or already did) it regardless and he wasn't asking for our opinions, but help.

[Augmental]

You seem to not understand. No one does. That doesn't change the fact that the OP will do (or already did) it regardless and he wasn't asking for our opinions, but help.

People's minds can be changed. If someone thinks another person is about to make a bad decision, they have every right to try and suggest a different choice.

[The Insanity]

Sure, but not when it's pointless. The only person that should get his mind changed clearly doesn't care. :smallconfused: At this point Drachasor is just wasting his time and irritating people that were trying to actually contribute to this topic. :smallannoyed:
Whatever. They don't need me to defend them, so I'm done with this discussion. It just irked my how he kept harping on and on about things that were no longer relevant, that's all.

[Threadnaught]

But your situation isn't all that similar to this thread. The OP came in with a problem with a Pally that he'd like to get rid of. Possibly it is a solvable problem whilst keeping the Pally (which another player requested). Possibly it isn't. While he eventually decided to kill the Pally, he certainly wasn't insistent on murder the whole time.


In fact he did not start the thread asking for advice on how to kill a Paladin. He asked for advice on how to deal with a Paladin that was making his game unfun. One of his ideas was killing the Paladin and another was not. He rather overlooked the idea of talking to the DM, the player that requested the paladin, and other players and trying to work things out. A lot of people latched onto the "kill the Pally" motif and it snowballed into dominating the thread discussion. Despite the fact, as even you note, the exact circumstances surrounding the moments of friction were rather unclear.

Okay, take a quick look at the first post in this thread called Killing a paladin, or at least getting him off my back.


A GMPC paladin is causing a problem for both my character and two of my friends characters. I needed away to get him off of me, so I came up with two ways, but I need you guys to critique my plans.

Plan 1. I read that in the pally's code, he has to respect legitimate authority. My character happens to be the Prince of Elves, and this pally is an elf. My character is now authority over him, and he has to respect me or lose his paladin abilities, right? I could just order him never to mess with my friends and I.

Plan 2 is a lot more convoluted and evil. This plan, I need to get a greater planar mote of the Abyss, plant it on a child, then use the right spells to have the kid poison/kill his parent in front of the pally, then I "arrive" right as I see the pally kill the kid and lose his powers, then I kill him.

Any comment/critiques/questions you guys have?

Obviously he's considered killing the Paladin as a viable solution. Any suggestions on actually killing the Paladin, are to make the plan more simple as to increase the odds of success. Customer has been told to just smack nails in with a hammer to build his shed. Rather than fiddle around with a special collapsible shed that they may have problems with putting up on their own.

Several posters, including ones who gave advice on murdering the Pally, advised the OP to speak to the DM and with their group, before doing anything that the group would regret.


Yes, if only we could talk to the OP and put a little weight behind asking for more info.

Thank you for showing me the amount of respect I expected of you, I fully expect you to show the same to the other posters as many of them have shown their disagreement to how the Pally has been played. I don't know how many will continue to put up with it, but you've just made my ignore list, so congratulations.

MonochromeTiger should feel honoured, you ignored him.

[MonochromeTiger]

MonochromeTiger should feel honoured, you ignored him.

it's up there in the list of things that made me maniacal laugh a bit. oh and since I'm responding to you please tell me you made "straw assassins" a thing, I really am looking forward to hearing more on it. I'm still hoping for an attack golem.

as I said earlier, as threadnaught here pointed out, and as the insanity stated.. the thread is very clearly set on the notion of killing off the paladin, it's all well and good if we personally feel an objection to that but it's not what's being discussed. if we really can't stand the thought of a DMPC paladin being killed we can just as easily find a different thread to read instead of complaining about how we aren't being given ammo to throw at the OP until they listen to us. when asked how to kill a paladin we say how to kill a paladin, we do not question the alignment of every person involved so that we can guilt others into not answering.

[Angelalex242]

Well, this IS a DMPC, and killing DMPCs can have very nasty consequences, if you can manage it at all.

Like those 18th level clerics and paladins that run around avenging fallen Paladins with extreme prejudice.

Or a Trumpet Archon or 3 comes down from heaven to annihilate you with extreme prejudice.

And if the GM feels really annoyed, he'll send a Solar down. If you see a Solar, just start writing up your new character.

[MonochromeTiger]

Well, this IS a DMPC, and killing DMPCs can have very nasty consequences, if you can manage it at all.

Like those 18th level clerics and paladins that run around avenging fallen Paladins with extreme prejudice.

Or a Trumpet Archon or 3 comes down from heaven to annihilate you with extreme prejudice.

And if the GM feels really annoyed, he'll send a Solar down. If you see a Solar, just start writing up your new character.

evil finds a way.

[Scow2]

Well, this IS a DMPC, and killing DMPCs can have very nasty consequences, if you can manage it at all.On the other hand, Thou Shalt Not Suffer a DMPC to Live.


Like those 18th level clerics and paladins that run around avenging fallen Paladins with extreme prejudice.

Or a Trumpet Archon or 3 comes down from heaven to annihilate you with extreme prejudice.

And if the GM feels really annoyed, he'll send a Solar down. If you see a Solar, just start writing up your new character.The most likely death would be from an earthquake that picks up on the Henderson scale.

[Augmental]

evil finds a way.

DM fiat can block off ways as fast as evil can find them.

[MonochromeTiger]

DM fiat can block off ways as fast as evil can find them.

then evil finds a suitably heavy book to throw at the DM.

[cakellene]

evil finds a way.

What way would that be besides DM meeting business end of phone book?

[MonochromeTiger]

What way would that be besides DM meeting business end of phone book?

occasionally it's reminding them that you're vengeful and going to be stuck DMing for them a few days after the session ends. occasionally it's telling them quite plainly that messing with the group because something they did that no one in the group liked finally got dealt with just proves they're not being a reasonable DM. occasionally it's pointing out the abysmal logic in a paladin that dies in the middle of nowhere somehow having a holy kill-squad on hand and only using it after they die instead of earlier when there's a WORLD ENDING HORROR the group is trying to deal with that could be much better handled by the hyper powerful forces that are only just now being revealed as at the paladin's beck and call.

[12owlbears]

or you could just chose not to kill the paladin and talk to the GM about the issue.

[Augmental]

occasionally it's reminding them that you're vengeful and going to be stuck DMing for them a few days after the session ends.

And how do you think he's going to act when you're back to being a PC and he's back to being the DM?

[MonochromeTiger]

And how do you think he's going to act when you're back to being a PC and he's back to being the DM?

badly, that's why it's called a war of escalation.

[The Insanity]

or you could just chose not to kill the paladin and talk to the GM about the issue.
That's not an option.

[MonochromeTiger]

That's not an option.

well it is, it's just not one that we can make for the OP. if they've decided on killing the paladin, which all evidence given points to, then there's really no point in us saying "you're wrong don't do that" instead of helping him find a way of doing so...plus we can't be sure the DM will react horribly every single time the players do something to a character they make, if that were a guarantee then no one would ever be able to kill the antagonists of the story because the DM would just "rocks fall everyone dies".

[Kelb_Panthera]

That's not an option.

Your username seems appropriate.

While I'm quite comfortable suggesting that this "paladin" should meet the business end of something designed to hurt things I would never advise -against- reasonable discourse.

I'll occasionally argue that it's unnecessary as I dd up-thread but it's -always- an option and usually the answer to default to.

[The Insanity]

Your username seems appropriate.
... That's... rude.


While I'm quite comfortable suggesting that this "paladin" should meet the business end of something designed to hurt things I would never advise -against- reasonable discourse.

I'll occasionally argue that it's unnecessary as I dd up-thread but it's -always- an option and usually the answer to default to.
Um... It's not an option because the OP already decided he wants to kill the Paladin, even after a few people advised him against it. :smallconfused: No offense, but maybe try reading next time instead of making judgmental comments, kay? I might be insane, but I'm not unreasonable.

[MonochromeTiger]

Your username seems appropriate.

While I'm quite comfortable suggesting that this "paladin" should meet the business end of something designed to hurt things I would never advise -against- reasonable discourse.

I'll occasionally argue that it's unnecessary as I dd up-thread but it's -always- an option and usually the answer to default to.

come on kelb play nice. as the insanity pointed out they meant in the context of it actually being listened to, not in the context of it not being an option at all.

[Drachasor]

Um... It's not an option because the OP already decided he wants to kill the Paladin, even after a few people advised him against it. :smallconfused: No offense, but maybe try reading next time instead of making judgmental comments, kay? I might be insane, but I'm not unreasonable.

Yes, and everyone knows that no one ever changes their mind on anything. Certainly not if other people talk to them about it.

I'm sure you are equally certain all the people encouraging the "kill the Paladin" idea had no influence on the OP either. Certainly people are never influenced by others. Each man is an island.

So given the above, if someone is about to do something stupid and a couple people advised against it and others encouraged it. You should never, ever work to convince that person not to do that stupid thing.

And the Pally isn't dead, as they didn't get to it last session. So there's still time for a sane solution that doesn't risk dramatic DM fallout due to killing a DMPC.

[Kelb_Panthera]

... That's... rude.


Um... It's not an option because the OP already decided he wants to kill the Paladin, even after a few people advised him against it. :smallconfused: No offense, but maybe try reading next time instead of making judgmental comments, kay? I might be insane, but I'm not unreasonable.

I did read.

He hasn't actually had the opportunity to act on his desire to kill the paladin yet. Talking with the DM is -still- an option.

More importantly, what kind of response could you have expected with making such an unqualified statement? Without context or qualification that statement does sound absolutely insane to me.

I do apologize for implying that you were insane rather than explicitly stating that I thought your comment was insane.

[MonochromeTiger]

Yes, and everyone knows that no one ever changes their mind on anything. Certainly not if other people talk to them about it.

I'm sure you are equally certain all the people encouraging the "kill the Paladin" idea had no influence on the OP either. Certainly people are never influenced by others. Each man is an island.

So given the above, if someone is about to do something stupid and a couple people advised against it and others encouraged it. You should never, ever work to convince that person not to do that stupid thing.

And the Pally isn't dead, as they didn't get to it last session. So there's still time for a sane solution that doesn't risk dramatic DM fallout due to killing a DMPC.

well considering you've yet to stop replying to everyone with a degree of unnecessary insult...yeah I'd say talking to someone doesn't make them change a predetermined decision. just because killing the pally is an option you wouldn't take doesn't mean it's not a sane choice. a DM's role is to make an enjoyable adventure for both themselves and the players, getting whiny and overly hostile to those players because they attack something the DM statted up and put in harm's way is the "insane" outcome here, not getting rid of something that has annoyed the players for a while now.

[The Insanity]

Yes, and everyone knows that no one ever changes their mind on anything. Certainly not if other people talk to them about it.
Been there, done that. Didn't seem to work tho.


I'm sure you are equally certain all the people encouraging the "kill the Paladin" idea had no influence on the OP either. Certainly people are never influenced by others. Each man is an island.
"Encouraging"? :smallconfused: People simply heeded the OPs request for help. Do you really not get that? Despite peoples and your constant appeals to reason the OP still stuck to his initial idea. So maybe, just maybe, it's a little pointless now, because the OP clearly won't change his mind? :smallsigh:


And the Pally isn't dead, as they didn't get to it last session. So there's still time for a sane solution that doesn't risk dramatic DM fallout due to killing a DMPC.
The OP made a decision and stuck to it the whole time. So yeah, I'd say it's a forgone conclusion.


I did read.
And you still think there's a point to convincing the OP? Because I don't.


He hasn't actually had the opportunity to act on his desire to kill the paladin yet. Talking with the DM is -still- an option.
I don't think so. If it was, the OP would have done it after getting that advise from multiple people (and multiple times from one particular person).


More importantly, what kind of response could you have expected with making such an unqualified statement? Without context or qualification that statement does sound absolutely insane to me.
A response that would consider the fact that the OP pretty much ignored "sane" advise in favor of his initial idea? :smallconfused:


I do apologize for implying that you were insane rather than explicitly stating that I thought your comment was insane.
Not really, when you actually think about it.

If you are such good guys then keep on trying to change the OPs mind. Good luck with that. But it'd by nice if you could leave people who got the hint and try to actually contribute to the request in peace, kay? It would be much appreciated.

[Kelb_Panthera]

And you still think there's a point to convincing the OP? Because I don't.Not at all. If he's already made up his mind then no comment anyone makes about alternatives will matter at all. If he hasn't or is having second thoughts, however, then discouraging open communication is -never- good advice.



I don't think so. If it was, the OP would have done it after getting that advise from multiple people (and multiple times from one particular person).It's still an option. It may or may not be one that the OP is at all receptive to but it never stops being an option even after he's acted, though it'll certainly be a very different conversation after that point.



A response that would consider the fact that the OP pretty much ignored "sane" advise in favor of his initial idea? :smallconfused:Yes. Under no circumstances will advice -against- open communication ever sound reasonable to me. That it's unnecessary, sure. That it's the wrong course, never.



Not really, when you actually think about it.As I said.


If you are such good guys then keep on trying to change the OPs mind. Good luck with that. But it'd by nice if you could leave people who got the hint and try to actually contribute to the request in peace, kay? It would be much appreciated.I'm not trying to change the OP's mind. I was one of the first people that suggested just knifing the pally.

I simply take umbrage to any advice -against- communication. Talking things out is -never- a bad option and never ceases to be a viable one.

Again, sorry for calling you insane rather than your advice.

[Augmental]

If you are such good guys then keep on trying to change the OPs mind. Good luck with that. But it'd by nice if you could leave people who got the hint and try to actually contribute to the request in peace, kay? It would be much appreciated.

The OP's already been given enough advice on how to get the paladin off his back. The scales need to be tipped.

[MonochromeTiger]

The OP's already been given enough advice on how to get the paladin off his back. The scales need to be tipped.

....please mean that as blue text instead of the "stop giving advice that was asked for" I read it as.. I mean I'm fine with you saying that you want to tell the OP to talk to the DM but not by saying all other views should stop.

[Augmental]

....please mean that as blue text instead of the "stop giving advice that was asked for" I read it as.. I mean I'm fine with you saying that you want to tell the OP to talk to the DM but not by saying all other views should stop.

I'm saying that there's not much advice related to talking with the DM/players and The_Insanity is saying that the OP's not going to change his mind, so any advice not related to killing the paladin is meaningless. I'm not saying people can't post paladin-killing advice.

[Angelalex242]

But Mr. GM, how on earth could a Solar show up to avenge this Paladin's death yet do nothing about world ending abominations?

"Well, uh...when he was a wee little lad, his mom made a pact of vengeance between him and a Solar should he ever die, provided he grew up to be a Paladin. He kept his end of the deal, so...Arrows of Slaying fall, everyone dies."

[Threadnaught]

since I'm responding to you please tell me you made "straw assassins" a thing, I really am looking forward to hearing more on it.

Whenever I notice anyone using the strawman fallacy, I'll refer to it as them casting Straw Assassin.
It's a SLA that can be cast by anything that uses a language an infinite number of times a day, it works like a cheaper Ice Assassin. You just need an idea from the person it's based on and some straw to model into the shape of that person, once created, it constantly screams the idea taken to ridiculous proportions so the caster can attack it more easily.

Hopefully it'll catch on. :smallwink:


well considering you've yet to stop replying to everyone with a degree of unnecessary insult...yeah I'd say talking to someone doesn't make them change a predetermined decision.

Wait a sec, is he responding to me?

Tell him that no matter how many times he casts Straw Assassin to try to make our points look bad, we'll keep burning them down. If you don't tell him, he'll probably just read this post anyway.


Kelb you look different, have you done something with your hair?

[12owlbears]

Killing the paladin is not a good idea. Even if the GM and the player who wanted the paladin are ok with this out of character the LG summoner in character will probably be mad that you killed his friend. As we've seen on this thread things can escalate quickly. In my experience you should never try and solve an inter party conflict in character, unless it's the kind of game that's built around inter party conflict.

[Threadnaught]

Killing the paladin is not a good idea. Even if the GM and the player who wanted the paladin are ok with this out of character the LG summoner in character will probably be mad that you killed his friend. As we've seen on this thread things can escalate quickly. In my experience you should never try and solve an inter party conflict in character, unless it's the kind of game that's built around inter party conflict.

Read this (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html), maybe the players will allow their characters to handle it better than you're giving them credit for.

[Augmental]

Read this (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html), maybe the players will allow their characters to handle it better than you're giving them credit for.

That's assuming that the player who requested the paladin is fine with the OP killing said paladin. As far as we know, there hasn't been much talk about the paladin, so if the paladin is killed by another player, it's likely that there's going to be some strong negative feelings OOC.

[The Insanity]

If he hasn't or is having second thoughts, however, then discouraging open communication is -never- good advice.
Whew. Then it's fortunate that no one did.


It's still an option.
Clearly it isn't.


Yes. Under no circumstances will advice -against- open communication ever sound reasonable to me. That it's unnecessary, sure. That it's the wrong course, never.
Who said anything about it being wrong? :smallconfused:


As I said.
As I said.


I simply take umbrage to any advice -against- communication. Talking things out is -never- a bad option and never ceases to be a viable one.
Well, then you're just arguing against strawmen.


Again, sorry for calling you insane rather than your advice.
I don't care which you called insane, because you're wrong on both accounts.


The OP's already been given enough advice on how to get the paladin off his back. The scales need to be tipped.
So you're just going to be continuing the off-top, when it's very obviously a waste of time? Well, have fun with that. As long as you leave posters that make actual contributions alone, I don't care.


That's assuming that the player who requested the paladin is fine with the OP killing said paladin. As far as we know, there hasn't been much talk about the paladin, so if the paladin is killed by another player, it's likely that there's going to be some strong negative feelings OOC.
Your point?

[Augmental]

Your point?

My point is that killing the paladin may have serious repercussions, both IC and OOC.

[Envyus]

I also think just talking to the DM about how the pally is being played wrong is best. If this does not work kill it.

[The Insanity]

My point is that killing the paladin may have serious repercussions, both IC and OOC.
Well, duh. So?

[Augmental]

Well, duh. So?

And talking to the DM and other players is likely to result in a better outcome for everyone.

[The Insanity]

And talking to the DM and other players is likely to result in a better outcome for everyone.
Again, duh. Again, so? The OP knows that, you guys made sure of it. Hew doesn't care. :smallconfused: Repeating it ad nauseam won't change that. Just a suggestion.

[Threadnaught]

That's assuming that the player who requested the paladin is fine with the OP killing said paladin. As far as we know, there hasn't been much talk about the paladin, so if the paladin is killed by another player, it's likely that there's going to be some strong negative feelings OOC.

Well...


Now, everyone in the party won't object to me killing him,

If accurate, then I'd say even the player who begged the DM for it would be willing to make sure their character were looking the other way and failed their Listen check.

[Envyus]

Again, duh. Again, so? The OP knows that, you guys made sure of it. Hew doesn't care. :smallconfused: Repeating it ad nauseam won't change that. Just a suggestion.

Actually no one has actually really suggested this nor has the OP responded about it.

[Gavran]

Experiment: I make a thread titled "How should I cook my daughter's puppy?", and then write in the thread about how I overestimated my daughter's ability to take care of the puppy so I decided to make her eat it.

Is it off-topic to suggest I don't go ahead with that plan?

To the OP, if it's not too late:
Stop it. You're being childish, and it could ruin your game. Adults talk about their problems.

[The Insanity]

Actually no one has actually really suggested this nor has the OP responded about it.
Are we even reading the same thread? There's at least one poster that's very vocal about exactly that. And the OP doesn't respond because it's not what he asked for.

[Envyus]

Are we even reading the same thread? There's at least one poster that's very vocal about exactly that. And the OP doesn't respond because it's not what he asked for.

Apparently not as there has not been much about it.

Also you have no right to say what he did and did not ask for, as he wants to know a way to get the Pally off his back and talking to the GM about how the Pally is not being played right is valid.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Whew. Then it's fortunate that no one did.umm........

You said
It's [taking to the DM] not an option. without qualification.



Clearly it isn't.It's -always- an option. Not killing the paladin becomes a non-option after the fact but taking to the DM never does.



Who said anything about it being wrong? :smallconfused:You did by declaring it a non-option, though it may not have been your intent.



Well, then you're just arguing against strawmen.You said what you said. It may not have been quite what you meant but declaring open dialogue a non-option is saying that trying it is wrong.



I don't care which you called insane, because you're wrong on both accounts.Now I'm not saying you're insane, but if you don't want to be thought of as such you picked rather an odd user name.

As for the statement; try saying it out loud, "Talking to the DM isn't an option," and tell me it doesn't sound a little off to you.

[The Insanity]

One word - Context. Look it up.

[Kelb_Panthera]

One word - Context. Look it up.

I know what context is.

There is no context under which saying that 'talking things out is a bad idea' is reasonable in an internet forum. We're talking about a game played by, if not friends, at least acquaintances to which one would like to remain civil. Cutting off communication is never conducive to remaining civil. It doesn't always accomplish anything but it's never a -bad- idea.

Even if that weren't true the context under which you said it wouldn't have sounded reasonable anyway. Someone said "talk it out," you said, paraphrased, "that's a bad idea." That's it. If that wasn't what you meant you should've been clearer.

If you'd said "I doubt that will accomplish anything," or "I don't think the OP will accept that advice," we wouldn't be having this discussion.