[3.P] Player's pulled an unexpected move... could use advice

[Chronikoce]

Ok so my players are around level 7 in an ongoing campaign and pulled a move I did not expect. This is actually really common for them but this time I am not sure what the response ought to be.

The Party

Pathfinder Changeling Paladin (Good)
Human Factotum (Aligned somewhere between NG and CG currently)
Dwarven Fighter Lawful Neutral I believe)
Human Cleric (Fire/Healing) (Chaotic Good)
Halfling Rogue (Evil)
Elven Witch (Evil and due to actions early sort of possessed)


The Scenario
The party was following a river and flagged down a ship that was traveling the direction they were going (down-river). They paid for passage after some negotiation and boarded the boat. The following evening as they were traveling along they heard sounds of combat and a female scream of pain coming from the west of them (out of sight due to raised embankments on that side of the river).

Here is where it gets dicey. The Paladin demands that the captain pull the boat to shore and allow them to determine what is happening and give aid if necessary. The captain refuses, he doesn't explain himself but he flat out refuses to put the boat to shore (it turns out he is a smuggler and has no desire to have his ship damaged, attacked, or delayed so he refusal is reasonable from his point of view). He offers to bring the boat closer to shore so that anyone who wishes to can leap from the boat and wade safely to dry land. This option is refused by the Paladin and the others and they try to use diplomatic arguments followed by intimidation to change the captains mind.

The witch gets fed up and activates the power granted by the creature which shares his body (drains wisdom every round in exchange for bursting into a halo of flame which gains in strength the longer it is active). The captain has had enough, orders his crew to abandon ship (other party members were drawing weapons at this point and positioning for combat). One of his crew members attempt to light a cask of oil on fire as they dive into the water but fails. The Party manages to land the boat (badly) and goes to the aid of those they heard fighting.

Assuming you read the scenario above (thanks for taking the time!) my uncertainty about what to do next stems from several points.

Roleplaying question: The ship they now have is mildly damaged but is full of trade goods (both legitimate and smuggled). However, they wrongly seized it and the crew has vanished as far as they know. How would you handle a party whose players don't express any interest in setting up any sort of trade or smuggling business but have acquired roughly 15 tons of trade goods?

Rules Question: The Paladin wanted to go determine what was happening but as a result joined in the intimidation, and theft of a ship and all of its cargo. Some of the Cargo is smuggled goods. What, if any, ramifications should be brought against a paladin that is party to damage of property, theft, and (if the party takes the goods and sells them) smuggling?

[The Glyphstone]

The paladin should be getting a visitation and/or dream from his deity, letting him know that he done screwed up here, and it's his job to make his absolute best effort to rectify the situation. Theft and smuggling are definitely non-lawful acts - not evil though.

As for the goods...do any of them have contacts/connections in the underworld/criminal class? Finding a fence willing to move a shipload's worthy of trade goods for a hefty percentage cut shouldn't be too hard.

[Chronikoce]

The paladin should be getting a visitation and/or dream from his deity.

I would love to use that but when the campaign began two years ago I allowed him to play a Paladin that supports ideals rather than a specific deity. I suppose I could use a deity that matches her ideals and have them step in as a warning.

[Twilightwyrm]

With the Paladin, it's really all about intent here. The Paladin did not intend to steal the ship, just find out if someone was in distress and aid them if possible. And as a result a bunch of criminals abandoned their things in front of him. Granted, he was very forceful in this, and probably should have communicated clearly why he wanted the boat pulled over, but that does not make it theft. However, given there are stolen and smuggled goods on board, he should at least attempt to find out if their rightful owners of any identifiably stolen items* are in the area, and if so if the items can reasonably be returned to them. The smuggled goods are a bit of a different matter though. If there are items that are contraband, any dangerous ones should probably be destroyed or turned over to the authorities. Any things that were being smuggled for other reason though (perhaps to avoid taxes on said items) are now in the hands of the whole party.

*Banded livestock, art pieces and distinctive jewelry are likely stolen. Bags of sugar or salt, bars of precious metal, and other trade good and raw materials are not, unless there has been a reported theft of such materials in the area recently.

[icefractal]

I'd say that forcing the ship to land, in order to (as far as he knew) protect innocents from death, is within a Paladin's prerogative. He should, however, attempt to return the ship and cargo to the former captain/crew, not just take it. So I would say he hasn't yet committed any act contrary to his code, but if he makes no effort to rescue the crew (if needed) and return the ship+stuff then it would be.

As far as the stuff being stolen/smuggled in the first place -
If it's stolen, it should be returned to the rightful owners, not the captain. If it's smuggled - well, it depends on whether smuggling is considered a crime in this Paladin's code; many follow divine laws rather than temporal ones, and might not give a **** about what some kingdom does or doesn't want imported. But if it is, he'd be justified in bringing the captain in to face justice. Simply taking the ship+cargo for himself is still pretty suspect though.

The bigger problem is that you have a Paladin in a party with two evil characters. That's why I'm not sure you want any kind of divine representative showing up - it raises awkward questions about why the god in question doesn't mind the presence of the evil duo, or warn the Paladin about them.

[OldTrees1]

I would love to use that but when the campaign began two years ago I allowed him to play a Paladin that supports ideals rather than a specific deity. I suppose I could use a deity that matches her ideals and have them step in as a warning.

Replace Deity with a celestial. Perhaps an Astral Deva/Planetar/Solar?

[Chronikoce]

The information that the party doesn't know yet is that the items to be smuggled are not stolen per-say(at least not by the captain). The smuggler bought them from his contact and his contact acquired them by forging requisition forms. The organization that the smuggled items (weapons and armor in this case) come from is one that the party is currently at odds with. They do not accept the authority of this organization even though the city-state they are from has granted this organization authority. In other words, legal loopholes abound.

As for the evil members traveling with a Paladin there are extenuating circumstances. The Paladin believes that the entity which is sharing the witch's mind is Evil and is the cause for the witch detecting as evil. The witch at this point has shifted his personal alignment to evil but since he was already pinging that way due to the possession that Paladin hasn't noticed the change yet. The other Evil party member actually just rejoined. She was gone from the party for almost a year of in game time and have been back with the group for less than a week in game time. As a result the Paladin actually doesn't know about the shift to evil (the rogue joined an assassins guild among other actions which altered her alignment).

Thanks for the advice so far, I think my concerns about the Paladin being in trouble were addressed nicely by @Twilightwyrm. I have to wait and see what they do with the goods before I decide if the Paladin's actions are in question.

[Petrocorus]

If a visitation by a superior entity is out of the way, the Pally should at least have "his conscience" (meaning you) talk to him about what he has done. It also depend on if he'll try to find the captain to give back the ship.

I wonder something however. They are 7th level. With a cleric, a witch and a factotum. Did they really not have any other way to get of the ship (like Water Walk) or to perform the jump to the shore. Because if they had, then it should weight more on the paladin's case.

[Doctor Awkward]

Hm, interesting.

Let's take this step by step:

The information that the party doesn't know yet is that the items to be smuggled are not stolen per-say(at least not by the captain). The smuggler bought them from his contact and his contact acquired them by forging requisition forms. The organization that the smuggled items (weapons and armor in this case) come from is one that the party is currently at odds with. They do not accept the authority of this organization even though the city-state they are from has granted this organization authority. In other words, legal loopholes abound.
No legal loopholes at all. Forged requisition forms is fraud, which makes it theft of goods. If the captain knows about the forgeries (unlikely he doesn't, or why is he smuggling the goods?) then he's in for conspiracy to commit fraud. A paladin would have no qualms making him answer for that.


As for the evil members traveling with a Paladin there are extenuating circumstances. The Paladin believes that the entity which is sharing the witch's mind is Evil and is the cause for the witch detecting as evil. The witch at this point has shifted his personal alignment to evil but since he was already pinging that way due to the possession that Paladin hasn't noticed the change yet. The other Evil party member actually just rejoined. She was gone from the party for almost a year of in game time and have been back with the group for less than a week in game time. As a result the Paladin actually doesn't know about the shift to evil (the rogue joined an assassins guild among other actions which altered her alignment).
A paladin will never knowingly associate with an evil person. The rogue is in the clear as long as he never does anything that would cause the paladin to question his alignment (vicious threats, excessive brutality, if you want to be really harsh put using Death Attack in front of the paladin here too). Any paladin that isn't stupid wouldn't hesitate to turn his detect good on anyone who gave him good cause to suspect.
The witch on the other hand is a problem. Even if the paladin doesn't hold her responsible for his actions, he's still staying with him. This means, at the very least, he's taken it upon himself to help rid him of the evil presence, and that should be his overriding concern. He should also be insisting he act with greater restraint than anyone else there.



The Paladin demands that the captain pull the boat to shore and allow them to determine what is happening and give aid if necessary. The captain refuses, he doesn't explain himself but he flat out refuses to put the boat to shore (it turns out he is a smuggler and has no desire to have his ship damaged, attacked, or delayed so he refusal is reasonable from his point of view). He offers to bring the boat closer to shore so that anyone who wishes to can leap from the boat and wade safely to dry land. This option is refused by the Paladin and the others and they try to use diplomatic arguments followed by intimidation to change the captains mind.

The witch gets fed up and activates the power granted by the creature which shares his body (drains wisdom every round in exchange for bursting into a halo of flame which gains in strength the longer it is active). The captain has had enough, orders his crew to abandon ship (other party members were drawing weapons at this point and positioning for combat). One of his crew members attempt to light a cask of oil on fire as they dive into the water but fails. The Party manages to land the boat (badly) and goes to the aid of those they heard fighting.

Ooh, that's not good...
1. Aboard a ship, the captain is in charge. Unless the captain admitted to being a smuggler, he is the legitimate authority that a paladin is obligated to follow.
2. The paladin and the party were guests, only there by the captain's good graces. He could be forgiven for the oversight of his harsh demand if he allowed emotions to flare at the thought of an innocent in peril, but the only acceptable response to the captain allowing him to leap off safely is, "Thank you sir, safe travels."
3. The witch started that fight. If the paladin knows what he did, then he was party to an unprovoked attack upon innocent sailors. He should have turned around and defended them from the party. Assisting with that mutiny is easily grounds for an atonement.



Roleplaying question: The ship they now have is mildly damaged but is full of trade goods (both legitimate and smuggled). However, they wrongly seized it and the crew has vanished as far as they know. How would you handle a party whose players don't express any interest in setting up any sort of trade or smuggling business but have acquired roughly 15 tons of trade goods?
Well Glyphstone covered pretty well what a normal party member could do in those circumstances.



Rules Question: The Paladin wanted to go determine what was happening but as a result joined in the intimidation, and theft of a ship and all of its cargo. Some of the Cargo is smuggled goods. What, if any, ramifications should be brought against a paladin that is party to damage of property, theft, and (if the party takes the goods and sells them) smuggling?
The player interested in retaining his paladinhood is obligated to use every means at his disposal to locate the captain and ensure the ship is returned to him unharmed, and offer recompense for the damage caused. If he can't, then he needs to turn the ship over to whatever he considers the nearest legitimate authority, explain the situation, and give them a way to contact him to resolve the situation if he decides he would be putting more innocent lives in danger by staying.

[Chronikoce]

I wonder something however. They are 7th level. With a cleric, a witch and a factotum. Did they really not have any other way to get of the ship (like Water Walk) or to perform the jump to the shore. Because if they had, then it should weight more on the paladin's case.

This is honestly what shocked me the most. The captain was being stubborn for sure but I thought it was a bit over the top that they resorted to coercion and threats rather than hop off into the water and wade to shore. I won't judge them too harshly until I see what they do next though.

[Chronikoce]

Hm, interesting.
The witch on the other hand is a problem. Even if the paladin doesn't hold her responsible for his actions, he's still staying with him. This means, at the very least, he's taken it upon himself to help rid him of the evil presence, and that should be his overriding concern. He should also be insisting he act with greater restraint than anyone else there.

When the possession occurred he was pretty focused on finding a cure but in the last few sessions it seems to have taken a backseat. I may have to remind him OOC about this because in-game they reached the end of a mini story-arc which may have driven it from the player's mind.




Ooh, that's not good...
1. Aboard a ship, the captain is in charge. Unless the captain admitted to being a smuggler, he is the legitimate authority that a paladin is obligated to follow.
2. The paladin and the party were guests, only there by the captain's good graces. He could be forgiven for the oversight of his harsh demand if he allowed emotions to flare at the thought of an innocent in peril, but the only acceptable response to the captain allowing him to leap off safely is, "Thank you sir, safe travels."
3. The witch started that fight. If the paladin knows what he did, then he was party to an unprovoked attack upon innocent sailors. He should have turned around and defended them from the party. Assisting with that mutiny is easily grounds for an atonement.


I can relate to this analysis, the party at the time of their actions had no idea at all that the Captain of the ship had committed any crimes. I personally do not feel that later information can be used to justify actions against the captain. Especially in this case where the Captain did offer the option of leaping to the shallows.

Background for Captains Smuggling:
The goods he acquired are being smuggled from nation A (furthest north) past nation B to nation C (in the south). The party doesn't know any of this but the reason for the smuggling is that nation C is having a really bad time in the ongoing B vs C war and the captain is trying to help resupply C.

As DM I haven't decided yet it the organization that the weapons are coming from is smuggling them willingly (but off the books) or if they have been stolen. It makes sense that the group wants to help C because Nation B refuses to allow this group to exert any authority within their borders (most nations give them some level of free reign).

[Petrocorus]

This is honestly what shocked me the most. The captain was being stubborn for sure but I thought it was a bit over the top that they resorted to coercion and threats rather than hop off into the water and wade to shore. I won't judge them too harshly until I see what they do next though.

Yeah, of course, as said by Tonymitsu and the others.
But i meant technically, don't they have a spell (Water Walk, Greater Tense Floating Disk, etc), an Item (Carpet of Flying, Portable Hole, etc), a class feature (Paladin's Mount, factotum stuff) to help them to make the jump or to fly / teleport / walk to the shore?

[Chronikoce]

Yeah, of course, as said by Tonymitsu and the others.
But i meant technically, don't they have a spell (Water Walk, Greater Tense Floating Disk, etc), an Item (Carpet of Flying, Portable Hole, etc), a class feature (Paladin's Mount, factotum stuff) to help them to make the jump or to fly / teleport / walk to the shore?

Off the top of my head: The witch can just straight up fly (has flight Hex from PF), the Factotum could use a spell but I don't believe the ones he had set up for the day would have worked, the paladin has bonded weapon instead of mount, the party did have an Emu on board though (long story but it involves a familiar and spells being cast to engage in shenanigans overnight). So I guess my opinion would be that they could have gotten off the boat being ferried by the witch 1 at a time.

[Doctor Awkward]

I personally do not feel that later information can be used to justify actions against the captain. Especially in this case where the Captain did offer the option of leaping to the shallows.

I agree completely. Finding out he would have been justified after the fact doesn't make that player the voice of reason. It makes him the stopped clock that happened to be pointing at the correct time.



Background for Captains Smuggling:
The goods he acquired are being smuggled from nation A (furthest north) past nation B to nation C (in the south). The party doesn't know any of this but the reason for the smuggling is that nation C is having a really bad time in the ongoing B vs C war and the captain is trying to help resupply C.

As DM I haven't decided yet it the organization that the weapons are coming from is smuggling them willingly (but off the books) or if they have been stolen. It makes sense that the group wants to help C because Nation B refuses to allow this group to exert any authority within their borders (most nations give them some level of free reign).

That may or may not be an important distinction to make as far as a paladin is concerned. It's one of those neat cases that actually makes having a paladin around interesting.
If the captain's contact forged documents to acquire the goods, then they are stolen goods, and the captain complicit in a crime. A Lawful Neutral character would stop caring about anything else at that point.
However a paladin's code requires he protect and seek justice for the innocent. Yes the law is important, and the law is sacred. But what good are laws if they don't protect people? Would the paladin be willing to be complicit in the crime for the sake of assisting Nation C? That depends on the nature of the war between Nation B and C. Is one of them a murderous, oppressive tyrant, and the other a society of freedom fighters? It also might would depend on Nation A's reason for helping. remember that a paladin will not offer his assistance to someone whom he knows will use it for chaotic or evil ends. If Nation A just wants to sit back and laugh as the war between B and C continues, or if the paladin discovers Nation A has it's own plans to invade Nation B after they exhaust themselves fighting Nation C, well... he might be torn.

[Chronikoce]

Hehe, I didn't expect to need to flush out the relationship between these nations quite so soon. Luckily my group doesn't meet for another week and half so hopefully I can work out the details by then. The situation in my campaign world is complicated to put it lightly and as a result makes decisions rarely simple.

Nation A is currently in the mist of an internal power struggle. The rightful heir to the throne has employed the PCs to assist her in gaining support and information to take her kingdom back. Currently there are 5 noble houses that control various regions of the nation and none actually know that the heir is alive (she has been in hiding and on the run for years until she came of age). The group that is present in A that is causing trouble for the party (I call them Whitecloaks because they are loosely modeled after the Children of Light from the wheel of Time series) has complete authority and control in two regions controlled by Nobles. In both cases the Nobles in that region accepted the Whitecloaks unconditionally after years of struggling to maintain power and repel advances from neighbors. The party hates the Whitecloaks and feels like there can't be any way that their rise to power actually followed legitimate channels.

What I have for nations B and C so far is that nation B controls all River trade that travels south from A. Since most of the land in regions B and C is comprised of swamps, marshes, and moors, this means that B effectively controls all trade that reaches Nation C. The issue arises currently because nation B and C used to be allies so the arrangement posed no problem until it fell apart in recent years. The nation to the west of both B and C has never been friendly and warred against both of them on and off. They currently are at peace with B but not with C. Part of the arrangement that exists between the west nation and B is that they will not allow supplies to reach C (thereby helping the western nation in the efforts against nation C).

If you are having trouble following all of this then you can sympathize with my players. The other DM for our group is a fan of more straightforward stories where the heroes save the day and everyone goes home happy. I balance this by running a campaign where the world marches endlessly forward and the ramification of the players actions may not always be readily apparent until in game years later.

[Doctor Awkward]

The party hates the Whitecloaks and feels like there can't be any way that their rise to power actually followed legitimate channels.
This would be the paladin's first hang-up. Unless there were obvious reasons to distrust them, such as a restless populace, a credible eyewitness, or firsthand accounts of wrongdoing, then a paladin can't just take up issue with what is otherwise a legitimate authority. Now if a party member he trusts says he doesn't like them, there's nothing wrong with him doing some investigating, if only to set his friend's mind at ease, but he should still be respectful about it.


What I have for nations B and C so far is that nation B controls all River trade that travels south from A. Since most of the land in regions B and C is comprised of swamps, marshes, and moors, this means that B effectively controls all trade that reaches Nation C. The issue arises currently because nation B and C used to be allies so the arrangement posed no problem until it fell apart in recent years. The nation to the west of both B and C has never been friendly and warred against both of them on and off. They currently are at peace with B but not with C. Part of the arrangement that exists between the west nation and B is that they will not allow supplies to reach C (thereby helping the western nation in the efforts against nation C).
That paladin has a lot of praying to do.

The correct course of action is pretty much up to the player at that point. However the proper method of going about it, after ensuring the goods made their way to the proper place (again, something entirely driven by the motives of the groups involved) and if he still felt the need to meddle, would be to see to it that people aren't suffering. He would probably offer his services as a go-between for the leaders of West and C and try to settle whatever their dispute is. If they refuse to settle, a more martially incline paladin would seek to bring the West leader to trial for his aggressions, while a more peaceful one would see to it that C can better defend itself against West.

[Chronikoce]

The correct course of action is pretty much up to the player at that point. However the proper method of going about it, after ensuring the goods made their way to the proper place (again, something entirely driven by the motives of the groups involved) and if he still felt the need to meddle, would be to see to it that people aren't suffering. He would probably offer his services as a go-between for the leaders of West and C and try to settle whatever their dispute is. If they refuse to settle, a more martially incline paladin would seek to bring the West leader to trial for his aggressions, while a more peaceful one would see to it that C can better defend itself against West.

Thanks for the advice here. I think I will have to try and have a conversation with my player and get a little bit of feedback about reactions without spoiling too much of the upcoming story for him. He actually has a backstory reason for disliking the Whitecloaks. Before he became a Paladin he was traveling through a village when a whitecloak patrol accused a woman of using witchcraft to harm others. They accepted the evidence presented before them and tried to execute her in the village square.

I don't recall all of the details off the top of my head, but if I remember properly the woman in question was saved from execution by a Paladin (who became his mentor and trainer for the next few years). So in game his character despises the whitecloaks because they are an organization that is strictly Lawful Neutral and they do not tolerate legal defenses of circumstance. The circumstances under which the woman's witchcarft was used would mitigate the violation of the law for someone with compassion but for the commander of the whitecloak patrol circumstance was irrelevant and he handed down the appropriate sentence.

I am actually really enjoying having a Paladin in the party because it leads to some very intense and interesting roleplaying sessions. I hope I can keep up the trend I have of making decisions matter and linking backstory into current events so that the characters have to grow and develop.

[Chronikoce]

If anyone is curious about the campaign I am running I have plans to start organizing my notes and campaign summaries into a Story Hour. With luck I will start posting in a month or so.