PDA

View Full Version : DM Help Do you concider this to go against a Paladin code?



Pages : [1] 2

Oryan77
2018-02-28, 12:01 AM
Here is a scenario:

An evil woman pretends to be a helpless peasant girl. She convinces a group of 10 men that the PCs were discriminating her because she worships a particular deity other than their own and they robbed her of her coin purse and threatened to beat her if she speaks a word of it to anyone. Trying to be local good samaritans, they took it upon themselves to find the PCs, retrieve the purse, and teach the adventurers a lesson.

The men approach with weapons drawn just to make more of an intimidating presence. They confront the PCs, demand the purse back, and since the PCs respond with attitude and intimidation instead of trying to explain their mistake, one of the locals swings at a PC attempting to deal nonlethal damage. The PCs respond in full force and kill half of the men until the rest finally surrender.

This happens in a big city with laws just like any civilized city would have. The PCs were obviously more powerful than these men and one of the PCs is a Paladin. They knew these men made a mistake and were of no threat, but rather than doing what they could to explain their way out of a fight, or try to apprehend the men so that the authorities could sort things out, they killed them. The paladin can detect evil at will and never did. In fact, the paladin isn't even remorseful. As far as he's concerned, they started it and they got what they deserved.

That doesn't sound very lawful to me. I'd hate to penalize the Paladin, but this is pretty much his attitude towards every situation and it might be time to make him deal with the consequences if this is something that warrants it. He knows how to play a paladin (it's his favorite class to play), so a warning isn't going to remind him of anything he doesn't already know. What do you think?

Kaptin Keen
2018-02-28, 12:43 AM
Being indiscriminate (not using detect evil) is never lawful. Killing innocents is never good.

There isn't really any discussion to be had here. Well, not according to me =)

RFLS
2018-02-28, 12:46 AM
Yeah, that's...pretty far into evil.

inexorabletruth
2018-02-28, 01:29 AM
Since we're talking about a pattern of behavior here, coupled with an unrepentant behavior, I think the obvious course is to take his pally powers.

The whole group in fact should suffer a certain amount of consequence. It stands to reason that they would be wanted for murder, since this happened within the confines of the city.

It may be time to start rolling up some soldiery. Maybe some lawyers and a judge. It would probably be a good idea to roll up some bounty hunters to give them chase should they decide to flea the town.

Katrina
2018-02-28, 02:48 AM
Resorting to intimidation before diplomacy is in general a non-good action. It isn't evil per se, but it is not what I expect from a good character not dealing with a situation like "orcs only understand strength."

Striking for Lethal when your opponent is specifically pulling their blows to not seriously injure you is dishonorable, criminal and evil.

Slaying people you know are hapless dupes instead of trying to end the conflict without blood is a non-good action at least. It is also a chaotic act.

Never forget that the Paladin is not just Lawful Good, he is better than lawful good. He is an example. This character's lack of respect for life and the rules of engagement combined with his lack of discipline in checking alignments and lack of remorse would have resulted in his downgrade to a class feature-less fighter.

If his behavior continued thusly, I would shift him to Lawful Neutral.

Lvl 2 Expert
2018-02-28, 03:24 AM
If the men weren't a threat and the PC's knew it or should have known it from how blindingly obvious it was then no, this player should probably not have picked paladin as his class.

I don't like the falling mechanic as a way to keep players on the rails, so I wouldn't outright take his power, but you could take him aside, discus this and maybe plan a cool storyline that transitions him into a different class or something, like say have him fall, be angry at the gods for judging him unjust, going for a badass training montage and getting fighter or ranger levels for the paladin levels he lost. Or he could sell his soul to any entity promising him back his power and transition into warlock. Or maybe he just plays the class for the combination of features and really wants to keep them, and if the group likes that maybe in this world there simply are paladins of vengeance and all sorts of flavor in between, and the paragon of truth, justice and the American way angle is played down or absent. The world of an RPG is kind of about the PC's after all, it can twist itself a bit to fit their adventures when needed.

All of this is separate from the issue the city might take with their behavior as a group. You can let the paladin thing slide but still have them be visited in the night by the mayors personal high level assassin who says they can avoid all justice by doing this one favor they need doing over in the next city. Or whatever plot hook has your fancy.

Florian
2018-02-28, 03:52 AM
They knew these men made a mistake and were of no threat, but rather than doing what they could to explain their way out of a fight, or try to apprehend the men so that the authorities could sort things out, they killed them. What do you think?

One question first: Do you, as gm, normally use very clear-cut black/white scenarios that can be solved by simple hack and slash, or do you more often go into the moral gray area that requires more complex decision making?
Other factors are how they (and you) handled similar situations in the past and whit what consequences, if any. What you also leave out is what type of "evil" the woman is - depending on the setting, helping certain persons, especially worshippers, automatically make you a direct accessory to crime and straight up guilty by proxy (example: Anything to do with Rovagug or Lamashtu in Golarion).

Lorsa
2018-02-28, 04:28 AM
I have a question.

Did the paladin PC ever identify themselves as a paladin, or is it in any way obvious?

I mean, any random men encountering a paladin in that situation would probably question if the woman was telling the truth or not.

What is most logical, a paladin being a thief & bully or a random peasant girl lying? The obvious answer should be the latter.

Glorthindel
2018-02-28, 04:36 AM
I would bear in mind that there is a significant amount of meta knowledge that is being used to judge their actions here. Firstly, the party were significantly outnumbered by armed opponents. Sure, you know it was no challenge, but the characters would have no realistic way of knowing that (sure, they would be aware that normal peasants are well below them, but what if there was a retired adventurer or two in the group, and what if they were some other group pretending to be peasants). Secondly, "subdual damage" is a very game-rule thing, and in a fight, with real weapons, it would be hard to be sure that the attacker wasn't aiming to kill, and that a weak blow was not just a badly struck one. And even if you knew the opponents were only seeking to render you unconscious, you can't truly be aware of the attackers motives, and anyone has a very real reason to be concerned about the chance to be left unconscious at an unknown assailants mercy.

That said, I do actually stand on the side of falling the Paladin over this. Paladins are supposed to be "better than everyone else", so should have been seeking to end the conflict in the most peaceful way, regardless of the points I made above.

But that is between the Paladin and his god, and on a legal standpoint, I feel the party did nothing wrong - they were attacked, with weapons, by a larger group, with no evidence of wrongdoing. The party is well within their rights to defend themselves with maximum force. The party even ceased their attacks when the attackers surrendered, Now, had they chosen to just execute the surrendered attackers, then this would have been crossing a line, but stabbing someone who is trying to stab you is not.

GrayDeath
2018-02-28, 04:44 AM
Prior question: How long has the player been playing a Paladin, and how did he do it so far? is this a pattern, or something completely out of the blue?

Also, what Level is the group? if they jsut more or less started out, they might not see everything as clear as you do (or, if they are new enough, not even really know subdual damage is a thing).

Unless the above provides an explanation though, I agree. This is not the behaviour of ANY Paladin, and there wasnt even the usual "Fall or fall harder"! setup.

He should bear the consequences.

Pleh
2018-02-28, 06:55 AM
Go against? Not explicitly. Skirt the line? Very much.

I'd say fall the paladin, but keep atonement light and accessible. You're giving the player consequences, not punishments (punishments given to characters should never feel like punishments given to the players, who should be receiving a natural consequence to their actions, not animosity from their referee).

Have the party summoned to a local court to account for their crimes. Don't tell them that defending themselves was wrong, but have them face the families of their attackers to show them that failing to seek nonviolence with duped innocence was wrong. Violence wasn't the crime, thoughtless violence was.

A key point to make here is that they allowed the evil woman to dupe the heroes into employing excessive force. She wins this round because they played into her hand.

Use the paladin fall to back that up and have a higher cleric/paladin on call to immediately instruct the paladin on how to atone. Questing to raise funds and materials necessary to resurrect each man killed seems fair, especially if taken from monster hoards around the community, pulling double duty of returning the able bodied men and helping maintain the regional security.

Cespenar
2018-02-28, 07:21 AM
What they did is almost the definition of those murderhobo PCs that are often caricaturized in webcomics and whatnot. If we can use the alignment grid to illustrate this kind of behavior, it would be the area below the LE - CN line (taking into account different reasonings).

I think not only penalize the paladin, but also downgrade every "good" character in that party to neutral, just to make a point.

Sneak Dog
2018-02-28, 09:51 AM
So a group of ten men approaches the party, vastly outnumbering them and threatening to kill them by having their weapons out, demand gold, start attacking when their demands aren't met, and you are surprised they kill them like they would kill ten goblins? The paladin just removed ten murderers from the city in self-defence. Each of them could've been a rogue of equal level capable of beating him two on one. Good on them.

Had the ten men had good intentions, they would've come forth with at least the spokesperson having his weapons sheathed and threatening to call down the guard on them. Responding to a murder attempt in kind seems perfectly reasonable to me in a civilization where bandits stalk the alleys, assasssins the roofs, evil wizards the mountains and shape-shifting evil whatever-their-original-form-is the woods. A civilization where any man you see could be a level 1 peasant or level 16 rogue and you wouldn't know until he hits you with that deadly sneak attack.

A paladin should be an example of goodness and lawfulness. An exemplar to anyone aspiring to be good, with gifts given to them by gods or the very plane of goodness itself or some nonsense. Also, their life is valuable, no reason to just waste it because those ten random bandits might be redeemable even though they just demanded your coin or your life. There's orphanages to be donated to and true villains to be redeemed!

Zombimode
2018-02-28, 10:53 AM
This happens in a big city with laws just like any civilized city would have. The PCs were obviously more powerful than these men and one of the PCs is a Paladin. They knew these men made a mistake and were of no threat, but rather than doing what they could to explain their way out of a fight, or try to apprehend the men so that the authorities could sort things out, they killed them. The paladin can detect evil at will and never did. In fact, the paladin isn't even remorseful. As far as he's concerned, they started it and they got what they deserved.

That doesn't sound very lawful to me. I'd hate to penalize the Paladin, but this is pretty much his attitude towards every situation and it might be time to make him deal with the consequences if this is something that warrants it. He knows how to play a paladin (it's his favorite class to play), so a warning isn't going to remind him of anything he doesn't already know. What do you think?

Your question "does this go against the Paladin Code" aims to solve this issue with in-game methods: the Code is part of the world and any consequences of going against it are also part of the Setting.

But this is a Problem best solved out of game. The Players seems to have an idea what it means to be a Paladin that is probably different from your idea. This mismatch should not tried to be solved by using some form of in-game consequences. From the Players persepective those consequences might seem as unwaranted punishment because they have done nothing wrong (in their view!).

You should talk to the Player, aks what they think what it means to be a Paladin to get their perspective, but also present your point of view. Explain why your view is important for this particular campaign.
Or, if it ISN'T, maybe you should just step back an let the Player do their thing. That doesn't mean that there are no consequences for this incident. Just don't make it a Paladin Problem, make it a General Mudderhobbo Problem.

gijoemike
2018-02-28, 12:04 PM
Did those 10 NPC's clearly state something along these lines?

"Ms. Jenny told us what you bandits did to her. Beating up and robbing an old helpless woman like that, your mothers should have raised you better! We have come here to take back what you stole and teach you a lesson, As up standing citizens we will not take any of your other belongings or your lives. We'll just rough you up a bit and call it even. Leave town and never come back!"

Were the weapons the group had saps and man catchers? If they attacked with daggers and swords they were armed to kill the PCs.


If they didn't, the PC's saw a 2 to 1 sized group of armed men confront them. The group demanded gold and the PC's responded as PCs. They matched how the group approached them. Large intimidating group approached, we draw weapons, don't attack, and show the group we are better at this than they are. The OP clearly states that the group of 10 men escalate the confrontation to violence.

And there are 0 consequences. The PC's were in 100% lawful right to defend themselves and stopped the violence when the group of 10 men surrendered.


Also, This is not Murderhobo-ness. NPCs started a fight after being warned not to.

I vote no fall, or warning, or law enforcement. 1 PC in a zone of truth states the approaching mob clearly stated the fight and no charges will be pressed.

Lord Torath
2018-02-28, 12:42 PM
Does it go against a Paladin Code? There is almost certainly a Paladin Code somewhere that these actions would violate. Does it go against this Specific Paladin's Code? Depends on what's in this Specific Paladin's Code. We need more information.

From what I do know about the situation, I'm pretty much in agreement with GIJoeMike.

Self-Defense is against no Paladin Code that I am aware of, even self-defense against Good attackers. The Paladin and his group did not initiate the conflict. They accepted the surrender of their opponents when offered. This is honorable and presumably legal behavior.

Were there actions they could have taken that could have avoided the bloodshed? Certainly. Could they have responded with non-lethal force? Obviously. And the paladin's religious leader should probably give him a serious talking to about that. But they have done nothing evil, and the paladin should not Fall here.

Does the Paladin's player know what code his actions are bound by? As in, the player has explicitly been given access to a document that explicitly spells out the Paladin's Code of Conduct? If yes, carefully peruse that code to determine if his actions violate it. If not, the Paladin should be in the clear.

Talk to the paladin's player out of the game as Zombiemode suggests to discuss what they understand their Code to mean, and what actions are allowed by it, and which violate it. Ask if they are interested in exploring the morality of these actions. If they are interested, maybe a Fall is appropriate. But I feel that any Falling on the part of a paladin should be done only with the full knowledge and support of that paladin's player (explicit warnings that such-and-such action being considered will lead to falling). Otherwise it feels like the DM is playing "Gotcha!"

dps
2018-02-28, 12:46 PM
Did those 10 NPC's clearly state something along these lines?

"Ms. Jenny told us what you bandits did to her. Beating up and robbing an old helpless woman like that, your mothers should have raised you better! We have come here to take back what you stole and teach you a lesson, As up standing citizens we will not take any of your other belongings or your lives. We'll just rough you up a bit and call it even. Leave town and never come back!"


I think this is a key question. I assume that the NPCs did state something along these lines given the statement that it's stated that the PCs "knew these men made a mistake". If so, the PCs actions were Evil and the Paladin should fall. If it wasn't so clear that the NPCs were acting in error, though, then I'd say that the PCs actions weren't Evil, so no falling.

BTW, I would disagree with the assertion of some posters that the PCs actions were Chaotic. IMO, if the PCs did truly know that the men had made a mistake, their actions were Lawful Evil. Just because you're in a "big city with laws" doesn't mean you give up the right to defend yourself if attacked, and taking advantage of someone's mistake to provoke him to attack you first so you can fight back in self-defense is textbook LE behavior. OTOH, if the PCs didn't truly know that the men had made a mistake, then they were still lawfully defending themselves from an attack--Lawful Stupid in that case, I suppose, but there's nothing in the standard Paladin code that says you have to be smart.

Grek
2018-02-28, 12:51 PM
Detect Evil is not Detect Bad Guy. It detects supernatural evil, which is useless in this situation. It detects Evil Outsiders (none present), Undead (none present), Evil Clerics (none present) and Evil Magic (both dark blessings AND cursed people; neither of which is present). Not bothering with detect evil on humanoids isn't a sign that a paladin is going bad.

The paladin code says nothing about not killing people who attack you. it says not to kill innocents which people trying to stab you are distinctly not. No fall and no more trying to bait the paladin into falling.

Oryan77
2018-02-28, 12:51 PM
I think of it like this:
Ten college students accuse a marine veteran of robbing an old woman and demand that he give them her purse back, when he doesn't, one of them hits him with a 2x4 so the marine kills half of them. He explains to the court that they are "murderers" and he was just defending himself. I don't really think that is going to help his cause. Nor do I think society would be on his side. Killing them is a lot different than beating the crap out of them.

They also never demanded that they hand over their own valuables or their own coin purses. They just demanded that they hand over the woman's coin purse. They also did this in the middle of an open busy street. That's not exactly what I would call a "mugging".

It was obvious to the PCs that these guys were no threat to their level (9th). The PCs were not scared of being outnumbered. They reacted with violence because they were cocky and knew these guys posed no threat. They didn't "defend" themselves because they were worried about being killed. They just used "being outnumbered" as an excuse to kill them. The players also know about nonlethal damage and I was clear when the NPC made a nonlethal attack with the blunt end of his weapon.

I considered if these guys knew he was a paladin, but he crafts his own armor and his choice of attire doesn't make it clear that he's a paladin. He could be mistaken for a cleric, a knight, or just any random soldier. Even so, the fact that the men tried to intimidate them into handing over the purse and the paladin responded back with intimidation and threats rather than diplomacy wouldn't help identify him as a paladin. I determined that nothing about him at the moment made these men feel that they were in the presence of a respected and morally just man any more than they thought they were being themselves. They were honestly trying to help a young woman. Think of the NPCs as bikers at the bar that step outside and see some guys pushing around a helpless girl so they go to her defense and will beat the guy up if necessary. FYI, this was a scenario created for the adventure. I was in no way using this as a test to the paladin code. I wasn't even thinking about it until after the encounter.

I understand PCs are prone to killing anyone that looks at them funny and coming up with any reason to defend the action. Even though the other PCs probably committed murder here, in game context, it could still be a tragic mistake on their part as far as I'm concerned. They are used to being betrayed, fighting evil, fighting neutral monsters, and even fighting CN people from time to time. It was an unexpected situation and it could be looked at as a rash decision on their part in the heat of the moment. I have some legal courtroom drama planned for them just for fun, but I don't think I'll change their alignment for this. The paladin on the other hand is a different matter since he in no way even tried to uphold the city laws or his own moral laws here. He just Judge Dredd'd them. Asking for someone's money back is not exactly breaking any laws.

Thanks for all of the very well thought out responses. I just wanted confirmation that I had a logical and fair reason to deal with the paladin's actions and it looks like I do. I'm not trying to be a vindictive DM and removing his paladin abilities will actually be a burden on my DMing since it screws with the CR of some upcoming tough encounters. I do however want players to uphold the flavor of their class or play something else if they are not willing to do that. Hopefully I can make this an interesting scenario for him to play out so he doesn't feel like I'm simply just trying to screw him over. He killed the NPCs, not me. :smalltongue:

Oryan77
2018-02-28, 01:00 PM
Detect Evil is not Detect Bad Guy. It detects supernatural evil, which is useless in this situation. It detects Evil Outsiders (none present), Undead (none present), Evil Clerics (none present) and Evil Magic (both dark blessings AND cursed people; neither of which is present). Not bothering with detect evil on humanoids isn't a sign that a paladin is going bad.

The paladin code says nothing about not killing people who attack you. it says not to kill innocents which people trying to stab you are distinctly not. No fall and no more trying to bait the paladin into falling.
This is a 3.5/PF game. Detect Evil is not restricted to any of the above. I also never said that not detecting evil is a sign of him going bad. I also specifically said that they attempted to deal nonlethal damage, not stab. I also never claimed to be baiting him into falling.

How about "no more trolling" or "no more baiting me into an argument"?

Mordar
2018-02-28, 01:01 PM
I agree with gijoemike and Sneak Dog based on nothing but the description you have provided. You are right in your impulse to hate the idea of punishing the Paladin.

10 armed men approached with weapons drawn and demanded a specific action. They were not in uniform that suggested authority (City Watch, soldiery of the realm, etc). One of their number launched the initial attack.

Angry men with clubs, blades or pitchforks attacked a smaller number of people. The fact that the smaller number of people was more capable does not change the crime that was committed (by the 10 men). Assuming "normal" fantasy RPG laws, fighting back and killing attackers was not unlawful. Clubbing someone in a modern game would be ADW, even if it was only meant to KO the target. So the Paladin did not violate the law.

The "Good" side of the spectrum is a bit tougher to judge. If he stabbed one of the attackers when they were down or fleeing, maybe you'd have something. But from the description, it doesn't sound that way. Heck, the Paladin may have just been defending his allies, a classic Good move.

Trying to mark the players down for responding to an armed mob with "attitude and intimidation" is a big mistake, I think. Picture any action movie ever. 10 armed guys push up on the heroes, acting tough. There's only going to be one of two responses - attitude and intimidation or ignoring them and walking on. The mob wasn't about to allow the ignoring to happen, so there was only one reasonable expectation of response for that group. Had the mob approached as a group of concerned citizens, weapons sheathed and opened with a more diplomatic presentation things might have been very different. They are the actors, the characters are the respondents.

Now, was it well handled? Nope. Not by the mob and secondarily (and perhaps less so) by the PCs. The mob was mislead, sure...but they were the aggressors and they picked the fight. The PCs could possibly have de-escalated it, but the opening salvo from the mob was "Do what we want or we're going to beat you". Any of the characters, Paladin included, *could* have tried to talk it down, but I think it is a stretch to say that any of them were required to try.

Frankly, I'm a bit concerned this was all set up as a Paladin Trap (tm). Dupe the Paladin into fighting/killing "innocents" to make the Paladin fall. Problems abound, not least of all that the mob acted in a non-lawful fashion (initiating the intimidation and assault instead of going to the City Watch, for instance), and were specifically not "innocent" (they came to fight and literally started the fight). Detect Evil doesn't read as "Learn everything you need to know about the situation and motivations of the target". A group of Chaotic Neutrals (or True Neutral or any other non-evil alignment) can kill you just as dead as an Evil alignment. The actions of the mob directly resulted in the consequence. Any kind of fall for the Paladin here (based exclusively on what you have provided) really comes off to me as an intentional metagame decision by the GM and is, in my opinion, a horrible decision.

Now, there are some questions that could change this around:


In your campaign, specifically this city, would the characters have been brought up on charges for defending themselves against 10 thieves looking to mug them, including specifically killing them?
Is the Paladin a follower of a specific god that includes something along the lines of diplomacy, knowledge or contemplation?
Assuming the party is level 5 or so...certainly at least level 3...what would be your expectation if the group was attacked by a band of 10 goblins that wanted to capture the party alive? Are they to be expected to talk their way out of the fight or go along with the goblins to see what they want?
Did the Paladin character lead the group in the "attitude and intimidation", initiate the killing, do specific acts of malice or savagery, chase down and kill fleeing members of the mob or similar depravity?


If it is known that any fatal violence, even in self-defense is prohibited, the resolution may have been different.

If the Paladin is supposed to be following a peaceful god that promotes understanding and diplomacy over violence, then there is a problem. If it is a standard issue LG god of war, nature, weather...basically anything else up to and including Law/Justice ("by the book" type Law), then I believe there is no alignment, code or deity issue for the Paladin to fall. In fact, for a lot of gods I can think of, his response is perfect. No remorse as they chose their path and the Paladin and party acted within the law. Now if the party specifically learns the whole story, the Paladin should almost certainly want to hunt down the woman for proper justice as well.

The goblin question is about the expectations your game has set up - is it okay to kill one group over the other because despite equal threat they are a non-PC race, or a generally "evil" alignment? Or is it a problem to wipe out 10 creatures that don't represent a real threat to the party? Is combat an acceptable default position when approached and threatened by armed creatures?

If the Paladin reveled in the opportunity to carve up the mob or took advantage of the opportunity to slaughter defenseless (disarmed, down...not just "not good enough to be a threat") people, then there is a problem.

Remember that a Paladin doesn't have to be Superman in their level of "boy scoutiness". Particularly when Superman really isn't threatened by 10 guys with clubs. Even a 5th level paladin *is* at risk. Again, I am assuming a level range of 1-6 or so...if we're talking level 8+, the story might be different. If we're talking level 10+, depending on edition, the story is definitely different. The god or order they follow matters. Do not pigeon-hole the Paladin, and don't be the GM that is always looking for a chance to make them fall. Hold them to the rules and don't allow abuse, but don't be the abuser.

Again, I am not saying the party handled the situation especially well. But they did handle it in a reasonable and defensible fashion for any run-of-the-mill fantasy RPG kingdom. If you have players that default to "beat down the obstacle" you might want to try to work away from throwing up another group of aggressive armed adversaries...because that sure looks like a nail to any hammer.

If you want more nuance, the situation has to be framed differently...and more subtlety. Maybe a little palace intrigue storyline, or an investigation where they can't beat the information out of people. Something that presents layers of interaction and gives a chance for different reasonable responses.

- M


I think of it like this:
Ten college students accuse a marine veteran of robbing an old woman and demand that he give them her purse back, when he doesn't, one of them hits him with a 2x4 so the marine kills half of them. He explains to the court that they are "murderers" and he was just defending himself. I don't really think that is going to help his cause. Nor do I think society would be on his side. Killing them is a lot different than beating the crap out of them.

They also never demanded that they hand over their own valuables or their own coin purses. They just demanded that they hand over the woman's coin purse. They also did this in the middle of an open busy street. That's not exactly what I would call a "mugging".

It was obvious to the PCs that these guys were no threat to their level (9th). The PCs were not scared of being outnumbered. They reacted with violence because they were cocky and knew these guys posed no threat. They didn't "defend" themselves because they were worried about being killed. They just used "being outnumbered" as an excuse to kill them. The players also know about nonlethal damage and I was clear when the NPC made a nonlethal attack with the blunt end of his weapon.

...

Thanks for all of the very well thought out responses. I just wanted confirmation that I had a logical and fair reason to deal with the paladin's actions and it looks like I do. I'm not trying to be a vindictive DM and removing his paladin abilities will actually be a burden on my DMing since it screws with the CR of some upcoming tough encounters. I do however want players to uphold the flavor of their class or play something else if they are not willing to do that. Hopefully I can make this an interesting scenario for him to play out so he doesn't feel like I'm simply just trying to screw him over. He killed the NPCs, not me. :smalltongue:

I have to disagree very strongly. 10 adult men, at least one swinging a 2x4 attack one guy (or 5) and in the process of defending himself kills five of them. As long as he didn't leave the scene and come back hours later with a weapon to do it, or shoot four of them in the back as they ran away, he's absolutely going to walk and he is going to be lauded by a number of people. Calling them murderers wouldn't be accurate, but he is facing clear and present danger, and in most states would be allowed to defend himself with lethal force. Change the situation to elementary school kids and a whiffle ball bat and you have an argument.

The middle of an open busy street further complicates matters...but not in a way that is helpful to your initial position.

Like I said above, level 8+ and I have more of a problem. The party should probably suffer some serious reputation issues for what they did...particularly if any of the slain men had good standing...and that could be used very interestingly in the story. But I still don't see a fall here without the other circumstances. Being pistol whipped is still ADW, even without a shot being fired. The mob needed to go no weapons for the situation to be where you seem to want it.

Find a penalty other than stripping the Paladin powers. Particularly a penalty that directly impacts *all* of the characters. Otherwise is looks like you're singling out the Paladin on a stretch play.


This is a 3.5/PF game. Detect Evil is not restricted to any of the above. I also never said that not detecting evil is a sign of him going bad. I also specifically said that they attempted to deal nonlethal damage, not stab. I also never claimed to be baiting him into falling.

How about "no more trolling" or "no more baiting me into an argument"?

I know you didn't claim to be setting a Paladin Trap (tm), but it kind of seems that you have. Don't pull the trigger.

Oryan77
2018-02-28, 01:09 PM
Did those 10 NPC's clearly state something along these lines?

"Ms. Jenny told us what you bandits did to her. Beating up and robbing an old helpless woman like that, your mothers should have raised you better! We have come here to take back what you stole and teach you a lesson, As up standing citizens we will not take any of your other belongings or your lives. We'll just rough you up a bit and call it even. Leave town and never come back!"

Were the weapons the group had saps and man catchers? If they attacked with daggers and swords they were armed to kill the PCs.
Unfortunately, it wasn't a convenient enough situation for the men to come at them with saps and man catchers. This was a spurt of the moment event, the PCs saw the woman talking to the men and point in their direction. The PCs watched the men approach them from the other side of a busy street.

Basically, the men confronted them similar to your dialogue. Not as well thought out and detailed as that in order to perfectly identify their social standing. I don't think any of us would be that eloquent and clear in this situation. But yes, you're pretty close other than the fact that they brandished weapons in an attempt to intimidate the PCs into just handing over the woman's purse.

FreddyNoNose
2018-02-28, 01:36 PM
What matters is what the DM says in this situation. It is his game and he is the judge. He is not bound by anything anyone here suggests or claims.

Mordar
2018-02-28, 01:38 PM
What matters is what the DM says in this situation. It is his game and he is the judge. He is not bound by anything anyone here suggests or claims.

You do get it is the DM that was asking for advice and suggestions, right? Without even stepping into the mess of it being the "DM's game" and no one elses' (which I mostly agree with from the perspective of judging the implementation of a rule).

Of course Oryan77 isn't required to do anything anyone here suggests. But he did ask.

- M

Berenger
2018-02-28, 01:46 PM
How much do the laws of your fantasy world reflect the ridiculous power of player characters compared to low-level NPC? In other word: is "These ten armed men that tried to knock your lights out were no threat!" a sentence a sane inhabitant of that universe would utter?

Oryan77
2018-02-28, 01:51 PM
In your campaign, specifically this city, would the characters have been brought up on charges for defending themselves against 10 thieves looking to mug them, including specifically killing them?
Is the Paladin a follower of a specific god that includes something along the lines of diplomacy, knowledge or contemplation?
Assuming the party is level 5 or so...certainly at least level 3...what would be your expectation if the group was attacked by a band of 10 goblins that wanted to capture the party alive? Are they to be expected to talk their way out of the fight or go along with the goblins to see what they want?
Did the Paladin character lead the group in the "attitude and intimidation", initiate the killing, do specific acts of malice or savagery, chase down and kill fleeing members of the mob or similar depravity?

The PCs would be questioned about the event and if it was determined that they acted in self defense due to a mugging, sure, they would not be found guilty of murder. Imagine telling a cop, "Well they asked me to hand over an old ladies purse that they accused me of stealing. I kept telling them I didn't take her purse but they wouldn't believe me. So when one of these teenagers swung at me with a baseball bat and missed, I shot and killed half of them until the rest finally gave up."

I did take his god into consideration because he worships Clangeddin and so responding with violence is not unheard of. My concern was less so with it being an evil act and more with it being a lawful/unlawful act. Beating them to unconsciousness and walking away could make perfect sense. I don't expect him to be a goody-2-shoes paladin. Nothing in this scenario though comes off as lawful in his response. Even trying to justify it as a lawful act in regards to his own moral code is hard when you then try to add the "good" descriptor to the lawful alignment. I could see a lawful neutral guy thinking he was being lawful to his own standards, but not LG.

Goblins (99% of the time known to be evil) trying to capture you (who knows what they'll do to you later) is hardly the same as a group of men in a city accusing you of stealing money and demanding that you give it back. I understand why you would ask this but I don't really think it's a fair comparison. I'd say the PCs would attack and kill the goblins 100% of the time and I'd see no reason to question that.

Yes the paladin acts as the group leader and was dishing the attitude right back. I don't have a problem with him using intimidate in an attempt to just scare them off so he can continue on his way. I do however question his paladin status when intimidation isn't working and you don't even bother to try diplomacy to help them understand their mistake. Using your Superman analogy; I agree that he doesn't need to be a boy scout. However, Superman could be confronted by 50 humans with sticks and stones, all of them are demanding that he return the money to the bank (which he didn't take), maybe some of them even throw rocks at him, and he's still not going to fry 25 of them with his eye beams until the rest of them surrender. The PCs were not threatened by being outnumbered. They knew they would overpower them, which is why they responded with intimidation, cockiness, and were ready for a fight.

Grek
2018-02-28, 01:58 PM
This is a 3.5/PF game. Detect Evil is not restricted to any of the above.

It is. Normal evil humanoids need 10+ HD to register on detect evil, and even then the spell doesn't distinguish between "evil serial killer", "LG peasant cursed with boils by an [Evil] spell" and "LG peasant holding flask of unholy water". Read the spell text.

FreddyNoNose
2018-02-28, 01:59 PM
You do get it is the DM that was asking for advice and suggestions, right? Without even stepping into the mess of it being the "DM's game" and no one elses' (which I mostly agree with from the perspective of judging the implementation of a rule).

Of course Oryan77 isn't required to do anything anyone here suggests. But he did ask.

- M

Yes, and what I wrote it still true. Any DM really needs to know what he is doing with his game. What my world would allow is different from his. Plus, you people around here are so sensitive when I suggest my old ways you get upset or report me.

Does he want a Role Playing game or are they doing a lowly we are making a story here type of game. If the latter, talk it with the players about how you are writing the stupid story. If RP, if a Paladin doesn't have to live by any codes and the DM doesn't enforce them, you aren't doing much more than playing a bunch of stats and skills are you? If you want it to be meaningful, it has to have meaning.

What options? Are you teaching the player or punishing the character? If you had been doing it well from the start, there would be learning along the way. Paladins could be warned about their actions at first if they aren't too bad. A cleric of his faith can put a quest spell on him to teach them a lesson. A smart DM would make the quest something appropriate to the lesson being learn and it should take effort. An angry god can take away powers temporarily and give them back when he learns a lesson. The god can remove paladinhood from him, making him a fighter and perhaps shunned/outcast/whatever.

Don't something stupid like make him an anti-paladin. An anti-paladin would be the evil equivalent of a paladin that people are raised and trained to become. That would rewarding the player in some players minds and it would feel like some kind of cheap darth vader ripoff. Oh, if you are running a making a story style then ok, that is just the sort of thing I would expect to see in this style of play.

To the DMs out there. Do you have clarity in what your paladins should do? If you like to have lots of gray areas, you might not want to be too quick to remove paladinhood when you test them.

Pleh
2018-02-28, 02:02 PM
the PCs saw the woman talking to the men and point in their direction. The PCs watched the men approach them from the other side of a busy street.

This feels like a bit more info on the scenario. If they knew she was evil and they saw all this going down, why didn't they cross the street and intervene?

Why do the heroes watch themselves get set up, do nothing to combat the misinformation before things got hostile, participate in the escalation of hostilities, then think that their "self-defense" is justified?

Even Self-Defense can be criminal when "excessive force" is employed. This violence was so unbelievably preventable that defense of these "heroes" is really debatable at best.

From here, it almost seems like they just wanted an excuse to kill random strangers.


Heck, the Paladin may have just been defending his allies, a classic Good move.

Classic "Neutral" move, actually. If you defend your ally from attacks while they busy themselves eating babies alive and prevent good people from stopping the crime, that is hardly a "good" action.

There is nothing inherently "good" about defending your professional partners. "Good" defense falls under defending those who cannot defend themselves (which these murderhoboes clearly COULD).

Helping them was just as much in the Paladin's own interest as it could possibly be charitable. No Good Points scored there.

2D8HP
2018-02-28, 02:14 PM
Here is a scenario....


How about more context, such as what Paladin code?

In RPG's the Paladin class was introduced in La Chanson de Roland the 1975 Dungeons & Dragons "Greyhawk" supplement (which also introduced Thieves hmm... what a coincidence funny that). From "Greyhawk":
Charisma scores of 17 or greater by fighters indicate the possibility of paladin status IF THEY ARE LAWFUL from the commencement of play for the character. If such fighters elect to they can become paladins, always doing lawful deeds, for any chaotic act will immediately revoke the status of paladin, and it can never be regained. The paladin has a number of very powerful aids in his continual seeking for good......"

So from that, if a Paladin didn't "always perform lawful deeds", they were playing the class wrong,

So, the "rules" on alignment and everything else are up to each individual table:

Dungeons and Dragons, The Underground and Wilderness Adventures, p. 36: "... everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it that way."

AD&D 1e, DMG, p. 9: "..The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play...."


AD&D 2E, DMG, p. 3: "At conventions, in letters, and over the phone, I'm often asked for the instant answer to a fine point of the game rules. More often than not, I come back with a question -- what do you feel is right? And the people asking the question discover that not only can they create an answer, but that their answer is as good as anyone else's. The rules are only guidelines."

D&D 3.5 DMG, p. 6: "Good players will always realize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook."


D&D 5e DMG, p. 263:: "...As the Dungeon Master, You aren't limited by the rules in the Player's Handbook, the guidelines in this book, or the selection of monsters in the Monster Manual..."



A History of "Alignment" in Dungeons & Dragons

Part One: The War between Law & Chaos

For the Dungeons & Dragons game, Arneson and Gygax got Law vs. Chaos from stories by Poul Anderson and Michael Moorcock.

Poul Anderson invented Law vs. Chaos in '53 for Three Hearts and Three Lions (which had a Dwarf on the side of Law, and Elves on the side of Chaos, Anderson's Elves were not Tolkien's Elves, though they drew from the same well. The "Ranger" is from Tolkien, the "Paladin" is from Anderson).

Anderson had Law on the side of most of humanity, and "the hosts of Faerie" on the side of Chaos. When Chaos was ascendant latent Lycanthrope became expressed for example.

Michael Moorcock adopted Law vs. Chaos for his Elric stories, and it was his works that were far more known by those of us who played D&D in the 1970's and '80's.

While Moorcock's 1965 novel Stormbringer had the triumph of Chaos being humanity's doom, by '75 he was clear that humanity would suffer under extreme Law as well, and "The Balance" was to be sought.

Okay, in the novel Three Hearts and Three Lions (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hearts_and_Three_Lions) by Poul Anderson,
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/ThreeHeartsAndThreeLions.jpg/220px-ThreeHeartsAndThreeLions.jpg
which was published before and inspired Moorcock's "Law vs. Chaos" conflict in the Elric and Corum novels, and Anderson expressly conflated Holger's struggle against Morgan le Fay and the "Host of Faerie" with the battle against the Nazis in our world.

Now in the 1961 novel (based on a '53 short story) Three Hearts and Three Lions (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/12/pulp-fantasy-gallery-three-hearts-and.html), we have this:

"....Holger got the idea that a perpetual struggle went on between primeval forces of Law and Chaos. No, not forces exactly. Modes of existence? A terrestrial reflection of the spiritual conflict between heaven and hell? In any case, humans were the chief agents on earth of Law, though most of them were so only unconsciously and some, witches and warlocks and evildoers, had sold out to Chaos. A few nonhuman beings also stood for Law. Ranged against them were almost the whole Middle World, which seemed to include realms like Faerie, Trollheim, and the Giants--an actual creation of Chaos. Wars among men, such as the long-drawn struggle between the Saracens and the Holy Empire, aided Chaos; under Law all men would live in peace and order and that liberty which only Law could give meaning. But this was so alien to the Middle Worlders that they were forever working to prevent it and extend their own shadowy dominion....."

.which suggests that Law vs. Chaos is about "teams" in a cosmic struggle rather than personal ethics/morality, which is how the terms are used in the old Stormbringer RPG, and would be my usual preference.

Before D&D, Gygax & Perren had Law vs. Chaos in the Fantasy appendix to the Chainmail wargame:I suppose it waa inevitably when Greyhawk added Paladins that were "continual seeking for good" but I think that adding "Good" and "Evil" to "Alignment" was a mistake, and it was better the way the predecessor of D&D, Chainmail had it as:

"GENERAL LINE-UP:
It is impossible to draw a distanct line between "good" and "evil" fantastic
figures. Three categories are listed below as a general guide for the wargamer
designing orders of battle involving fantastic creatures:

LAW
Hobbits
Dwarves
Gnomes
Heroes
Super Heroes
Wizards*
Ents
Magic Weapons

NEUTRAL
Sprites
Pixies
Elves
Fairies
Lycanthropes *
Giants*
Rocs
(Elementals)
Chimerea


CHAOS
Goblins
Kobolds
Orcs
Anti-heroes
Wizards *
Wraiths
Wights
Lycanthropes*
Ogres
True Trolls
Balrogs
Giants *
Dragons
Basilisks

* Indicates the figure appears in two lists.
Underlined Neutral figures have a slight pre-disposition for LAW. Neutral
figures can be diced for to determine on which side they will fight, with ties
meaning they remain neutral."


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wb-QFUiuEqk/T_x0sXHILMI/AAAAAAAAFME/rEhioR7Tw3I/s280/ch☆nmailalign.jpg

So it was clear that it's sides in a wargame, not an ethics debate.

But the turning of a heavily house ruled Chainmail into what we now call a "role-playing game", brought character behavior in the mix:

Dave Arneson wrote that he added "alignment" to the game he made up because of one PC backstabbing another (http://www.jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/Archive_OLD/rpg2.html)

"We began without the multitude of character classes and three alignments that exists today. I felt that as a team working towards common goals there would be it was all pretty straight forward. Wrong!

"Give me my sword back!" "Nah your old character is dead, it's mine now!"

Well I couldn't really make him give it to the new character. But then came the treasure question. The Thieves question. Finally there were the two new guys. One decided that there was no reason to share the goodies. Since there was no one else around and a +3 for rear attacks . . .. well . . Of course everyone actually KNEW what had happened, especially the target.

After a great deal of discussion . . . yes let us call it "discussion" the culprit promised to make amends. He, and his associate did. The next time the orcs attacked the two opened the door and let the Orcs in. They shared the loot and fled North to the lands of the EGG OF COOT. (Sigh)

We now had alignment. Spells to detect alignment, and rules forbidding actions not allowed by ones alignment. Actually not as much fun as not knowing. Chuck and John had a great time being the 'official' evil players.
They would draw up adventures to trap the others (under my supervision) and otherwise make trouble"

And here's in 1974's Gygax & Arneson's Dungeons & Dragons: Book1, Men & Magic

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MlEVGRiLVK0/T_xGEnCu73I/AAAAAAAAFL4/jalyY-BOFgM/s280/oddalign.jpg

(Orcs can be Neutral as well as Chaos, as can Elves, Dwarves/Gnomes as well as Law, and Men may be any)

And "Law, Chaos, and Neutrality also have common languages spoken by each respectively. One can attempt to communicate through the common tongue, language particular to a creature class, or one of the divisional languages (law, etc.). While not understanding the language, creatures who speak a divisionsl tongue will recognize a hostile one and attack."

Easy "detect alignment"!

Originally there were three classes; "Cleric", "Fighting-Men", and "Magic-User" (as in "wake up the user, it's time to cast the daily spell"). Clerics didn't have any spells at first level, but they could "turn" some undead (a bit like a 5e Paladin really), and other than hints that "Law" Clerics, and "Chaos" Clerics were in conflict, there wasn't much info on what was meant until the Paladin class was introduced in La Chanson de Roland the 1975 "Greyhawk" supplement (which also introduced Thieves hmm... what a coincidence funny that). From "Greyhawk":
Charisma scores of 17 or greater by fighters indicate the possibility of paladin status IF THEY ARE LAWFUL from the commencement of play for the character. If such fighters elect to they can become paladins, always doing lawful deeds, for any chaotic act will immediately revoke the status of paladin, and it can never be regained. The paladin has a number of very powerful aids in his continual seeking for good......".
(Ok this is the fun part the special powers which include......PSYCH! Back to the restrictions)
"Paladins will never be allowed to possess more than four magically items, excluding the armor, shield and up to four weapons they normally use. They will give away all treasure that they win, save that which is neccesary to maintain themselves, their men and a modest castle. Gifts must be to the poor or to charitable or religious institutions , i.e.not tho some other character played in the game. A paladin's stronghold cannot be above 200,000 gold pieces in total cost, and no more than 200 men can be retained to guard it. Paladins normally prefer to dwell with lawful princess of patriarchs, but circumstances may prevent this. They will associate only with lawful characters"
Huh? What's lawful? What's chaotic? What's associate? And what is this charitable? I don't believe PC's know this word. :smallwink:
Well...helpfully there are some clues:
" Chaotic Alignment by a player generally betokens chaotic action on the player's part without any rule to stress this aspect, i.e. a chaotic player is usually more prone to stab even his lawless buddy in the back for some desired gain. However, chaos is just that - chaotic. Evil monsters are as likely to turn on their supposed confederate in order to have all the loot as they are to attack a lawful party in the first place".
OK Paladins are "continual seeking for good", "All thieves are either neutral or chaotic - although lawful characters may hire them on a one-time basis for missions which are basically lawful" "Patriarchs" (high level Clerics) "stance" is "Law", and "Evil High Priests" "stance" is "Chaos". So we can infer that Law = Good, and Chaos = Evil in early D&D, which fits how the terms were used in novels Gygax cited as "inspiration", first in Anderson's "Three Hearts and Three Lions", and than later in Moorcock's "Stormbringer" (though Moorcock eventually in his novels show that too much "Law" is anti-human as well, which is probably why Gygax added the separate Good-Evil axis so you could have "Lawful Evil" and "Chaotic Good" alignmemts later).

I'm gonna stress that I didn't know Anderson's novel when I first played D&D in the very late 1970's, and I'd bet that most other players didn't either, but knowledge of Moorcock's Elric was far more common then, from comic books!:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/S76VaPmTHxI/AAAAAAAAB90/jp_QEn8jKSg/s320/conanelric1.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/S76i4WQ-17I/AAAAAAAAB-E/xdEuV-lr0as/s320/conanelric2-1.jpg

If you've read the "Elric" series, from which D&D "borrowed" much of this, you may remember that Elric visits a "world" (plane/dimension/alternate reality) of "Chaos" and finds a whirling cloud, in-which creatures and objects sometimes flash in and out of existence. He also visits a "world of Law" which is nothing but a grey mist.

Invisible Library [/I] series, in which different worlds (alternate realities) have more or less "Chaos" or "Law".

Heavy Chaos worlds are ruled by the Fey, who are the main antagonists, Law world's are ruled by (often hidden) Dragons, and we are told that while too much Chaos is worse, with too much Law humans are controlled by Dragons and not free.].

Part Two: Enter Good & Evil

1976's Eldrich Wizardry supplement added the Mind Flayers which were the first monters that were explicitly both "lawful" and "evil", and it could be a coincidence but Michael Moorcock in A Quest for Tanelorn wrote:

"[B]Chaos is not wholly evil, surely?" said the child. "And neither is Law wholly good. They are primitive divisions, at best-- they represent only temperamental differences in individual men and women. There are other elements..."
"
..which was published in 1975 in the UK, and 1976 in the USA, and '76 was when Gygax added "good" and "evil" to D&D Alignment in an article that I first read a copy of it in the 1980 "Best of The Dragon" which reprinted the original article in the;
Strategic Review: February 1976 (http://annarchive.com/files/Strv201.pdf)


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/TSvlWfi0wuI/AAAAAAAAC5E/kwE-DYf3GtU/s1600/alignmentchart.jpg

illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KYLvpKSI/AAAAAAAAGrk/gxPmMlYaDIQ/s1600-h/illus1%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KaWTQKmI/AAAAAAAAGrs/EY_aYEhHcvs/s1600-h/n1%5B5%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh4.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KcgaWCfI/AAAAAAAAGr0/cZZSquIxTn4/s1600-h/n2a%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KfERen3I/AAAAAAAAGr8/Sb0VAeS3nKM/s1600-h/N2b%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh4.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KifB_yhI/AAAAAAAAGsI/O4eV2OSXAng/N3_thumb.jpg?imgmax=800)


illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KhU85a1I/AAAAAAAAGsE/nnA-2gMCFyI/s1600-h/N3%5B2%5D.jpg)


illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9Kj5-_N2I/AAAAAAAAGsM/f6v1q8cQDGY/s1600-h/illus2%5B2%5D.jpg)


illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KmQCwDXI/AAAAAAAAGsU/_suYkwtUadA/s1600-h/Illus3%5B2%5D.jpg)






Many questions continue to arise regarding what constitutes a “lawful” act, what sort of behavior is “chaotic”, what constituted an “evil” deed, and how certain behavior is “good”. There is considerable confusion in that most dungeonmasters construe the terms “chaotic” and “evil” to mean the same thing, just as they define “lawful” and “good” to mean the same. This is scarcely surprising considering the wording of the three original volumes of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS. When that was written they meant just about the same thing in my mind — notice I do not say they were synonymous in my thinking at, that time. The wording in the GREYHAWK supplement added a bit more confusion, for by the time that booklet was written some substantial differences had been determined. In fact, had I the opportunity to do D&D over I would have made the whole business very much clearer by differentiating the four categories, and many chaotic creatures would be good, while many lawful creatures would be evil. Before going into the definitions of these four terms, a graphic representation of their relative positions will help the reader to follow the further discourse. (Illustration I)

Notice first that the area of neutrality lies squarely athwart the intersection of the lines which divide the four behavioral distinctions, and it is a very small area when compared with the rest of the graph. This refers to true neutrality, not to neutrality regarding certain interactions at specific times, i.e., a war which will tend to weaken a stronger player or game element regardless of the “neutral” party’s actions can hardly be used as a measure of neutrality if it will benefit the party’s interest to have the weakening come about.

Also note that movement upon this graph is quite possible with regard to campaign participants, and the dungeonmaster should, in fact, make this a standard consideration in play. This will be discussed hereafter.

Now consider the term “Law” as opposed to “Chaos”. While they are nothing if not opposites, they are neither good nor evil in their definitions. A highly regimented society is typically governed by strict law, i.e., a dictatorship, while societies which allow more individual freedom tend to be more chaotic. The following lists of words describing the two terms point this out. I have listed the words describing the concepts in increasing order of magnitude (more or less) as far as the comparison with the meanings of the two terms in D&D is concerned:

Basically, then, “Law” is strict order and “Chaos” is complete anarchy, but of course they grade towards each other along the scale from left to right on the graph. Now consider the terms “Good” and “Evil” expressed in the same manner:

The terms “Law” and “Evil” are by no means mutually exclusive. There is no reason that there cannot be prescribed and strictly enforced rules which are unpleasant, injurious or even corrupt. Likewise “Chaos” and “Good” do not form a dichotomy. Chaos can be harmless, friendly, honest, sincere, beneficial, or pure, for that matter. This all indicates that there are actually five, rather than three, alignments, namely

The lawful/good classification is typified by the paladin, the chaotic/good alignment is typified by elves, lawful/evil is typified by the vampire, and the demon is the epitome of chaotic/evil. Elementals are neutral. The general reclassification various creatures is shown on Illustration II.

Placement of characters upon a graph similar to that in Illustration I is necessary if the dungeonmaster is to maintain a record of player-character alignment. Initially, each character should be placed squarely on the center point of his alignment, i.e., lawful/good, lawful/evil, etc. The actions of each game week will then be taken into account when determining the current position of each character. Adjustment is perforce often subjective, but as a guide the referee can consider the actions of a given player in light of those characteristics which typify his alignment, and opposed actions can further be weighed with regard to intensity. For example, reliability does not reflect as intense a lawfulness as does principled, as does righteous. Unruly does not indicate as chaotic a state as does disordered, as does lawless. Similarly, harmless, friendly, and beneficial all reflect increasing degrees of good; while unpleasant, injurious, and wicked convey progressively greater evil. Alignment does not preclude actions which typify a different alignment, but such actions will necessarily affect the position of the character performing them, and the class or the alignment of the character in question can change due to such actions, unless counter-deeds are performed to balance things. The player-character who continually follows any alignment (save neutrality) to the absolute letter of its definition must eventually move off the chart (Illustration I) and into another plane of existence as indicated. Note that selfseeking is neither lawful nor chaotic, good nor evil, except in relation to other sapient creatures. Also, law and chaos are not subject to interpretation in their ultimate meanings of order and disorder respectively, but good and evil are not absolutes but must be judged from a frame of reference, some ethos. The placement of creatures on the chart of Illustration II. reflects the ethos of this writer to some extent.

Considering mythical and mythos gods in light of this system, most of the benign ones will tend towards the chaotic/good, and chaotic/evil will typify those gods which were inimical towards humanity. Some few would be completely chaotic, having no predisposition towards either good or evil — REH’s Crom perhaps falls into this category. What then about interaction between different alignments? This question is tricky and must be given careful consideration. Diametric opposition exists between lawful/good and chaotic/evil and between chaotic/good and lawful/evil in this ethos. Both good and evil can serve lawful ends, and conversely they may both serve chaotic ends. If we presuppose that the universal contest is between law and chaos we must assume that in any final struggle the minions of each division would be represented by both good and evil beings. This may seem strange at first, but if the major premise is accepted it is quite rational. Barring such a showdown, however, it is far more plausible that those creatures predisposed to good actions will tend to ally themselves against any threat of evil, while creatures of evil will likewise make (uneasy) alliance in order to gain some mutually beneficial end — whether at the actual expense of the enemy or simply to prevent extinction by the enemy. Evil creatures can be bound to service by masters predisposed towards good actions, but a lawful/good character would fain make use of some chaotic/evil creature without severely affecting his lawful (not necessarily good) standing.

This brings us to the subject of those character roles which are not subject to as much latitude of action as the others. The neutral alignment is self-explanatory, and the area of true neutrality is shown on Illustration I. Note that paladins, Patriarchs, and Evil High Priests, however, have positive boundaries. The area in which a paladin may move without loss of his status is shown in Illustration III. Should he cause his character to move from this area he must immediately seek a divine quest upon which to set forth in order to gain his status once again, or be granted divine intervention; in those cases where this is not complied with the status is forever lost. Clerics of either good or evil predisposition must likewise remain completely good or totally evil, although lateral movement might be allowed by the dungeonmaster, with or without divine retribution. Those top-level clerics who fail to maintain their goodness or evilness must make some form of immediate atonement. If they fail to do so they simply drop back to seventh level. The atonement, as well as how immediate it must be, is subject to interpretation by the referee. Druids serve only themselves and nature, they occasionally make human sacrifice, but on the other hand they aid the folk in agriculture and animal husbandry. Druids are, therefore, neutral — although slightly predisposed towards evil actions.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-orkrl_JCxGo/VKMvSEOdLCI/AAAAAAAAC30/BVIa-CwK4Gg/s1600/531001_400433280025300_1590190270_n.jpg

"As a final note, most of humanity falls into the lawful category, and most of lawful humanity lies near the line between good and evil. With proper leadership the majority will be prone towards lawful/good. Few humans are chaotic, and very few are chaotic and evil"

- Gary Gygax

http://hilobrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/gygax-futurama.jpg


So the article added the "good and evil axis", but made clear in this graph:
http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9Kj5-_N2I/AAAAAAAAGsM/f6v1q8cQDGY/s1600/illus2%5B2%5D.jpg

..that creatures don't just exist on one of nine points of ethics/morality, there's a range:

Also in the article (http://themagictreerpg.blogspot.com/2008/09/history-of-alignment-in-d-part-i.html?m=1) Gygax states:

"Placement of characters upon a graph similar to that in Illustration I is necessary if the dungeonmaster is to maintain a record of player-character alignment. Initially, each character should be placed squarely on the center point of his alignment, i.e., lawful/good, lawful/evil, etc. The actions of each game week will then be taken into account when determining the current position of each character. Adjustment is perforce often subjective, but as a guide the referee can consider the actions of a given player in light of those characteristics which typify his alignment, and opposed actions can further be weighed with regard to intensity....

....Alignment does not preclude actions which typify a different alignment, but such actions will necessarily affect the position of the character performing them, and the class or the alignment of the character in question can change due to such actions, unless counter-deeds are performed to balance things."


So in general "Law" was the side of humanity, and "Chaos" was on the side of the supernatural in Anderson and early Moorcock, and very early D&D, but 'Good" and "Evil" complicate matters.

Per Gygax, I infer from that "Alignment" didn't control the PC's actions, PC actions are a guide to what "Alignment" the DM rules a character is for game effects.

So leave the entry blank, and let the DM deal with the alignment claptrap (frankly as a player I'd rather keep a character possessions inventory sheet and foist the "stats" on the DM anyway)!

But oD&D was just "guidelines", nothing was "official" until Advanced Dungeons & Dragons which was a completely different game!
"No royalties for you Arneson! Mine all Mine! Bwahahaha!
Wait, what's that Blume?"
:biggrin:

Part Three: Advanced Dungeons & Dragons

Fitting as a "bridge" between oD&D, and AD&D, the 1977 "Basic Set" had a "5 point Alignment system" (Lawful Good, Lawful Evil, Chaotic Good, Chaotic Evil, and Neutral), but the 1978 Players Handbook had the full "nine-points" that we know today.
CHARACTER ALIGNMENT

Characters may be lawful (good or evil), neutral or chaotic (good or evil). Lawful characters always act according to a highly regulated code of behavior, whether for good or evil. Chaotic characters are quite
unpredictable and can not be depended upon to do anything except the unexpected -- they are often, but not always, evil. Neutral characters, such as all thieves, are motivated by self interest and may steal from their companions or betray them if it is in their own best interest. Players may choose any alignment they want and need not reveal it to others. Note that the code of lawful good characters insures that they would tell everyone that they are lawful. There are some magical items that can be used only by one alignment of characters. If the Dungeon Master feels that a character has begun to behave in a manner inconsistent with his declared alignment he may rule that he or she has changed alignment and penalize the character with a loss of experience points. An example of such behavior would be a "good" character who kills or tortures a prisoner.
https://retrorpg.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/screen-shot-2011-03-10-at-4-43-37-pm.png
So...


ALIGNMENT

After generating the abilities of your character, selecting his or her race, and deciding upon a class, it is necessary to determine the alignment of the character. It is possible that the selection of the class your character will profess has predetermined alignment: a druid is neutral, a paladin is lawful good, a thief can be neutral or evil, an assassin is always evil. Yet, except for druids and paladins, such restrictions still leave latitude - the thief can be lawful neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, chaotic evil, chaotic neutral, neutral, or even neutral good; and the assassin has nearly as many choices. The alignments possible for characters are described below.

Chaotic Evil: The major precepts of this alignment are freedom, randomness, and woe. Laws and order, kindness, and good deeds are disdained. life has no value. By promoting chaos and evil, those of this alignment hope to bring themselves to positions of power, glory, and prestige in a system ruled by individual caprice and their own whims.

Chaotic Good: While creatures of this alignment view freedom and the randomness of action as ultimate truths, they likewise place value on life and the welfare of each individual. Respect for individualism is also great.
By promoting the gods of chaotic good, characters of this alignment seek to spread their values throughout the world.

Chaotic Neutral: Above respect for life and good, or disregard for life and promotion of evil, the chaotic neutral places randomness and disorder.
Good and evil are complimentary balance arms. Neither are preferred, nor must either prevail, for ultimate chaos would then suffer.

Lawful Evil: Creatures of this alignment are great respecters of laws and strict order, but life, beauty, truth, freedom and the like are held as valueless, or at least scorned.
By adhering to stringent discipline, those of
lawful evil alignment hope to impose their yoke upon the world.

Lawful Good: While as strict in their prosecution of law and order, characters of lawful good alignment follow these precepts to improve the common weal. Certain freedoms must, of course, be sacrificed in order to bring order; but truth is of highest value, and life and beauty of great importance. The benefits of this society are to be brought to all.

Lawful Neutral: Those of this alignment view regulation as all-important, taking a middle road betwixt evil and good. This is because the ultimate harmony of the world -and the whole of the universe - is considered by lawful neutral creatures to have its sole hope rest upon law and order. Evil or good are immaterial beside the determined purpose of bringing all to predictability and regulation.

Neutral Evil: The neutral evil creature views law and chaos as unnecessary
considerations, for pure evil is all-in-all. Either might be used, but both are
disdained as foolish clutter useless in eventually bringing maximum evilness to the world.

Neutral Good: Unlike those directly opposite them (neutral evil) in
alignment, creatures of neutral good believe that there must be some regulation in combination with freedoms if the best is to be brought to the world - the most beneficial conditions for living things in general and intelligent creatures in particular.

True Neutral: The "true" neutral looks upon all other alignments as facets
of the system of things. Thus, each aspect - evil and good, chaos and law - of things must be retained in balance to maintain the status quo; for things as they are cannot be improved upon except temporarily, and even
then but superficially. Nature will prevail and keep things as they were meant to be, provided the "wheel" surrounding the hub of nature does not become unbalanced due to the work of unnatural forces - such as
human and other intelligent creatures interfering with what is meant to be.

Naturally, there are all variations and shades of tendencies within each alignment. The descriptions are generalizations only. A character can be basically good in its "true" neutrality, or tend towards evil. It is probable
that your campaign referee will keep a graph of the drift.of your character on the alignment chart. This is affected by the actions (and desires) of your character during the course of each adventure, and will be reflected on the graph. You may find that these actions are such as to cause the declared alignment to be shifted towards, or actually to, some other.

Anyway, the '79 DMG recommended graphing a PC's Alignment, and if they slipped into a new one they'd lose one level of experience, "If the alignment change is involuntary (such as caused by a powerful magic, a curse etc.), then the character can regain all of the losses (level, hit die, etc.) upon returning to his or her former alignment as soon as possible and after making atonement through a cleric of the same alignment - and sacrificing treasure which has a value of not less than 10,000 g.p. per level of experience of the character."

That'll teach those pesky PC's not to stray!

:amused:

Oh and "Until the character has again achieved his or her former level of experience held prior to change of alignment, he or she will not be able to converse in the former alignment's tongue nor will anything but the rudest signalling be possible in the new alignment language."


1e AD&D DM's were always supplied with pizza with the correct toppings!

:wink:

(Not really, I have no memory of those rules ever being used).

Wisely the 1981 "Basic rules" went back to Law/Neutral/Chaos, which was retained in the Alignment
An alignment is a code of behavior or way of
life which guides the actions and thoughts of characters and monsters. There are three alignments in the D&DŪ game: Law, Chaos, and Neutrality. Players may choose the alignments they feel will best fit their characters. A player does not have to tell other players what alignment he or she has picked, but must tell the Dungeon Master. Most Lawful characters will reveal their align-ments if asked. When picking alignments, the characters should know that Chaotics cannot be trusted, even by other Chaotics. A Chaotic character does not work well with other PCs.
Alignments give characters guidelines,to live by. They are not absolute rules: characters will try to follow their alignment guidelines, but may not always be successful. To better understand the philosophies behind them, let's define the three alignments.
Law (or Lawful)
Law is the belief that everything should follow an order, and that obeying rules is the natural way of life. Lawful creatures will try to tell the truth, obey laws that are fair, keep promises, and care for all living things.
If a choice must be made between the benefit of a group or an individual, a Lawful character will usually choose the group. Sometimes individual freedoms must be given up for the good
Lawful characters and monsters often act in predictable ways. Lawful behavior is usually the same as "good" behavior.
Chaos (or Chaotic)
Chaos is the opposite of Law. It is the belief
that life is random and that chance and luck rule the world. Laws are made to be broken, as long as a person can get away with it. It is not important to keep promises, and lying and telling the truth are both useful.
To a Chaotic creature, the individual is the
most important of all things. Selfishness is the normal way of life, and the group is not important. Chaotics often act on sudden desires and whims. They have strong belief in the power of luck. They cannot always be trusted. Chaotic behavior is usually the same as behavior that could be called "evil." Each individual player must decide if his Chaotic character is closer to a mean, selfish "evil" personality or merely a happy-go-lucky, unpredictable personality.
Neutrality (or Neutral)
Neutrality is the belief that the world is a balance between Law and Chaos. It is important that neither side get too much power and upset this balance. The individual is important, but so is the group; the two sides must work together.
A Neutral character is most interested in per-
sonal survival. Such characters believe in their own wits and abilities rather than luck. They tend to return the treatment they receive from others. Neutral characters will join a party if they think it is in their own best interest, but will not be overly helpful unless there is some sort of profit in it. Neutral behavior may be considered "good" or "evil" (or neither).
Alignment Behavior
Take this situation as an example: A group of player characters is attacked by a large number of monsters. Escape is not possible unless the monsters are slowed down.
A Lawful character will fight to protect the
group, regardless of the danger. The character will not run away unless the whole group does so or is otherwise safe.
A Neutral character will fight to protect the
group as long as it is reasonably safe to do so. If the danger is too great, the character will try to save himself, even at the expense of the rest of the party.
A Chaotic character might fight the monsters or he might run away immediately—Chaotics are, as always, unpredictable. The character may not even care what happened to the rest of the party.
Playing an alignment does not mean a character must do stupid things. A character should always act as intelligently as the Intelligence score indicates, unless there is a reason to act otherwise (such as a magical curse).
Alignment Languages
Each alignment has a secret language of passwords, hand signals, and other body motions.
Player characters and intelligent monsters always know their alignment languages. They will also recognize when another alignment language is being spoken, but will not understand it. Alignment languages have no written form. A character may not learn a different alignment language unless he changes alignments. In such a case, the character forgets the old alignment language and starts using the new one immediately....

Unfortunately 'Law' was "usually "Good"', and 'Chaos' was "usually Evil", but "not always".

Because my 2e to 4e books are on a higher shelf than my 0e/1e/5e books, I'll just give you this link (http://www.ruleofcool.com/smf/index.php?topic=691.0) for info on those editions Alignment systems.

For 5e I still see the point of Alignments in the Monster Manual, but now that D&D has dropped ""Alignment Languages", I'm not sure what the point is of players writing one on their character record sheets, as "Ideals", "Flaws", "Bonds", etc. seem to replace "Alignment" as a role-playing aide.

But if your playing some game that has a different meaning of "Paladin Code" than D&D in 1975, it would be helpful to post what it is.

Oryan77
2018-02-28, 02:17 PM
I have to disagree very strongly. 10 adult men, at least one swinging a 2x4 attack one guy (or 5) and in the process of defending himself kills five of them. As long as he didn't leave the scene and come back hours later with a weapon to do it, or shoot four of them in the back as they ran away, he's absolutely going to walk and he is going to be lauded by a number of people. Calling them murderers wouldn't be accurate, but he is facing clear and present danger, and in most states would be allowed to defend himself with lethal force. Change the situation to elementary school kids and a whiffle ball bat and you have an argument.

Well, posting analogies on the internet and having them discredited is nothing new and not surprising. It doesn't matter what analogy I come up with to compare the scenario, people will dig deep to figure out how to discredit it. I don't think I've ever once seen someone on a D&D forum say, "Ya know, that's a good analogy. I have no way to discredit that."Needing to tell them the analogy doesn't work rather than trying to give thought to why it might is usually the gut reaction.

The courts and our laws are not that simple. You're overlooking the fact that these men did not come at him to rob him, but came at him to demand that he gives back some stolen money. You are also overlooking the fact that he's trained in combat while they are not. The marine used a lethal weapon while the men held wooden planks. A cop can't even shoot and kill an obvious criminal without being accused of murdering him. I'm sure the mothers of these "good samaritans" would have something to say with a trained vet killing their kids for mistakenly trying to help out a victimized woman. I think all you're doing is focusing on how much the veteran is the victim and disregarding the point of view of the others. Plus, in the game version, this was a "lawful" "good" person with a particular code of conduct. Lawyers and mothers would be saying, "You should have known better and been able to handle this appropriately! You're a decorated soldier for crying out loud!" Ok, maybe not that dramatic. :smallbiggrin:

Berenger
2018-02-28, 02:26 PM
Ten college students accuse a marine veteran of robbing an old woman and demand that he give them her purse back, when he doesn't, one of them hits him with a 2x4 so the marine kills half of them. He explains to the court that they are "murderers" and he was just defending himself. I don't really think that is going to help his cause. Nor do I think society would be on his side. Killing them is a lot different than beating the crap out of them.
Look, I don't want to insult any marines, but I'm not convinced that an average marine swarmed by ten punks with wooden clubs would be trained or particularly inclined to stifle his defense by playing nice and pulling punches. I also don't think that a typical marine would be okay with being bound and dragged to gods-know-where for some misguided vigilante justice.


The marine used a lethal weapon while the men held wooden planks.
A WOODEN PLANK IS A LETHAL WEAPON IN THE REAL WORLD. It can knock you from "healthy" to "dead" in approximately one second.

Oryan77
2018-02-28, 02:28 PM
It is. Normal evil humanoids need 10+ HD to register on detect evil, and even then the spell doesn't distinguish between "evil serial killer", "LG peasant cursed with boils by an [Evil] spell" and "LG peasant holding flask of unholy water". Read the spell text.
Are you looking at the 3.5 edition SRD or "wronganswers.com" SRD?

Either you're too busy trying to argue and discredit my ability to DM, or you're looking at the wrong SRD. Here:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm

1st Round
Presence or absence of evil. (doesn't matter what the strength of the aura is, what the creature type is, amount of HD, or source of the evil.)

Detecting Aura Power:
Evil creature (HD) 10 or lower (an evil creature with 10 or lower HD is identified to have a "faint" aura)

That's in regards to any evil creature other than undead and outsiders. And knowing is half the battle.

Oryan77
2018-02-28, 02:33 PM
If they knew she was evil and they saw all this going down, why didn't they cross the street and intervene?
They didn't know she was evil. It was a shape changed Succubus. Even if the paladin did a detect evil, I'm pretty sure she was farther than 60-ft and would not be in his radar. He would however know that the 10 men approaching were not evil. Still, the rest of your observations are similar to what I was thinking.

2D8HP
2018-02-28, 02:34 PM
on a D&D forum


Are you looking at the 3.5 edition SRD or "wronganswers.com" SRD?

Either you're too busy trying to argue and discredit my ability to DM, or you're looking at the wrong SRD. Here:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm.


So is this a 3.5 D&D question?

Can you please have the thread moved to the 3.5/D20 Sub Forum, or (if you want answers from those who don't play 3.5) state what that games "Paladin Code" is, please.

Oryan77
2018-02-28, 02:35 PM
A WOODEN PLANK IS A LETHAL WEAPON IN THE REAL WORLD. It can knock you from "healthy" to "dead" in approximately one second.
Now we're arguing semantics.

Corneel
2018-02-28, 02:37 PM
He knows how to play a paladin (it's his favorite class to play),
I'm with about most what you said on this thread, but in view what you told us about this situation, I disagree with this part: your player doesn't know how to play a Paladin. He just knows how to play a fighter with fancy extra powers.

Oryan77
2018-02-28, 02:37 PM
So is this a 3.5 D&D question?

Can you please have the thread moved to the 3.5/D20 Sub Forum, or (if you want answers from those who don't play 3.5) state what that games "Paladin Code" is, please.

No this is not a rules question which is why I didn't post it in the 3.5 board. The other poster was questioning the ruling for some reason.

I'm not asking how detect evil works or how the 3.5 version of a paladin code works. I'm asking if a paladin (pretty universal among editions) committed an unlawful or evil act.

Berenger
2018-02-28, 02:45 PM
Now we're arguing semantics.
No, we're not. The assumption that the attack puts the paladin / marine in no actual danger at all is a cornerstone of your argumentation. The fact that just about everyone can maim, kill or disable just about everyone else with a single blow of baseball bat to the head kind of undermines this assumption. At least if the in-game logic of your world bears any resemblance to the real word, which is a reasonable assumption since you chose RL analogies.

2D8HP
2018-02-28, 02:52 PM
No this is not a rules question which is why I didn't post it in the 3.5 board. The other poster was questioning the ruling for some reason.

I'm not asking how detect evil works or how the 3.5 version of a paladin code works. I'm asking if a paladin (pretty universal among editions) committed an unlawful or evil act.


If it's 0e D&D or 1e AD&D then yes against the Code.

If 5e WotC D&D, then it depends on which PaladinbOath as to whether or not the actions break their code.

Mordar
2018-02-28, 02:56 PM
Well, posting analogies on the internet and having them discredited is nothing new and not surprising. It doesn't matter what analogy I come up with to compare the scenario, people will dig deep to figure out how to discredit it. I don't think I've ever once seen someone on a D&D forum say, "Ya know, that's a good analogy. I have no way to discredit that."Needing to tell them the analogy doesn't work rather than trying to give thought to why it might is usually the gut reaction.

The courts and our laws are not that simple. You're overlooking the fact that these men did not come at him to rob him, but came at him to demand that he gives back some stolen money. You are also overlooking the fact that he's trained in combat while they are not. The marine used a lethal weapon while the men held wooden planks. A cop can't even shoot and kill an obvious criminal without being accused of murdering him. I'm sure the mothers of these "good samaritans" would have something to say with a trained vet killing their kids for mistakenly trying to help out a victimized woman. I think all you're doing is focusing on how much the veteran is the victim and disregarding the point of view of the others. Plus, in the game version, this was a "lawful" "good" person with a particular code of conduct. Lawyers and mothers would be saying, "You should have known better and been able to handle this appropriately! You're a decorated soldier for crying out loud!" Ok, maybe not that dramatic. :smallbiggrin:

I hear ya...but I really think the issue here is the perceived threat. I actually did think of this analogy/idea, and sort of even used it in my initial response but didn't want to go completely "real world" so I kept it at the level of "...in modern games...ADW." I didn't have to dig deep to discredit it (it is a good analogy, but I believe it supports my position, not yours. Heck, brandishing the weapons in many states would allow lethal force response to preserve your own life).

The mob saying "We didn't really want to kill him, only scare him and rough him up" isn't going to get the college *men* out of their responsibility. 10 against 1 without extenuating circumstances (shot 4 in the back while running) is all the support his case will need. Add in the bats or 2x4s and it is even worse. Those are lethal weapons. By the law he is totally going to skate. Same point applies with the D&D example we're discussing. That is why I seriously/jokingly reduced it to 12-year-olds with whiffle ball bats. Because while they could be dangerous, anybody shooting them because they "attacked" him is not getting the same treatment. And while in D&D the 9th level characters (remember, before I knew the level I'd even said 8+ was an extenuating circumstance) are, by metagame, facing the 12-year-olds...by "law" in game they are facing grown men.

I also hear you on the police shooting point, but we'd best stay away from that. We both know there are a ton of other issues in play there. Good Samaritans, perhaps...but choosing the wrong course of action to correct a crime that has already been committed. There is shared culpability there, at the very least. But 10 armed vs 1 (or 5) and those kind of circumstances fall away. Your right to not be threatened or assaulted (or killed) isn't subject to varying degrees of combat readiness.

Remember, I'm with you on the point of it having not been handled *well* and I would be disappointed in my players too. The reputation thing does apply to your analogy as well. The marine/ex cop/MMA star should be tarnished by the degree of the response (again, depending on how the 2nd-5th guy went down and what happened between the initial swing and the end of the fight) and would probably carry some stigma among community-minded groups (and would also be well-regarded by certain other groups).

So make the reputation hit matter. Merchants don't want to do business with these bloodthirsty mercenaries, and it sure would be nice if the Watch could run them out of town...but they didn't do anything against the law...yet. So now the Watch watches them more closely. Some of those people that might have been adventure hooks dry up. They no longer are in line for any "government" commissions. They can be considered badly without having been evil or guilty of a crime.

My point was and remains, Paladin shouldn't fall.1 But the whole party should suffer. And if the Paladin player really is a murder-hobo in holy clothing, he'll give you a proper cause to fall at some point.

- M

1 - Unless there exists a specific code that talks about mercy to lesser enemies, or, as I mentioned, the deity is one that specifically stands for such mercy or diplomacy with combat as a last result.

Kish
2018-02-28, 02:58 PM
No this is not a rules question which is why I didn't post it in the 3.5 board. The other poster was questioning the ruling for some reason.

I'm not asking how detect evil works or how the 3.5 version of a paladin code works. I'm asking if a paladin (pretty universal among editions) committed an unlawful or evil act.
Not universal among editions; 4ed and 5ed have evil paladins. However.

It sounds like you're treating rules knowledge as "these are the laws of physics" knowledge, such that, e.g., a ninth-level d10-hit-dice character should look at an improvised weapon and go "pfft, that could barely hurt me if you were amazingly lucky"--kind of like Superman when faced with a thug with a gun. I'm entirely sympathetic to that position, but it's important to state it rather than assuming it.

That is: Did your players treat it as "they're no threat to us but we have an excuse to slaughter them so we have no reason not to," or did they treat it as, "my character doesn't know from hit points, blunt-force cranial trauma can kill ya"?

PersonMan
2018-02-28, 03:07 PM
Well, posting analogies on the internet and having them discredited is nothing new and not surprising.

Could be that the analogy you chose is one that people (or rather, the people who disagree with you) don't think accurately reflects the situation you want to describe with it?


It doesn't matter what analogy I come up with to compare the scenario, people will dig deep to figure out how to discredit it.

The solution here is probably to just make better analogies. Or at least ones that do require a really deep dig to be rendered nonfunctional, and with a caveat of "yeah I know if you think too much it doesn't work, but it's roughly accurate".

For example, rather than say "college students with 2x4s", I'd say "men with pool noodles", if you want something obviously non-threatening. If someone beats you with a pool noodle, it's not going to be lethal (barring rather unusual circumstances). This is a case where self defense without great escalation (say, smacking them or grabbing the pool noodle and throwing it away or hitting back) is justified, but lethal force is not.


I don't think I've ever once seen someone on a D&D forum say, "Ya know, that's a good analogy. I have no way to discredit that."

I mean, if I just agree with someone, I tend to not post. Anyone who thinks that when they read an analogy is probably not going to post their thoughts.


Needing to tell them the analogy doesn't work rather than trying to give thought to why it might is usually the gut reaction.

The thought as to why it doesn't work seems clear, to me. While we know the people who attacked the PCs in this scenario were not on their level, in-world they could have been. A college student can be assumed to not be especially strong, or even fairly weak, and therefore not pose a great physical threat; but can you assume someone threatening you is going to be far weaker than you are? Especially given the meta assumption that most encounters will be challenging?

FreddyNoNose
2018-02-28, 03:24 PM
No this is not a rules question which is why I didn't post it in the 3.5 board. The other poster was questioning the ruling for some reason.

I'm not asking how detect evil works or how the 3.5 version of a paladin code works. I'm asking if a paladin (pretty universal among editions) committed an unlawful or evil act.

Are you asking because you seriously want an answer? I wonder if what you really want is a debate so you can show everyone how smart you are. If those acts in your game world are evil/chaotic, then they violated their lawful good paladin code. If you run paladins of other alignments or codes or whatever, then I can't answer that.

Oryan77
2018-02-28, 03:34 PM
Could be that the analogy you chose is one that people (or rather, the people who disagree with you) don't think accurately reflects the situation you want to describe with it?
That's my point. If a person doesn't agree with you, regardless of what analogy you use (pool noodle or not), they will find a reason to discredit it in order to continue trying to prove that they are right. I've never seen a person that didn't agree with someone say anything along the lines of, "Good analogy. I can't discredit that. I see the point you are trying to make now." No, they continue trying to disagree, prove you wrong, and break down your analogy. :smalltongue:

Anyway, using your pool noodle analogy, take it a step further and put the marine in a bomb suit (body armor). Give him 3 more fellow marines that also help him kill the 10 college students. Each one of them wearing bullet proof vests and armed with assault rifles. A couple of them have blast shields and grenades, and they kill these students on a public street in front of bystanders running for their lives to escape the carnage. That seems a bit closer to the scenario in my game.

I mean, I had hoped that I didn't need to get that descriptive in my analogy, especially seeing as how even then, I'm sure people that disagree with me will analyze the analogy and still point out the flaws. Really, I usually expect other adults to be rational and open-minded when I'm trying to give a basic analogy to compare my game scenario too. It's just an analogy. I don't expect anyone to spend all day writing and editing until they get the perfect analogy to explain their situation in real world terms. :smallbiggrin:

Oryan77
2018-02-28, 03:39 PM
Are you asking because you seriously want an answer? I wonder if what you really want is a debate so you can show everyone how smart you are. If those acts in your game world are evil/chaotic, then they violated their lawful good paladin code. If you run paladins of other alignments or codes or whatever, then I can't answer that.
Huh? Where did that come from? I'm one of the dumbest people I know. That's why I came here to get responses from people smarter than I am. I appreciate the responses from the people that disagree with penalizing the paladin. I want to make sure I'm not making a mistake and hear input from both sides. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing and nobody from either side is going to "have the answer". I sure can use the input I've received from both sides to make the best judgement possible for our game though.

dps
2018-02-28, 03:44 PM
It was obvious to the PCs that these guys were no threat to their level (9th). The PCs were not scared of being outnumbered. They reacted with violence because they were cocky and knew these guys posed no threat. They didn't "defend" themselves because they were worried about being killed. They just used "being outnumbered" as an excuse to kill them. The players also know about nonlethal damage and I was clear when the NPC made a nonlethal attack with the blunt end of his weapon.

The players know, but do the characters? Well, that's not really even the point. It's more that in real-world terms, I know that it's possible to try to fight someone and not kill them, but I wouldn't necessarily recognize whether someone was trying to kill me or just hurt me. And in the real world, it's also possible to kill someone when you're just trying to subdue them. The point I'm trying to make is that IMO, responding to a physical attack with lethal force is not inherently evil, even if you know the attacker isn't trying to kill you. It's not a Good act, but it's not Evil in-and-of itself, either.


I considered if these guys knew he was a paladin, but he crafts his own armor and his choice of attire doesn't make it clear that he's a paladin. He could be mistaken for a cleric, a knight, or just any random soldier. Even so, the fact that the men tried to intimidate them into handing over the purse and the paladin responded back with intimidation and threats rather than diplomacy wouldn't help identify him as a paladin. I determined that nothing about him at the moment made these men feel that they were in the presence of a respected and morally just man any more than they thought they were being themselves. They were honestly trying to help a young woman. Think of the NPCs as bikers at the bar that step outside and see some guys pushing around a helpless girl so they go to her defense and will beat the guy up if necessary. FYI, this was a scenario created for the adventure. I was in no way using this as a test to the paladin code. I wasn't even thinking about it until after the encounter.

I understand PCs are prone to killing anyone that looks at them funny and coming up with any reason to defend the action. Even though the other PCs probably committed murder here, in game context, it could still be a tragic mistake on their part as far as I'm concerned. They are used to being betrayed, fighting evil, fighting neutral monsters, and even fighting CN people from time to time. It was an unexpected situation and it could be looked at as a rash decision on their part in the heat of the moment. I have some legal courtroom drama planned for them just for fun, but I don't think I'll change their alignment for this. The paladin on the other hand is a different matter since he in no way even tried to uphold the city laws or his own moral laws here. He just Judge Dredd'd them. Asking for someone's money back is not exactly breaking any laws.

Threatening them and then attacking them is, though.

Let me stress again that (IMO) the key question here is whether or not the PCs knew that the men confronting them were acting under the mistaken impression that the PCs had stolen the woman's purse. If they did, then they acted in a Lawful Evil manner, and the Paladin should fall.


Thanks for all of the very well thought out responses. I just wanted confirmation that I had a logical and fair reason to deal with the paladin's actions and it looks like I do. I'm not trying to be a vindictive DM and removing his paladin abilities will actually be a burden on my DMing since it screws with the CR of some upcoming tough encounters. I do however want players to uphold the flavor of their class or play something else if they are not willing to do that. Hopefully I can make this an interesting scenario for him to play out so he doesn't feel like I'm simply just trying to screw him over. He killed the NPCs, not me. :smalltongue:

I would urge that even if the Paladin falls, he should not change alignment over this single Evil act.

denthor
2018-02-28, 03:58 PM
Let's put my current character Mage in here

Blue female half-orc 201 lb 5 ft 6 mage CG

Opening spell would be spectral hand

Second spell would be ghouls touch DC 17 fort save. If failed one paralyzed 41 D6+2 rounds. All others must within 10 feet make same save or -2 to everything for same # of rounds.

Nobody dies. Nobody gets hurt.

If I only have one round to react

spell would be color spray DC 16 will or pass out..


So as an avowed hater of the Paladin class. Yes he falls. The color spay would buy me a round to sort it all out with out loss of life.

Anything else is over kill.

Mordar
2018-02-28, 04:03 PM
That's my point. If a person doesn't agree with you, regardless of what analogy you use (pool noodle or not), they will find a reason to discredit it in order to continue trying to prove that they are right. I've never seen a person that didn't agree with someone say anything along the lines of, "Good analogy. I can't discredit that. I see the point you are trying to make now." No, they continue trying to disagree, prove you wrong, and break down your analogy. :smalltongue:

Anyway, using your pool noodle analogy, take it a step further and put the marine in a bomb suit (body armor). Give him 3 more fellow marines that also help him kill the 10 college students. Each one of them wearing bullet proof vests and armed with assault rifles. A couple of them have blast shields and grenades, and they kill these students on a public street in front of bystanders running for their lives to escape the carnage. That seems a bit closer to the scenario in my game.

I mean, I had hoped that I didn't need to get that descriptive in my analogy, especially seeing as how even then, I'm sure people that disagree with me will analyze the analogy and still point out the flaws. Really, I usually expect other adults to be rational and open-minded when I'm trying to give a basic analogy to compare my game scenario too. It's just an analogy. I don't expect anyone to spend all day writing and editing until they get the perfect analogy to explain their situation in real world terms. :smallbiggrin:

If they are open to discussion (which I am, though I do have an opinion based on the initial presentation), they can at least consider it. And especially in the case of the above, I did. Because that did give me even more pause. That is an excellent description of the relative threat in D&D for this encounter.

But the key difference for me is still the pool noodle vs. 2x4 (I had assumed the mob in game had clubs, but am I to understand they actually had bladed weapons that they were using to try to hilt-bash the PCs?) in a strictly "Law" sense. The 2x4, by modern standards, would almost certainly qualify as a deadly weapon, at least insofar if you intentionally hit someone with it you are facing felony charges instead of misdemeanor. I still hold that the characters acted in a lawful (or at least law-abiding) manner.

It does make me wemble on the Good side though. How does the Paladin place on the "Good" scale in other instances? Helping others out of the goodness of his heart? Defending the weak in a non-combat sense? Looking out for the Greater Good instead of just his purse? Additionally, does he charge headlong into combats with lesser foes knowing that he can't be hurt by them, or does he do it because that is the Paladin thing to do? I know it is hard to tease out the motivation.

In short, I still say no fall...but if there is enough other precedent, I think this could be a tipping point on the non-Good actions side of things.

- M

Oryan77
2018-02-28, 04:04 PM
That is: Did your players treat it as "they're no threat to us but we have an excuse to slaughter them so we have no reason not to,"
That's the impression they gave me at the time. Again, I wouldn't hold this against them. Some people mentioned altering all of their alignments based on that. I wouldn't do that because as others have said (those that disagree with punishing the paladin), it could be seen as a "mistake" and misunderstanding that lead to unfortunate events. As far as they were concerned, they defended themselves. The paladin though is another matter. Sure, he defended himself. But does his code of conduct and LG alignment warrant that line of thinking in this situation? The "having an excuse to slaughter them" attitude causes me to lean towards "yes, take away his paladin abilities". I'm pretty sure that was his attitude.


Let me stress again that (IMO) the key question here is whether or not the PCs knew that the men confronting them were acting under the mistaken impression that the PCs had stolen the woman's purse. If they did, then they acted in a Lawful Evil manner, and the Paladin should fall.

I would urge that even if the Paladin falls, he should not change alignment over this single Evil act.
They saw a peasant girl (young lady) point at them from a distance, the 10 men then looked in their direction, some words were exchanged, and then they confidently marched up the road to confront the PCs. The PCs saw the girl walk away behind a building during the exchange.

This is a scenario from the adventure. Not something that I came up with to challenge their alignments. The girl is a succubus hoping to keep the PCs off her trail and was using these men to eliminate the threat. Neither party knows the power level of each other and the 10 men were armed with swords and lightly armored, but seeing as how it was 10-4, they thought they could scare the PCs into just handing over the girls purse. The 10 men are part of a guild of tough guys, so they are confident guys even if a bit daft.

Perhaps the 10 men, in reality, would have been too intimidated to approach and threaten the well armed/armored PCs. That's the way it played out though.

Oryan77
2018-02-28, 04:07 PM
Let's put my current character Mage in here

Blue female half-orc 201 lb 5 ft 6 mage CG

Opening spell would be spectral hand

Second spell would be ghouls touch DC 17 fort save. If failed one paralyzed 41 D6+2 rounds. All others must within 10 feet make same save or -2 to everything for same # of rounds.

Nobody dies. Nobody gets hurt.

If I only have one round to react

spell would be color spray DC 16 will or pass out..


So as an avowed hater of the Paladin class. Yes he falls. The color spay would buy me a round to sort it all out with out loss of life.

Anything else is over kill.
Not to open up another can of worms, but the caster in the group cast Entanglement a round or two later. Most of the NPCs were entangled and the paladin continued to hack into them. Again, nothing wrong with that if he felt they really were defending themselves. The question is, were they really defending themselves and should the paladin have sought other means than flat out killing them?

Oryan77
2018-02-28, 04:10 PM
In short, I still say no fall...but if there is enough other precedent, I think this could be a tipping point on the non-Good actions side of things.
I appreciate all of your insight and especially the fact you can disagree with me without being a complete douche! Thank you for that!

Believe me, your input is being considered in my final decision. Thanks man!

denthor
2018-02-28, 04:30 PM
So please clarify the Paladin hacked down entangled helpless foes?

Did he make the save against the entanglement when he entered the area? If not that is your failure when you enter a long acting spell like entangle it get everybody and could end combat.

Lord Torath
2018-02-28, 04:57 PM
So ten men armed with deadly weapons (swords and daggers) surrounded the group. They demanded the return of stolen goods. The PCs declined with an insult. The ten men armed with deadly weapons attack. Is there anything in this situation that tells the PCs that these men are not a real threat? Do levels exist as a real thing in this world, ala Goblins (http://goblinscomic.com/comic/02232010)? Or do the players just need to guess at the strength of their opposition? And these guys were part of a guild of local toughs? Unless you gave an explicit sign that these guys were not a threat ("they seem really unfamiliar with their weapons, and they're obviously no threat to you"), self defense using lethal force is justified.


I'm not trying to be a vindictive DM and removing his paladin abilities will actually be a burden on my DMing since it screws with the CR of some upcoming tough encounters. I do however want players to uphold the flavor of their class or play something else if they are not willing to do that. Hopefully I can make this an interesting scenario for him to play out so he doesn't feel like I'm simply just trying to screw him over. He killed the NPCs, not me. :smalltongue:Don't hope. Talk it over with the player out of character. Tell him you are interested in his perspective on his PC's actions, and you want to discuss their ramifications. Be clear about what you hope to achieve through making his character fall.

Keltest
2018-02-28, 05:29 PM
Were I the paladin player in this situation, and you made me fall for this, I would probably leave the game. You may not have intended this as a trap for him, but it certainly smacks of one from a player perspective.

"A group of ruffians comes up and attacks the party, who respond to being attacked as most warriors would." That's all you've really given us, and almost certainly all the players saw happening. They didn't announce themselves as members of the guard, or agents of justice, or anything other than a random combat encounter. The players *maybe* could have figured out that they were not sent after them in good faith, and that they were innocent men being thrown under the bus, but you certainly didn't do anything to help them along before starting that fight.

Oryan77
2018-02-28, 06:17 PM
Were I the paladin player in this situation, and you made me fall for this, I would probably leave the game. You may not have intended this as a trap for him, but it certainly smacks of one from a player perspective.
I didn't make anyone fall for anything. It didn't even occur to me that this could be questioned until after the fight.

If that's how you handle yourself as a player, I'd gladly help you pack up your things and walk you to the door. My friends are a bit more mature than that.



"A group of ruffians comes up and attacks the party, who respond to being attacked as most warriors would." That's all you've really given us, and almost certainly all the players saw happening. They didn't announce themselves as members of the guard, or agents of justice, or anything other than a random combat encounter. The players *maybe* could have figured out that they were not sent after them in good faith, and that they were innocent men being thrown under the bus, but you certainly didn't do anything to help them along before starting that fight.
*sigh
I suggest you go back and read the many long-winded posts I've already made. I'm pretty sure I've mentioned that I gave them a bit more context than "some ruffians come up and attack".

I notice you also said, "most warriors" which means there would be "some" warriors that wouldn't respond by attacking. That wouldn't be a Lawful Good Paladin by any chance would it?

Frozen_Feet
2018-02-28, 06:35 PM
It's right on the edge of what's acceptable from a Paladin. I mean, it's a cleae self-defense scenario: the group of ten acted threateningly, approached with weapons drawn and escalated to violence.

The best arguments you could make against the Paladin is that he should've attempted de-escalation, or that he should've used non-lethal force. But overall, it's not bad enough to justify an alignment shift, so I'd give the Paladin a "yellow card" and only have them fall if they consistently act like this.

The same arguments could legally be made against the other party members, but their case for self-defense is pretty strong.

Everything about the woman is a red herring. At most, she could be implicated as having given false testimony, but this does not free the group of ten from responsibility. It's not smart to approach armed strangers with your weapons drawn, no matter what some pretty girl says. An exception exists if the court blatantly favors locals over strangers, in which situation the player characters might even face capital punishment for having killed citizens illegitimately.

AceOfFools
2018-02-28, 06:46 PM
Given all the information you've given, I would make the paladin fall, but have a trivial atonement.

Like, go to the temple, explain things to the priest, get a lecture about Paladins being held to a higher standard, and be granted a no-strings-attached atonement.

Have the caster make it explicit that a priest, whose oaths are more lax, would not have fallen.

Don't take his powers away for more than an in-game day. A warning, rather than a full punishment.

My 2cp

Mr Beer
2018-02-28, 06:56 PM
I think of it like this:
Ten college students accuse a marine veteran of robbing an old woman and demand that he give them her purse back, when he doesn't, one of them hits him with a 2x4 so the marine kills half of them.

Marine veterans are not level 10 D&D characters. Being surrounded by 10 late-teen/early twenties men who attack you with pieces of 2x4 is a life-threatening situation that would justify lethal responses in many jurisdictions.

Anyway, in the situation as stated I wouldn't have the paladin fall though I would likely warn him and probably warn in game via some kind of divine message (some kind of dream maybe).

What would happen is some kind of consequences about lethal combat in the middle of the town. I'd have the party arrested and have some kind of trial. They would be found innocent I think since they were attacked but there's plenty of opportunity for roleplaying and/or relevant social skill rolls. If the players are flat-out stupid, they may attack law enforcement, which turns this inconvenience into a major threat to their continued existence. Cities don't tolerate murderhobos turning up and murderhobo-ing their guards.

Keltest
2018-02-28, 06:59 PM
I didn't make anyone fall for anything. It didn't even occur to me that this could be questioned until after the fight.

If that's how you handle yourself as a player, I'd gladly help you pack up your things and walk you to the door. My friends are a bit more mature than that. No gaming is better than bad gaming, and friends or not, I have better things I could be doing with my time than allowing myself to be bullied by the DM.



*sigh
I suggest you go back and read the many long-winded posts I've already made. I'm pretty sure I've mentioned that I gave them a bit more context than "some ruffians come up and attack".

I notice you also said, "most warriors" which means there would be "some" warriors that wouldn't respond by attacking. That wouldn't be a Lawful Good Paladin by any chance would it?

I have in fact read them, and my takeaway is that you seem to have vastly overestimated the strength of the signals you believed you were sending out. What exactly did you do to distinguish them as law-abiding citizens and overall decent people rather than thugs coming after them for a hired hit?

And the warriors I was thinking of were those like, say, a group of rogues who have little desire to get in a brawl in the middle of the street. A paladin is under no obligation to show mercy to somebody who came up and started attacking him for a poorly explained reason.

Oryan77
2018-02-28, 07:20 PM
So please clarify the Paladin hacked down entangled helpless foes?

Did he make the save against the entanglement when he entered the area? If not that is your failure when you enter a long acting spell like entangle it get everybody and could end combat.

Sorry, I almost missed your question. I'm trying to respond to as much as I can but I'm getting a bit overwhelmed here. I didn't expect to receive this much help. I'm both surprised and grateful.

If I remember correctly, yes, the Paladin was hacking at entangled foes. Paladins have great saving throws across the board so he was either not entangled or he was not in the area of the spell. I don't remember. I do remember though that he was not taking that as an opportunity to restrain the remainder foes. He kept going for blood.

Again though, if it's perfectly reasonable for a paladin to see this situation as nothing more than him defending himself and expecting these guys to all die in the process, then I'm not worried that he hacked at the entangled foes. I'm just concerned that he probably should have at least tried to avoid bloodshed in this situation and let law enforcement handle it if possible. If it wasn't possible, then sure, defend yourself. He didn't even try though.

The NPCs didn't just come up and attack. There was roleplaying involved and they kept demanding the woman's purse back. They didn't ask for anything else. They didn't claim to be there for any other reason than to help a girl retrieve her stolen money. The paladin wasn't shaking in his boots and worried that these guys might kill him. He was trying to intimidate the guys right back. The NPC only swung at the PCs once they knew that asking for the purse back was going nowhere. It was also made clear that he swung with a nonlethal blow. I described the nonlethal attack and I used the words "nonlethal attack". The full plated paladin was not even struck by the blow. I'm still having a hard time seeing how this paladin would be so afraid for his life that he would feel that killing these men in the middle of the street is the best solution for his safety and the safety of his crew rather than apprehending them and letting the law deal with them.

I'd think that a LG Paladin that knows these guys are falsely accusing him of robbery would do his best to avoid bloodshed. Maybe even volunteer to speak to local authorities in front of these men in hopes that it helps convince them that they are mistakenly accusing him of theft. The paladin has every right to be mad about the men confronting him like that. He doesn't even need to be polite to the 10 men or any officers questioning him if he's bitter about it. He didn't do anything though except go into kill mode. None of his actions in any way say "lawful good" or "paladin-like" to me.


Given all the information you've given, I would make the paladin fall, but have a trivial atonement.
That's what I was thinking about doing. It's not like he does this sort of stuff regularly. I do think that he was being lazy though and disregarding what it means to be a paladin. He wants the power that comes with it but wanted to disregard the code which gives the power. He's seasoned enough as a gamer to know what he did was highly questionable. He would understand my choice regardless of what I do. He's a good player in that sort of way.


What would happen is some kind of consequences about lethal combat in the middle of the town. I'd have the party arrested and have some kind of trial. They would be found innocent I think since they were attacked but there's plenty of opportunity for roleplaying and/or relevant social skill rolls. If the players are flat-out stupid, they may attack law enforcement, which turns this inconvenience into a major threat to their continued existence. Cities don't tolerate murderhobos turning up and murderhobo-ing their guards.
I do have a whole courtroom drama scenario planned out based on this event. It should be fun. It'll probably end in a TPK... I'm kidding.

1337 b4k4
2018-02-28, 07:36 PM
They saw a peasant girl (young lady) point at them from a distance, the 10 men then looked in their direction, some words were exchanged, and then they confidently marched up the road to confront the PCs. The PCs saw the girl walk away behind a building during the exchange.

This is a scenario from the adventure. Not something that I came up with to challenge their alignments. The girl is a succubus hoping to keep the PCs off her trail and was using these men to eliminate the threat. Neither party knows the power level of each other and the 10 men were armed with swords and lightly armored, but seeing as how it was 10-4, they thought they could scare the PCs into just handing over the girls purse. The 10 men are part of a guild of tough guys, so they are confident guys even if a bit daft.

Perhaps the 10 men, in reality, would have been too intimidated to approach and threaten the well armed/armored PCs. That's the way it played out though.

So to reiterate 10, apparently sober and in complete command of their faculties, men of well built stature approach a smaller group of well armed and armored individuals with deadly weapons drawn. They accuse the well armed and armored individuals of a crime those individuals did not commit, and when said well armed and armored individuals are not receptive to the demands of the 10 men wielding deadly weapons then attack the well armed and armored individuals using said deadly weapons. The well armed and armored individuals fight back, employing deadly force, and it isn't until 5 of the 10 men have died that the men stop attacking the individuals using deadly weapons. Presuming this didn't take more than 5 combat rounds, that means the whole thing was over in 30 seconds.

If you put me on a jury, I don't vote to convict. This is nearly a perfect case of self defense, and barring any special laws like a "duty to retreat", meeting lethal force with lethal force is justified behavior, and no one is obligated to keep negotiating while someone assaults them with a deadly weapon. Depending on how many rounds after the entanglement spell went off, you might be able to make a case of unjustified use of force beyond that point, but ONLY if you could convince me that as of the casting of the entanglement spell, the men posed no more of a lethal threat to the individuals.

That takes care of the "lawful" aspect. The "Evil" aspect depends on your paladin's oaths, but most systems specify that a paladin must knowingly and intentionally commit the act in question. Again, depending on the oaths, I don't think a paladin is obligated to case detect evil before defending themselves against deadly force and even if they should, defending one self against deadly force can hardly be considered an evil act regardless of the alignment of the attacker.

Oryan77
2018-02-28, 07:47 PM
No gaming is better than bad gaming, and friends or not, I have better things I could be doing with my time than allowing myself to be bullied by the DM.
Your problem is that you see it as bullying. It's not. It's a human being (hopefully your friend) trying his best to fairly make a judgement call based on the events in the game. Just like a DM is expected to do.

Just because it doesn't go your way doesn't mean the DM is trying to bully you. I also have better things to do with my time than to DM an entitled player.

I understand there are a ton of crappy DMs out there that may bully you, but I'm not one of them and I don't appreciate you insinuating that I am by telling me you'd walk out on me. That serves no other purpose than to troll and try to get under my skin which is all you were attempting to do.

If I was bullying him I would just remove his paladin status and not bother to ask for input here. I thought I was doing him a service by giving it this kind of thought. Oh well.

Keltest
2018-02-28, 07:56 PM
Your problem is that you see it as bullying. It's not. It's a human being (hopefully your friend) trying his best to fairly make a judgement call based on the events in the game. Just like a DM is expected to do.

Just because it doesn't go your way doesn't mean the DM is trying to bully you. I also have better things to do with my time than to DM an entitled player.

I understand there are a ton of crappy DMs out there that may bully you, but I'm not one of them and I don't appreciate you insinuating that I am by telling me you'd walk out on me. That serves no other purpose than to troll and try to get under my skin which is all you were attempting to do.

If I was bullying him I would just remove his paladin status and not bother to ask for input here. I thought I was doing him a service by giving it this kind of thought. Oh well.

Has it occurred to you that your paladin player probably doesn't know youre doing this or how you came to your decision? All he's going to see is the situation that was just resolved and your reaction to it. If that reaction is "the paladin falls" he's going to wonder why exactly he wasn't given a better opportunity to explore the scenario and find an out that didn't involve falling.

Oryan77
2018-02-28, 08:34 PM
the 10 men wielding deadly weapons then attack the well armed and armored individuals using said deadly weapons. The well armed and armored individuals fight back, employing deadly force,
Correct, other than the fact that the PCs knew that the attacker attempted a nonlethal blow with the blunt end of his weapon and missed.

Again, the paladin was not in fear of his life. He wasn't shaking in his boots at the approach of these 10 men. He was fully confident that he could kill all of them (probably even by himself) which is why he was intimidating them right back rather than trying to be sympathetic to their cause and diplomatic about things. I'm not saying he had to be diplomatic. His god may just as well expect him to go for intimidation before diplomacy. Still, he did nothing to even attempt to avoid bloodshed.

What people seem to keep ignoring is the fact that this may as well have been a group of children approaching a grown man and demanding that he give them their mom's money back. The paladin was not worried about his life in this situation.

The players knew the context here and disregarded it. They knew these men posed no threat to them. They knew these men were trying to help a young lady out (who they saw talking to them) and asked for nothing else but her purse back. They knew the first attack was a nonlethal swing rather than a lethal strike (questionable intent here, I know). They didn't care about any of this.

People question assumptions that I may have made and what the player knew. Not much else I can say than you'll just have to believe me that I made it perfectly clear what the context was for this encounter and I know each player understood it themselves. They just didn't care. Which is fine in general and I would expect them to just kill the guys without consequences, up until I realized that a paladin was involved. In fact, the paladin player even bragged about not taking a single point of damage.

People keep making it seem like the PCs saw this as some sort of possible life or death situation, and it wasn't. I don't know how else to get that across other than to make more bad analogies that will be shot down and ridiculed. :smalltongue:

Oryan77
2018-02-28, 09:07 PM
Has it occurred to you that your paladin player probably doesn't know youre doing this or how you came to your decision? All he's going to see is the situation that was just resolved and your reaction to it. If that reaction is "the paladin falls" he's going to wonder why exactly he wasn't given a better opportunity to explore the scenario and find an out that didn't involve falling.
He knows I'm contemplating it because I jokingly razzed him about it a few weeks ago. Even going as far as explaining what he did to a player in our Star Wars game right in front of him. Then that player gave him a hard time about what his paladin did. We had a good time about it. I laughed, the Star Wars player laughed, the paladin player killed both of us in self defense. We had fun.

The paladin player just laughed and tried to justify his actions. He knows it was a questionable act and it could be debated either way. He probably would be bummed if he lost his paladin status but he wouldn't leave the group over it because he's a good player and understands I have a reason to do it even if he doesn't agree with it. Hopefully he would take advantage of the roleplaying opportunity and try to earn his paladin status back. I'm confident that he would.

1337 b4k4
2018-02-28, 10:14 PM
Correct, other than the fact that the PCs knew that the attacker attempted a nonlethal blow with the blunt end of his weapon and missed.

He attacked while armed with a lethal weapon. If someone comes up to you with a rifle, accuses you of a crime you didn't commit and then when you don't do what he wants tries to smash you in the face with the butt first, are you going to wait until he's actually shooting before you fight back with lethal force, or are you going to assume the fact that he's armed with a lethal weapon and assaulting you means he intends to harm you up to and including lethally?



What people seem to keep ignoring is the fact that this may as well have been a group of children approaching a grown man and demanding that he give them their mom's money back. The paladin was not worried about his life in this situation.

They weren't children. They were armed, fully competent adults.


They knew these men posed no threat to them.

They did not know this, nor is it true, unless you are suggesting their swords would not have cut the PCs


They knew these men were trying to help a young lady out (who they saw talking to them) and asked for nothing else but her purse back.

They did not know this either. You stated this conversation took place over 60 feet away in a crowded street. Presumably it wasn't held with shouts so there's no reason for them to have any idea what transpired in the conversation. For all they knew, it was a hit.


They knew the first attack was a nonlethal swing rather than a lethal strike (questionable intent here, I know).

Again, assault with a lethal weapon is lethal force, regardless of whether the intent was lethal.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-02-28, 11:00 PM
I think a lot of people are way off base here. You can't play D&D without a nod towards the mechanics and I'm fully willing to buy that the characters have at least enough concept of "levels" and "hit points" to be able to reasonably declare that certain people pose no threat whatsoever to them. And it sounds like this was the case in this particular situation.

That said, I still wouldn't make him fall. Good doesn't equal "nice". These people were consenting adults who attacked a bunch of people in the middle of the street. It's not your job as the DM to tell people how to play their characters and if this guy's concept of his paladin allows him to cut down a bunch of belligerent idiots until they stop attacking him then who are you to stand in the way? Paladins aren't required to be Jesus. It does seem worth having a chat with him out of character and figuring out what his code of conduct actually is, though.

dps
2018-02-28, 11:07 PM
I think a lot of people are way off base here. You can't play D&D without a nod towards the mechanics and I'm fully willing to buy that the characters have at least enough concept of "levels" and "hit points" to be able to reasonably declare that certain people pose no threat whatsoever to them. And it sounds like this was the case in this particular situation.

That said, I still wouldn't make him fall. Good doesn't equal "nice". These people were consenting adults who attacked a bunch of people in the middle of the street. It's not your job as the DM to tell people how to play their characters and if this guy's concept of his paladin allows him to cut down a bunch of belligerent idiots until they stop attacking him then who are you to stand in the way? Paladins aren't required to be Jesus. It does seem worth having a chat with him out of character and figuring out what his code of conduct actually is, though.

I would strongly suggest that any DM who is going to run a game with a Paladin as one of the PCs get the exact wording of that Paladin's Oath and his Code in writing before running a session, unless you're just going to run a hack-and-slash dungeon crawl type campaign.

FreddyNoNose
2018-03-01, 12:40 AM
I think a lot of people are way off base here. You can't play D&D without a nod towards the mechanics and I'm fully willing to buy that the characters have at least enough concept of "levels" and "hit points" to be able to reasonably declare that certain people pose no threat whatsoever to them. And it sounds like this was the case in this particular situation.

That said, I still wouldn't make him fall. Good doesn't equal "nice". These people were consenting adults who attacked a bunch of people in the middle of the street. It's not your job as the DM to tell people how to play their characters and if this guy's concept of his paladin allows him to cut down a bunch of belligerent idiots until they stop attacking him then who are you to stand in the way? Paladins aren't required to be Jesus. It does seem worth having a chat with him out of character and figuring out what his code of conduct actually is, though.

Again I will say are you running a game where things are fairly clear and spelled out or is it gray. You can cut more slack to the gray.

Sneak Dog
2018-03-01, 06:37 AM
Personally, I'd never let a paladin fall without the player expecting it.

This means first of all talking, out-of-game, to the player about his actions and his code. Get to an understanding, an agreement if need be. This is the actual important bit.

Then, and only then, would I take in-game measures. Paladins are valuable to whatever their patron is. So that patron would love for them to not fall. So they'll give them signals, be it meaningful dreams/nightmares (for example to make them see their actions in their patron's perspective), a peptalk from a high-ranking follower to motivate them to follow the code more strictly or a lightning bolt leaving behind the scriptures of the god. Something along those lines, telling the paladin there's someone looking out for them, but they should look to their code a little bit harder.

Fail again, significantly in not too long of a timespan, and you get a warning. Oi, your patron is serious about this and you need to straighten up, this won't be tolerated.

Fail again and you should know what's coming. (Make sure to talk to your player and make this one a good epic one.) Time to get a new patron, paladin. Have you heard that this other deity might be more on the chaotic good side of things and might have taken an interest in you?

Regardless of at which measure the paladin straightens up again, it makes for a nice storyline.

Pleh
2018-03-01, 06:50 AM
Personally, I'd never let a paladin fall without the player expecting it.

This means first of all talking, out-of-game, to the player about his actions and his code. Get to an understanding, an agreement if need be. This is the actual important bit.

Meh. People who choose the path of the paladin understand its risks and players who play paladin then argue ethics with the DM skirt a perilous line. You're not wrong here, but this answer is still incomplete.


Paladins are valuable to whatever their patron is. So that patron would love for them to not fall. So they'll give them signals, be it meaningful dreams/nightmares (for example to make them see their actions in their patron's perspective), a peptalk from a high-ranking follower to motivate them to follow the code more strictly or a lightning bolt leaving behind the scriptures of the god. Something along those lines, telling the paladin there's someone looking out for them, but they should look to their code a little bit harder.

Fail again, significantly in not too long of a timespan, and you get a warning. Oi, your patron is serious about this and you need to straighten up, this won't be tolerated.

Fail again and you should know what's coming. (Make sure to talk to your player and make this one a good epic one.) Time to get a new patron, paladin. Have you heard that this other deity might be more on the chaotic good side of things and might have taken an interest in you?

Regardless of at which measure the paladin straightens up again, it makes for a nice storyline.

Depends on the patron and their values. Maybe they have a surplus of paladins and don't need this crap from the folks who should know better. Maybe no paladin can be considered more valuable than the tenants of their oath (in fact, I'm rather surprised if this is not the case). Maybe the paladin falls to make an example of them to the world around them

Not to mention that paladins are like an extension of their patron's will. If the paladin is harsh with innocent civilians, how much more will the patron deal severely with servants who step out of line?

Lorsa
2018-03-01, 07:01 AM
I still don't think I got an answer to the question:

Why would people think that a Paladin had stolen money from a peasant woman? Paladins don't do that, and people know it.

There's an opposite end of the paladin code, which is that people know that they are paragons of good, and therefore far above petty stuff like theft.

I mean, if some random person told me "those guys over there stole my money!", and I go there only to find one of them is a Paladin, I'd say "oops, sorry, someone was either mistaken or lying to me".

Florian
2018-03-01, 07:15 AM
I'm totally with Lorsa on this case. A "Paladin" is a thing in most settings, when you're not playing 5E or your group doesn't use some alternative alignments rules. it is a clear an well defined thing.

hamishspence
2018-03-01, 07:27 AM
Even if the guy had responded to "Hand over that woman's purse, she says you stole it from her" with "I'm a paladin, why would I steal purses" - it's not like all paladins "wear their class on their sleeves".

Pleh
2018-03-01, 08:08 AM
I still don't think I got an answer to the question:

Why would people think that a Paladin had stolen money from a peasant woman? Paladins don't do that, and people know it.

There's an opposite end of the paladin code, which is that people know that they are paragons of good, and therefore far above petty stuff like theft.

I mean, if some random person told me "those guys over there stole my money!", and I go there only to find one of them is a Paladin, I'd say "oops, sorry, someone was either mistaken or lying to me".

I don't remember where, but I remember Oryan saying that the Paladin had built rather custom armor that wouldn't be very descriptive. The vigilantes had no reason to believe the person was a Paladin. The verbal interaction seems to have been nothing but:

"I threaten you to make you give back the money."

"I threaten you to make you walk away."

Again, no indication that the men should have thought that anyone present was a Paladin (and how many thieves have already tried getting away with crime by saying, "that can't be true; I'm a paladin.")

Lorsa
2018-03-01, 09:53 AM
Even if the guy had responded to "Hand over that woman's purse, she says you stole it from her" with "I'm a paladin, why would I steal purses" - it's not like all paladins "wear their class on their sleeves".


I don't remember where, but I remember Oryan saying that the Paladin had built rather custom armor that wouldn't be very descriptive. The vigilantes had no reason to believe the person was a Paladin. The verbal interaction seems to have been nothing but:

"I threaten you to make you give back the money."

"I threaten you to make you walk away."

Again, no indication that the men should have thought that anyone present was a Paladin (and how many thieves have already tried getting away with crime by saying, "that can't be true; I'm a paladin.")

I've always figured that in a world filled with magic and divine beings, a "paladin-ness" kind of shins through. Maybe not always at all points, but certainly if someone says "I am a paladin", you can sort of "sense" that it's true (if it is). I am pretty sure the D&D 3.5 Paladin has an "Aura of Good" for example. A Paladin is kind of a special thing, even more special than a Cleric. Sure, it may be my own interpretation, but I kind of figured that for a Paladin to be able to be a beacon of good, hope and courage, they'd need to be recognizable in some way. You can sense the divine nature.

Now, I do agree that the conversation could have been handled better by the group of players, perhaps especially the paladin player. A correct response to the threat would be "What money?".

I think my main point is that it I don't think it's quite right to impose the "paladin falling and losing their powers based on actions" part without also allowing that to come with a positive effect in how people in the world view the paladin. They go together, otherwise a paladin is just a somewhat worse Fighter with some spells.

Pleh
2018-03-01, 10:29 AM
I've always figured that in a world filled with magic and divine beings, a "paladin-ness" kind of shins through. Maybe not always at all points, but certainly if someone says "I am a paladin", you can sort of "sense" that it's true (if it is). I am pretty sure the D&D 3.5 Paladin has an "Aura of Good" for example. A Paladin is kind of a special thing, even more special than a Cleric. Sure, it may be my own interpretation, but I kind of figured that for a Paladin to be able to be a beacon of good, hope and courage, they'd need to be recognizable in some way. You can sense the divine nature.

Now, I do agree that the conversation could have been handled better by the group of players, perhaps especially the paladin player. A correct response to the threat would be "What money?".

I think my main point is that it I don't think it's quite right to impose the "paladin falling and losing their powers based on actions" part without also allowing that to come with a positive effect in how people in the world view the paladin. They go together, otherwise a paladin is just a somewhat worse Fighter with some spells.

I dunno. By RAW, auras are not visible automatically. You have to have special magic to see Auras. It's one thing to wear a Paladin Badge or a holy symbol, but expecting people to "just sense" something that Full Casters have to expend a spell slot to discern (albeit a low level slot) doesn't make much sense to me.

I mean, I go back to the fact that Paladins and Jedi are pretty stinking similar concepts, but most of the time no one recognizes a Jedi until they start using the Force or igniting their lightsaber.

Paladins can be based on Templars, but Templars were often recognized by the bright symbols they wore on their armor. They basically had a flashing sign saying, "I'M A FREAKING TEMPLAR!" This particular Paladin was specifically using less distinct armor.

So Paladins should be free to do whatever evil things they want if they aren't obviously Paladins from a glance?

I still feel its fair to Fall the Paladin on the grounds that they were negligent of their duty to protect the innocent. If the disguised Succubus had used a Domination Spell and the Paladin saw the spell cast, then killed the people anyway, exactly how would you rule that one?

After all, we all know that the Diplomacy/Bluff Skills are often magical in nature in 3.5. It's almost the same effect.

Oryan77
2018-03-01, 11:23 AM
I don't remember where, but I remember Oryan saying that the Paladin had built rather custom armor that wouldn't be very descriptive. The vigilantes had no reason to believe the person was a Paladin. The verbal interaction seems to have been nothing but:

"I threaten you to make you give back the money."

"I threaten you to make you walk away."

Again, no indication that the men should have thought that anyone present was a Paladin (and how many thieves have already tried getting away with crime by saying, "that can't be true; I'm a paladin.")
Yeah, I did mention it in another post, thanks for clarifying that for me.

The PC is never really identified as a paladin on sight based on his attire and general attitude. It's not my doing, it's the players. As far as anyone knows, he could be a fighter, a cleric, a knight, etc, etc. He's also a dwarven king, but chooses not to make it visually obvious that he's royalty. He doesn't even wear a crown. This is all by his choice.

Also, there was more bantering back and forth than that, but it was basically the same repetitive dialogue. Not word by word, but it went something like:

*in the middle of a busy street

"The young lady over there says you stole her coin purse and threatened her because you don't like the deity she serves."

"Get out of here, you have the wrong people."

"Just give us the purse back or we'll have to teach you a lesson!"

"We didn't take her purse! Get out of my way before you get hurt!"

"We ain't lookin' for a fight, but we're going to get her purse back if it means we gotta do this the hard way!"

"Let's do it the hard way then. We didn't take any woman's purse."

*NPC tries to clock the Paladin with the pommel of his sword and terribly misses

PCs cast Slow and Entangle, kill half of the NPCs (even two of them that tried running away). NPCs surrender. PCs had flesh wounds, Paladin was never wounded.

Keltest
2018-03-01, 12:19 PM
"we aint looking for a fight"

and then they proceed to attack the party.

youre giving some rather mixed signals here.

Oryan77
2018-03-01, 12:41 PM
"we aint looking for a fight"

and then they proceed to attack the party.

youre giving some rather mixed signals here.

Not really. When you completely ignore other parts of the dialogue and break it down the way you did, then sure, it sounds pretty ridiculous. I agree.

denthor
2018-03-01, 12:41 PM
I dunno. By RAW, auras are not visible automatically. You have to have special magic to see Auras. It's one thing to wear a Paladin Badge or a holy symbol, but expecting people to "just sense" something that Full Casters have to expend a spell slot to discern (albeit a low level slot) doesn't make much sense to me.

I mean, I go back to the fact that Paladins and Jedi are pretty stinking similar concepts, but most of the time no one recognizes a Jedi until they start using the Force or igniting their lightsaber.

Paladins can be based on Templars, but Templars were often recognized by the bright symbols they wore on their armor. They basically had a flashing sign saying, "I'M A FREAKING TEMPLAR!" This particular Paladin was specifically using less distinct armor.

So Paladins should be free to do whatever evil things they want if they aren't obviously Paladins from a glance?

I still feel its fair to Fall the Paladin on the grounds that they were negligent of their duty to protect the innocent. If the disguised Succubus had used a Domination Spell and the Paladin saw the spell cast, then killed the people anyway, exactly how would you rule that one?

After all, we all know that the Diplomacy/Bluff Skills are often magical in nature in 3.5. It's almost the same effect.


"we aint looking for a fight"

and then they proceed to attack the party.

youre giving some rather mixed signals here.


Pleh you and I have disagreed in the past (not now)does it change your mind knowing later in the same fight the caster immobilized part of the group the paladin made his saves and killed helpless unmoving individuals?

Keltest same question and to you I ask this in a group of random peasants what do you think? Intelligence and wisdom is remember PC are the exception then NPC's are slightly better but they are still average and below. So peasants are less. Assume 7 maybe for the top guy.

They were tricked by a disguised old evil woman they had no way of knowing evil other then by actions. So mixed signals are to be expected. He is a Paladin his only purpose in life is to help those that can not.

Pleh
2018-03-01, 01:12 PM
*NPC tries to clock the Paladin with the pommel of his sword and terribly misses

PCs cast Slow and Entangle, kill half of the NPCs (even two of them that tried running away). NPCs surrender. PCs had flesh wounds, Paladin was never wounded.


Pleh you and I have disagreed in the past (not now)does it change your mind knowing later in the same fight the caster immobilized part of the group the paladin made his saves and killed helpless unmoving individuals?

Keep in mind that Entangled is not the same as Helpless. Entangled creatures may attack and dodge at penalty or move at half speed

Of greater interest is the act of butchering men who

were known to be no actual threat (because the PCs acted with that knowledge)
were known to be acting upon misleading information
were attempting to run away

No amount of arguing, "self defense" applies where the defendants knew they were advantaged, their enemy could be reasoned with, and pursued enemies that disengaged with combat.

Not self defense. Murder.

Keltest
2018-03-01, 01:19 PM
Not really. When you completely ignore other parts of the dialogue and break it down the way you did, then sure, it sounds pretty ridiculous. I agree.

The thing is, the rest of the dialogue doesn't change it. The PC's might, possibly, have settled that diplomatically, but if theyre in the middle of chasing down the succubus, its not unreasonable for them to brush off these ruffians. They said they didn't do it. The ruffians didn't even try and ascertain the truth of that statement, they just continued to demand a purse, and then attacked them. They might have said they weren't looking for a fight, but rather than, say, calling the guard, they decided to resort to their own weapons, and they attacked first. That's extremely shady. Frankly, I think these townspeople are more worthy of an alignment drop than the paladin. They tried to mug a group of people on the word of a stranger.


Pleh you and I have disagreed in the past (not now)does it change your mind knowing later in the same fight the caster immobilized part of the group the paladin made his saves and killed helpless unmoving individuals?

Keltest same question and to you I ask this in a group of random peasants what do you think? Intelligence and wisdom is remember PC are the exception then NPC's are slightly better but they are still average and below. So peasants are less. Assume 7 maybe for the top guy.

They were tricked by a disguised old evil woman they had no way of knowing evil other then by actions. So mixed signals are to be expected. He is a Paladin his only purpose in life is to help those that can not.

Unless he has a specific code that prevents him from slaying incapacitated opponents in open combat, the paladin did nothing wrong. These guys attacked them with dangerous weapons in the middle of the street. upstanding citizens don't, as a rule, do that, that's what guardsmen are for. It was perhaps not the most lawful thing he could have done in the middle of a city, but theyre chasing down a monster, and taking the time to tie up a bunch of would-be thieves and/or murderers, and paladins don't fall for committing a single non-lawful act anyway.

Mordar
2018-03-01, 01:28 PM
Why would people think that a Paladin had stolen money from a peasant woman? Paladins don't do that, and people know it.

There's an opposite end of the paladin code, which is that people know that they are paragons of good, and therefore far above petty stuff like theft.

I mean, if some random person told me "those guys over there stole my money!", and I go there only to find one of them is a Paladin, I'd say "oops, sorry, someone was either mistaken or lying to me".


I'm totally with Lorsa on this case. A "Paladin" is a thing in most settings, when you're not playing 5E or your group doesn't use some alternative alignments rules. it is a clear an well defined thing.


Again, no indication that the men should have thought that anyone present was a Paladin (and how many thieves have already tried getting away with crime by saying, "that can't be true; I'm a paladin.")


I've always figured that in a world filled with magic and divine beings, a "paladin-ness" kind of shins through. Maybe not always at all points, but certainly if someone says "I am a paladin", you can sort of "sense" that it's true (if it is). I am pretty sure the D&D 3.5 Paladin has an "Aura of Good" for example. A Paladin is kind of a special thing, even more special than a Cleric. Sure, it may be my own interpretation, but I kind of figured that for a Paladin to be able to be a beacon of good, hope and courage, they'd need to be recognizable in some way. You can sense the divine nature.

I had never considered things in quite this light and have a position much more along Pleh's point above - if convincing people you're a Paladin means you could fully benefit from our understanding that Paladins are paragons of good and law (in 3.x anyway) and thus would never stoop to a criminal act, all of those good Bluffers would have a pretty easy time of it.

I guess I view it like this - Paladins are rare and special things that people have heard of, but don't really believe in completely and wouldn't recognize outside of their "full" uniform...kind of like professional athletes or megastar actors. We could cross paths with them on a regular day and never know that was Derek Jeter or Scarlet Johansson. Additionally, adults are likely to be a little jaded and "know" that the stories are embellished. Only "real" adventurers would know and bank on Paladins being Paladins...and only those with a lot of experience assessing people would recognize the difference between "wow he seems impressive" and "he emanates Goodness". The beacon-ness, to me, requires action on the Paladin's part (be it leading warriors or helping build a chapel in a tiny village).

All of that said, I would certainly move my opinion if there are rules I am missing or it was set as a special condition for a setting or campaign.


Pleh you and I have disagreed in the past (not now)does it change your mind knowing later in the same fight the caster immobilized part of the group the paladin made his saves and killed helpless unmoving individuals?

Keltest same question and to you I ask this in a group of random peasants what do you think? Intelligence and wisdom is remember PC are the exception then NPC's are slightly better but they are still average and below. So peasants are less. Assume 7 maybe for the top guy.

They were tricked by a disguised old evil woman they had no way of knowing evil other then by actions. So mixed signals are to be expected. He is a Paladin his only purpose in life is to help those that can not.

The killing entangled members of the mob worries me more than most anything else (particularly in a settlement...if it were a wilderness encounter where law enforcement couldn't be easily summoned, less so) about the situation.

I don't think it is fair at all to assume the townsfolk would top out at 7 Int or Wis. They're not bumbling idiots led by one middle-school kid. Additionally, we know that the woman was a Succubus...a being who's entire existence is predicated on tempting men into doing things they *know* they shouldn't be doing and convincing them it will be just fine this time. An awful lot of PCs would fall victim to her lies, so yes, the mob was manipulated, but it was manipulated by a master of the art.

Still, they were not mind controlled and are responsible for their actions and starting the fight.

- M

Kish
2018-03-01, 01:30 PM
PCs do have better stats than NPCs most of the time. That's why they use 4d6 drop lowest instead of 3d6.

There's a great, howling gap between that and "7 is high Intelligence or Wisdom for a commoner." 10-11 is average for NPCs; 18 is one in every 216 first-level commoners; if the DM doesn't bother to generate stats for incidental characters a nameless first-level commoner will have 10 in three of the six ability scores and 11 in the other three.

FreddyNoNose
2018-03-01, 05:22 PM
Meh. People who choose the path of the paladin understand its risks and players who play paladin then argue ethics with the DM skirt a perilous line. You're not wrong here, but this answer is still incomplete.

I don't like his answer. It is almost like the player needs to approve of it. But there are different styles of games and some just want a character with N number of skills/abilities and none responsibility or accountability of it. Paladins and Clerics having to follow their god's rules falls into that "problem" that takes away from their choice. IMO, if you accepted that when you choose to play a Paladin or Cleric.

Not saying people can't play anyway they want.


PCs do have better stats than NPCs most of the time. That's why they use 4d6 drop lowest instead of 3d6.

There's a great, howling gap between that and "7 is high Intelligence or Wisdom for a commoner." 10-11 is average for NPCs; 18 is one in every 216 first-level commoners; if the DM doesn't bother to generate stats for incidental characters a nameless first-level commoner will have 10 in three of the six ability scores and 11 in the other three.

Players look at the bonuses when they say that. 3d6 could still be higher than the average commoner but won't result in bonuses. Playing 3d6 keep as rolled is nice. Players learn to appreciate what a high stats means. Having to deal with a 12 int magic-user was different than getting 16+ all the time. Heck, 9 int magic-user was possible. Also, the average commoner isn't going to gain levels like PCs do.

with a 12 Intelligence you were limited sixth level spells.
Chance to know each listed spell : 45%
Minimum number of spells/level: 5
Maximum number of spells/level: 7

with a 9 Intelligence you were limited fourth level spells.
Chance to know each listed spell : 35%
Minimum number of spells/level: 4
Maximum number of spells/level: 6

And we had fun.

redwizard007
2018-03-02, 05:32 AM
95% of the time I see this question, the answer is "if you are the DM it is LG, but if you are the player it's not." Usually, it's problem players or jerk DMs looking for absolution. This is not one of those cases.

Your players aren't quite murder hobos, but they are headed that way. Break out the city guard. Follow up with real Paladins as needed. Your "paladin" getting smited is going to make a hella impact.

Zombimode
2018-03-02, 05:53 AM
Yeah, I did mention it in another post, thanks for clarifying that for me.

The PC is never really identified as a paladin on sight based on his attire and general attitude. It's not my doing, it's the players. As far as anyone knows, he could be a fighter, a cleric, a knight, etc, etc. He's also a dwarven king, but chooses not to make it visually obvious that he's royalty. He doesn't even wear a crown. This is all by his choice.

Also, there was more bantering back and forth than that, but it was basically the same repetitive dialogue. Not word by word, but it went something like:

*in the middle of a busy street

"The young lady over there says you stole her coin purse and threatened her because you don't like the deity she serves."

"Get out of here, you have the wrong people."

"Just give us the purse back or we'll have to teach you a lesson!"

"We didn't take her purse! Get out of my way before you get hurt!"

"We ain't lookin' for a fight, but we're going to get her purse back if it means we gotta do this the hard way!"

"Let's do it the hard way then. We didn't take any woman's purse."

*NPC tries to clock the Paladin with the pommel of his sword and terribly misses

PCs cast Slow and Entangle, kill half of the NPCs (even two of them that tried running away). NPCs surrender. PCs had flesh wounds, Paladin was never wounded.

If this is really how it went, it's the Players fault all the way. There is not even a hint of defusing the conflict. In fact with every sentence they made it worse.

Glorthindel
2018-03-02, 06:23 AM
I think a lot of people are way off base here. You can't play D&D without a nod towards the mechanics and I'm fully willing to buy that the characters have at least enough concept of "levels" and "hit points".

Sorry, but no. We expect players to not metagame, the same expectation should be held over the DM.

But if, for some reason, the DM is ruling that a player should be able to see level numbers and CR ratings floating over the heads of NPC's like we are in some MMO, then the same should apply to the players, and those NPC's should be seeing the words "LG Paladin" floating over the head of the player, which would likely have informed their behavoir.

Lvl 2 Expert
2018-03-02, 06:51 AM
Sorry, but no. We expect players to not metagame, the same expectation should be held over the DM.

But if, for some reason, the DM is ruling that a player should be able to see level numbers and CR ratings floating over the heads of NPC's like we are in some MMO, then the same should apply to the players, and those NPC's should be seeing the words "LG Paladin" floating over the head of the player, which would likely have informed their behavoir.

Well no, they shouldn't metagame, but the characters do live in a world where they are noticeably stronger and hardier than most people, as evidenced by how they can't be killed by a house cat, while that exact fate has befallen several of their relatives. So from that perspective at some point they do have an idea of what kind of people are reasonably a treat to them or not. Sure, the flip side is that the ten guys with equipment that yells "unimportant level 1 townfolk (but not in quite such metagamey language)" could be highly trained assassins in disguise as common city folk. Or retired adventurers running shops around here. Or dragon-wizards under a dozen powerful spells. So how sure can you ever really be that someone is weak and not a match for you? Not very. But the initial concept of a grown armed man being as non-threatening to you as a puppy would be would not be that strange to a well traveled adventurer. That's simply how the world works. (Unless that whole aspect of the game is supposed to be some sort of balancing mechanism that should definitely not have any kind of physical or story-wise basis in the world itself and high level characters actually have no clue as to how and why they can suddenly handle dragons in a fight, but at many tables it would be true.) We don't expect them to be surprised that orcs exist, after all. Same concept, they grew up in their world, and the rules of their world are normal to them.

Boci
2018-03-02, 06:54 AM
Sorry, but no. We expect players to not metagame, the same expectation should be held over the DM.

Its not metagaming for characters to know that they can become powerful enough that rabble doesn't pose a threat to them anymore. A 9th level martial character can easily have 96 hp. That means that 10 arrows from regular archers with composite +1 strength longbows drains just over half their hp. Hits, so not counting the arrows that miss, however those misses are fluffed. This is an ingame, obersable effect.

Expecting this character to be just as worried about a mob of poorly equipt peasants as a 2nd or 3rd level character is redicolous and would seriously strain any attempts to make the setting feel consistent or alieve.

Lorsa
2018-03-02, 07:38 AM
I dunno. By RAW, auras are not visible automatically. You have to have special magic to see Auras. It's one thing to wear a Paladin Badge or a holy symbol, but expecting people to "just sense" something that Full Casters have to expend a spell slot to discern (albeit a low level slot) doesn't make much sense to me.

I mean, I go back to the fact that Paladins and Jedi are pretty stinking similar concepts, but most of the time no one recognizes a Jedi until they start using the Force or igniting their lightsaber.

Paladins can be based on Templars, but Templars were often recognized by the bright symbols they wore on their armor. They basically had a flashing sign saying, "I'M A FREAKING TEMPLAR!" This particular Paladin was specifically using less distinct armor.

It's a fair point that this particular Paladin tried to be inconspicuous. I hadn't considered that fully and I find it quite surprising that in such a situation one would try to hide the Paladin nature. Most Paladin players I have had have been a lot more obvious (including holy symbols etc).



So Paladins should be free to do whatever evil things they want if they aren't obviously Paladins from a glance?

Obviously not. I never said that. I merely tried to offer another perspective in that a while a Paladin has to adhere to a strict code in order to remain, well, a Paladin, the rest of the world knows that, and as such their virtue (should they be able to prove that they are, indeed, a paladin), should be a lot less in question compared with a random peasant.



I still feel its fair to Fall the Paladin on the grounds that they were negligent of their duty to protect the innocent. If the disguised Succubus had used a Domination Spell and the Paladin saw the spell cast, then killed the people anyway, exactly how would you rule that one?

After all, we all know that the Diplomacy/Bluff Skills are often magical in nature in 3.5. It's almost the same effect.

I do agree that there is no reason whatsoever that a Paladin should let these people die. I mean, they have plenty of healing magic to prevent them from dying, even if their companions start a fight. If you are completely careless in your treatment of other people, you can not be a Paladin anymore.

In the Succubus/Domination case, I obviously wouldn't let the Paladin slaughter all the people. I would find it acceptable if they hit them to negative hit points and then used Lay on Hands to prevent them from dying however.



Yeah, I did mention it in another post, thanks for clarifying that for me.

The PC is never really identified as a paladin on sight based on his attire and general attitude. It's not my doing, it's the players. As far as anyone knows, he could be a fighter, a cleric, a knight, etc, etc. He's also a dwarven king, but chooses not to make it visually obvious that he's royalty. He doesn't even wear a crown. This is all by his choice.

Also, there was more bantering back and forth than that, but it was basically the same repetitive dialogue. Not word by word, but it went something like:

*in the middle of a busy street

"The young lady over there says you stole her coin purse and threatened her because you don't like the deity she serves."

"Get out of here, you have the wrong people."

"Just give us the purse back or we'll have to teach you a lesson!"

"We didn't take her purse! Get out of my way before you get hurt!"

"We ain't lookin' for a fight, but we're going to get her purse back if it means we gotta do this the hard way!"

"Let's do it the hard way then. We didn't take any woman's purse."

*NPC tries to clock the Paladin with the pommel of his sword and terribly misses

PCs cast Slow and Entangle, kill half of the NPCs (even two of them that tried running away). NPCs surrender. PCs had flesh wounds, Paladin was never wounded.

Well, it is clear that the Paladin hardly values the lives of others in this situation. I don't argue against that.

Basically, the whole conversation strikes me as rather weird. Some more Diplomacy skills would be preferential. Were the PCs chasing someone or in a particular rush to get somewhere?

Some pieces of information seem to be missing here though. What deity did the woman claim to serve? How much money did she claim was taken? Did it seem logical that she would carry or posses such amounts (if she looked like a peasant)? Did the PCs otherwise seem well-equipped and rich enough that a few silver coins worth would even seem reasonable to steal?

Basically, I am a bit curious as to what went on in the minds of the NPCs that approached the PCs. Why were they so trusting of this woman? Why didn't they prod further when the PCs said that they hadn't stolen any purse? Weren't they at least a little bit interested in which deity the woman claimed to follow?

Just as the phrase "I didn't steal that purse" can be used by any thief ever, so can the phrase "they stole my purse" be used by any con-artist ever. How come these NPCs were so convinced the woman was right?

Glorthindel
2018-03-02, 08:54 AM
A 9th level martial character can easily have 96 hp. That means that 10 arrows from regular archers with composite +1 strength longbows drains just over half their hp. Hits, so not counting the arrows that miss, however those misses are fluffed. This is an ingame, obersable effect.

Expecting this character to be just as worried about a mob of poorly equipt peasants as a 2nd or 3rd level character is redicolous and would seriously strain any attempts to make the setting feel consistent or alieve.

Hit dice, levels, damage dice, base attack bonuses, all of it, are abstractions, and for a game world to acknowledge their existence steps entirely into the realm of parody. Sure, if you are playing in the Stickverse or the Knights of the Dinner Table setting, with full fourth-wall breaks and tongue-in-cheek humour, then you have a point, but the second you are trying to create a credible medieval world, acknowledging the existence of these things cracks open the verisimilitude of the setting.

I think this is the first time I've ever actually seen someone argue that hit points represent pure meat points, so at least this conversation wins for novelty value.

Corneel
2018-03-02, 08:56 AM
Just as the phrase "I didn't steal that purse" can be used by any thief ever, so can the phrase "they stole my purse" be used by any con-artist ever. How come these NPCs were so convinced the woman was right?Uhm... Succubus? Even without magical charm, I think they can be assumed to have also a significant level of non-magical charm (skill and/or scores).

LewisDTC
2018-03-02, 09:07 AM
... In fact, the paladin isn't even remorseful. As far as he's concerned, they started it and they got what they deserved....
To me, this is probably one of the most important parts. If he had acted rashly then though "Oh crap, I really over reacted there. I feel really bad about the situation and hope my god can forgive me..." I would argue that his line of thinking is still Lawful Good - he just had a lapse in judgement. After repeated occurrences, I would rule it as going against his code. Good people make mistakes: it's when they start using that fact as an excuse that they start slipping away from their alignment.


I'd hate to penalize the Paladin, but this is pretty much his attitude towards every situation and it might be time to make him deal with the consequences if this is something that warrants it. Do it! Take his powers away: let him know that choosing to play a character that acts as an avatar of a god comes with responsibility: including not responding to situations with a 'kill first, ask questions later' attitude. If the god isn't happy with his actions, it has no obligation to keep letting him play with it's toys. Even if he doesn't technically 'fall' I think it would be fair to say that the god starts reigning in the power they give him as a means to teach him a lesson.

If your feeling really cruel (or the god in question is a little bit sadistic or spiteful) then don't even tell him he's lost favor. Wait until he gets wounded and tries to heal himself before letting him know that as he raises his holy symbol, there is no answer. No spell. Just a feeling that he has displeased his deity with his recent actions.

Zombimode
2018-03-02, 10:01 AM
Hit dice, levels, damage dice, base attack bonuses, all of it, are abstractions, and for a game world to acknowledge their existence steps entirely into the realm of parody. Sure, if you are playing in the Stickverse or the Knights of the Dinner Table setting, with full fourth-wall breaks and tongue-in-cheek humour, then you have a point, but the second you are trying to create a credible medieval world, acknowledging the existence of these things cracks open the verisimilitude of the setting.

I think this is the first time I've ever actually seen someone argue that hit points represent pure meat points, so at least this conversation wins for novelty value.


Lets try not to talk past each other. The game Terms are part of the game rules Interface. Characters and other entities are represented by this Interface. That doesn't mean that Levels or Hit Points exist as such in the game world. But those game īterms are representative of something.

Thus, a normal Person will not think something along then lines of: "this Club, after Factoring in my Strength, will do 1d6+1 Points of Damage. Those others guys look like they have some Levels under their belt. That means they have way to many HP for us to defeat them before they slauther us poor 3rd Level Commoners with our 7 HP."

But those relations are still true in the world. Thus many normal persons understand that there are members of humanoid races that possess abilities so much above their own so that they have no hope of defeating them in combat.

Lorsa
2018-03-02, 11:25 AM
Uhm... Succubus? Even without magical charm, I think they can be assumed to have also a significant level of non-magical charm (skill and/or scores).

That piece of information must have fallen out of my head for some reason. Probably because I was caught up in trying to give another perspective.

A succubus is assumed to be able to convince most people of most things.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-03-02, 11:44 AM
Hit dice, levels, damage dice, base attack bonuses, all of it, are abstractions, and for a game world to acknowledge their existence steps entirely into the realm of parody. Sure, if you are playing in the Stickverse or the Knights of the Dinner Table setting, with full fourth-wall breaks and tongue-in-cheek humour, then you have a point, but the second you are trying to create a credible medieval world, acknowledging the existence of these things cracks open the verisimilitude of the setting.

If you're trying to create a credible medieval world then you should start by not playing D&D. If you do pick D&D as a system you are inherently accepting the fact that you're signing up to play a medieval flavoured superhero game with all the weird baggage that comes along with it.

Thrudd
2018-03-02, 11:56 AM
If it was totally obvious to the characters that these men weren't trying to kill them, then you might have an argument. Of course, it's a bad idea to assume that what is obvious to you as DM is obvious to the players.

Being attacked by armed men generally warrants a forceful response, so I don't think you can hold that against him. What should have happened after the first guy was killed was that the rest would run away or surrender, because they know these PC as way out of their league. If the Paladin pursued and killed any that surrendered, that's an immediate fall.

If you think using excessive force against attackers that are outclassed is a punishable offense, then you probably ought to tell the player that the Paladin should always be choosing to deal non-lethal damage against intelligent/humanoid opponents until he is sure that they are strong enough to be an actual threat. Or do you think he's supposed to detect evil on everything before he fights it to see if he can use lethal force? That's not usually how it works, but if you think that's what he's supposed to do, you need to tell him. And who is deciding what is a "real threat"? How are they supposed to know that? Even 1hp of damage can kill a person- knives and clubs are deadly weapons.

I think you, as a DM, need to make more use of enemies that flee or surrender when they are outclassed, in order to make it clear when violence/lethal force is inappropriate. That is a clear line a Paladin can't cross.
Responding to a violent attack with lethal force cannot be held against D&D characters- that is basically all they do.

Pleh
2018-03-02, 12:33 PM
I think you, as a DM, need to make more use of enemies that flee or surrender when they are outclassed, in order to make it clear when violence/lethal force is inappropriate. That is a clear line a Paladin can't cross.
Responding to a violent attack with lethal force cannot be held against D&D characters- that is basically all they do.

He specifically said that these players killed two of the NPCs who gave up and tried to run away. They stopped them and cut them down.

Corneel
2018-03-02, 01:54 PM
If you're trying to create a credible medieval world then you should start by not playing D&D. If you do pick D&D as a system you are inherently accepting the fact that you're signing up to play a medieval flavoured superhero game with all the weird baggage that comes along with it.
Well, if you treat D&D as a superhero game, then the Paladins should surely be the ones that ought to behave as Superman, or at least Batman, and not as the Comedian or Rorschach.

Boci
2018-03-02, 02:19 PM
Hit dice, levels, damage dice, base attack bonuses, all of it, are abstractions

Yes, but they manifest in game observable. Like the fireball burning all commoners to a crisp and leaving the fighter only lightly burned.


Sure, if you are playing in the Stickverse or the Knights of the Dinner Table setting, with full fourth-wall breaks and tongue-in-cheek humour, then you have a point, but the second you are trying to create a credible medieval world, acknowledging the existence of these things cracks open the verisimilitude of the setting.

No, its the other way around.

"Hey, why are we scared of these 8 poorly armed peasants who almost certainly have no combat training? Didn't we just take out a unit of 12 soldiers without breaking much of a sweat? They even managed to ambush us and we still killed most of them and sent the rest fleeing,"

How does the fighter respond to that in a way that maintains the versimultitude of the setting?

You are in fact metagaming, by referencing the real world in a way that the rules of D&D in no way support.


I think this is the first time I've ever actually seen someone argue that hit points represent pure meat points, so at least this conversation wins for novelty value.

Given how important what a weapon is made matters (overcoming damage reduction and regeneration), the fact that sneak attack requires to hit vital organs, and the fluff of fast healing manifesting as wounds knitting themselves together, and a slew of other definite actualy physical damage things like coup de grace...yeah, to put it mildly it is strongly implied that hit points are in fact meat points.

Kelb_Panthera
2018-03-02, 02:44 PM
Here is a scenario:

An evil woman pretends to be a helpless peasant girl. She convinces a group of 10 men that the PCs were discriminating her because she worships a particular deity other than their own and they robbed her of her coin purse and threatened to beat her if she speaks a word of it to anyone. Trying to be local good samaritans, they took it upon themselves to find the PCs, retrieve the purse, and teach the adventurers a lesson.

The men approach with weapons drawn just to make more of an intimidating presence. They confront the PCs, demand the purse back, and since the PCs respond with attitude and intimidation instead of trying to explain their mistake, one of the locals swings at a PC attempting to deal nonlethal damage. The PCs respond in full force and kill half of the men until the rest finally surrender.

This happens in a big city with laws just like any civilized city would have. The PCs were obviously more powerful than these men and one of the PCs is a Paladin. They knew these men made a mistake and were of no threat, but rather than doing what they could to explain their way out of a fight, or try to apprehend the men so that the authorities could sort things out, they killed them. The paladin can detect evil at will and never did. In fact, the paladin isn't even remorseful. As far as he's concerned, they started it and they got what they deserved.

That doesn't sound very lawful to me. I'd hate to penalize the Paladin, but this is pretty much his attitude towards every situation and it might be time to make him deal with the consequences if this is something that warrants it. He knows how to play a paladin (it's his favorite class to play), so a warning isn't going to remind him of anything he doesn't already know. What do you think?

What he did isn't evil but it's really pushing it on the gross violation of the CoC clause. Gotta ask; were the locals' weapons -weapons- or just farm implements and sticks?

In any case, there's a more pressing matter: will the game actually be improved if you press this? Alignment and the CoC are just like any other element of the game: a tool for the telling of stories. Have a talk with the player about -why- he likes playing a paladin. Have one with the whole group about alignment if you want it to feature prominently in your campaign.

This is the big one; if it's not really a problem, just let it go.

FreddyNoNose
2018-03-02, 07:52 PM
He specifically said that these players killed two of the NPCs who gave up and tried to run away. They stopped them and cut them down.

Loose ends are chaotic and paladins are lawful. Just taking care of loose ends...........

j/k

Tajl
2018-03-03, 05:14 AM
Well no, they shouldn't metagame, but the characters do live in a world where they are noticeably stronger and hardier than most people, as evidenced by how they can't be killed by a house cat, while that exact fate has befallen several of their relatives. So from that perspective at some point they do have an idea of what kind of people are reasonably a treat to them or not. Sure, the flip side is that the ten guys with equipment that yells "unimportant level 1 townfolk (but not in quite such metagamey language)" could be highly trained assassins in disguise as common city folk. Or retired adventurers running shops around here. Or dragon-wizards under a dozen powerful spells. So how sure can you ever really be that someone is weak and not a match for you? Not very. But the initial concept of a grown armed man being as non-threatening to you as a puppy would be would not be that strange to a well traveled adventurer. That's simply how the world works. (Unless that whole aspect of the game is supposed to be some sort of balancing mechanism that should definitely not have any kind of physical or story-wise basis in the world itself and high level characters actually have no clue as to how and why they can suddenly handle dragons in a fight, but at many tables it would be true.) We don't expect them to be surprised that orcs exist, after all. Same concept, they grew up in their world, and the rules of their world are normal to them.

I think main problem with that encounter is that those peasants came to intimidate adventurers. That is something that weaklings just doesn't do. if every high level character looks like high level character then player characters would look like high level characters too and low level peasant wouldn't come to intimidate them. If every high level character doesn't look like high level character then those peasants still choose to come intimidate some well armed adventurers and because of that players had good reason to expect that they are not totally helpless. Helpless people just doesn't come to intimidate well armed adventurers, if they would they would have died long before players come to town. So if those peasants would have though that they are helpless peasants they wouldn't have come to intimidate players at first place and then intimidation, why didn't it work? If they were common peasants it should have worked. Problem is that those peasants behaved like they would have been high level characters is disguise.

So those peasants did something that weaklings never do and because of that players had no reason to believe that they are just common peasants.

So I think this is more like lesson for DM, if you want that players treat some people like they were lowly peasants then RP them like lowly peasants. No fall for the paladin and no real legal problems. After all those peasants did attack them. Of course it doesn't mean that those peasants couldn't have some relatives with high influence which would cause problems for players, but generally how that encounter went goes more to the DM than the players.

Corneel
2018-03-03, 07:54 AM
I think main problem with that encounter is that those peasants came to intimidate adventurers. That is something that weaklings just doesn't do. if every high level character looks like high level character then player characters would look like high level characters too and low level peasant wouldn't come to intimidate them. If every high level character doesn't look like high level character then those peasants still choose to come intimidate some well armed adventurers and because of that players had good reason to expect that they are not totally helpless. Helpless people just doesn't come to intimidate well armed adventurers, if they would they would have died long before players come to town. So if those peasants would have though that they are helpless peasants they wouldn't have come to intimidate players at first place and then intimidation, why didn't it work? If they were common peasants it should have worked. Problem is that those peasants behaved like they would have been high level characters is disguise.

So those peasants did something that weaklings never do and because of that players had no reason to believe that they are just common peasants.

So I think this is more like lesson for DM, if you want that players treat some people like they were lowly peasants then RP them like lowly peasants. No fall for the paladin and no real legal problems. After all those peasants did attack them. Of course it doesn't mean that those peasants couldn't have some relatives with high influence which would cause problems for players, but generally how that encounter went goes more to the DM than the players.
It's far more important that those villagers acted as people trying to right a wrong. That should be enough to encourage restraint in the Paladin. If that's not enough he's just a fighter with fancy powers.

Tajl
2018-03-03, 10:37 AM
It's far more important that those villagers acted as people trying to right a wrong. That should be enough to encourage restraint in the Paladin. If that's not enough he's just a fighter with fancy powers.

Those villagers didn't act like peasants. More like common thugs. Common peasants don't start to intimidate armed adventurers and not in any case ever they would start fight with heavily armed adventurers, that just doesn't happen and can't happen. It is like some random girl would talk 10 kids that those 5 armed gang members stole my wallet and then kids would go to intimidate and start fight with far more dangerous opponents. That is impossible and that is problem with that scenario. Only way that it could happen is that those villagers are not common peasant but something else. In RPG there is that RP element and in that case it failed and failed badly, and not for the players.

Boci
2018-03-03, 10:50 AM
Those villagers didn't act like peasants. More like common thugs. Common peasants don't start to intimidate armed adventurers and not in any case ever they would start fight with heavily armed adventurers, that just doesn't happen and can't happen. It is like some random girl would talk 10 kids that those 5 armed gang members stole my wallet and then kids would go to intimidate and start fight with far more dangerous opponents. That is impossible and that is problem with that scenario. Only way that it could happen is that those villagers are not common peasant but something else. In RPG there is that RP element and in that case it failed and failed badly, and not for the players.

But it wasn't a random girl, it was a succubus, who are pretty good at manipulating men.

Tajl
2018-03-03, 11:03 AM
But it wasn't a random girl, it was a succubus, who are pretty good at manipulating men. What kind of manipulation it would take to average man to start fist fight with Antohony Joshua or Klitsko? Even dominate spell says "Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out. "

Corneel
2018-03-03, 12:55 PM
Those villagers didn't act like peasants. More like common thugs. Common peasants don't start to intimidate armed adventurers and not in any case ever they would start fight with heavily armed adventurers, that just doesn't happen and can't happen. It is like some random girl would talk 10 kids that those 5 armed gang members stole my wallet and then kids would go to intimidate and start fight with far more dangerous opponents. That is impossible and that is problem with that scenario. Only way that it could happen is that those villagers are not common peasant but something else. In RPG there is that RP element and in that case it failed and failed badly, and not for the players.
And the party behaved like gang members, which a paladin isn't supposed to do.

Tajl
2018-03-03, 01:16 PM
And the party behaved like gang members, which a paladin isn't supposed to do.

Party defended when they were attacked. Paladin's code doesn't deny self-defence. And of course innocent peasants doesn't walk around intimidating and attacking random adventurers so there is no reason for Paladin to expect that they would be innocent peasants.

People who walk around intimidating and attacking random people are thugs and Paladins kill thugs.

Corneel
2018-03-03, 01:54 PM
Party defended when they were attacked. Paladin's code doesn't deny self-defence. And of course innocent peasants doesn't walk around intimidating and attacking random adventurers so there is no reason for Paladin to expect that they would be innocent peasants.

People who walk around intimidating and attacking random people are thugs and Paladins kill thugs.
The peasants didn't walk around and attacked random people. They confronted what they thought were criminals and clearly stated their business: recovering stolen property, this without attacking. They only attacked after repeatedly being brushed off by the PCs who did nothing to de-escalate the situation and showed all signs off looking for a fight. The peasants didn't behave like thugs, they behaved like "concerned citizens". And even if they were thugs, no, Paladins do not just kill thugs.

In fact the PCs had no reason to suspect the peasants to be thugs, since, again, they stated their business - recovering stolen property - and it was not thug business.

Tajl
2018-03-03, 02:22 PM
The peasants didn't walk around and attacked random people. They confronted what they thought were criminals and clearly stated their business: recovering stolen property, this without attacking. They only attacked after repeatedly being brushed off by the PCs who did nothing to de-escalate the situation and showed all signs off looking for a fight. The peasants didn't behave like thugs, they behaved like "concerned citizens". And even if they were thugs, no, Paladins do not just kill thugs.

In fact the PCs had no reason to suspect the peasants to be thugs, since, again, they stated their business - recovering stolen property - and it was not thug business.

Concerned citizens go to town guards don't start fights. When Paladin says common people that we didn't take it buzz off, common people listen. When heavily armed adventurers say peasants "get out before you get hurt" peasants ****s their pants and run away. And last and most important there is absolutely no chance that normal peasants would ever start fight with heavily armed adventurers. That is just ridiculous.

It is RP thing, if peasants are played like thugs they are treated like thugs. How that situation should have gone is:

"The young lady over there says you stole her coin purse and threatened her because you don't like the deity she serves."

"Get out of here, you have the wrong people."

"Just give us the purse back or we'll have to teach you a lesson!" "Ok we go now."
Maybe they could have gone to talk with town guards after that, but intimidation is not how common peasants deal with dangerous adventurers.

hamishspence
2018-03-03, 02:49 PM
"Get out of here, you have the wrong people."

"Just give us the purse back or we'll have to teach you a lesson!" "Ok we go now."
Maybe they could have gone to talk with town guards after that, but intimidation is not how common peasants deal with dangerous adventurers.

Depends heavily on the setting. If the adventurers are not overtly high level (covered in fancy equipment) and the "peasants" are members of the local militia - they might not be willing to just walk away and take the adventurers' word for it.

icefractal
2018-03-03, 03:19 PM
IMO, obviously ...

There's no failure of Law here, assuming that people are allowed to defend themselves in general. The law doesn't require mercy, or fairness for that matter. A samurai cutting down peasants who insult him is Lawful, for instance.

There is, however, a failure of Good. In that someone Good, especially a Paladin, should not be killing people unnecessarily. Subduing them with force? Sure, go ahead, it might be encouraged to settle things diplomatically but not required when your foes come in swinging. But escalating from non-lethal to lethal, and continuing that path when it became clear that the party was in very little danger - that's not Good.


Re: Threat levels -
While the characters don't think in terms of game stats, they do see the effects. If a 10th level warrior willingly goes toe-to-toe with a 50' tall (moving) stone statue, a giant spider demon whose claws can rip through metal, or a ten-headed fire-breathing hydra ... and expects to have a decent chance to win, as opposed to fleeing in terror or grimly walking forward toward inevitable death so others have time to escape ... then that person does know they're beyond what we think of (IRL) as normal human limits.

Similarly, if yesterday the Paladin fought several dozen orc berserkers without taking anything more than flesh wounds, then yes, they should reasonably expect that some local militia are probably not a huge threat.


Re: Meat points -
It's not such an off-the-wall interpretation. If you say that HP represent a bunch of different factors and characters are 'really' no tougher than IRL, then you have a lot of edge cases to patch:
* Injury poison and other 'specifically draws blood' abilities.
* Things like harpoons that are even more specific about it.
* AoEs where there was nowhere to dodge and nothing to hide behind.
* Why it's harder to heal a high-level character who's only winded / scratched than to heal a low-level character that's on death's door.
* You pretty much have to describe each case of injury differently depending on the situation, even if it's from the exact same type of cause.

On the other hand, if you treat HP as literally greater toughness, then you only have one single discontinuity:
* High-level characters are superhuman.

So if that one isn't a deal-breaker for you, meat-points have a lot to recommend them.

Tajl
2018-03-03, 03:20 PM
Depends heavily on the setting. If the adventurers are not overtly high level (covered in fancy equipment) and the "peasants" are members of the local militia - they might not be willing to just walk away and take the adventurers' word for it.

If they are common peasants any adventurer is too high level.

Corneel
2018-03-03, 03:42 PM
Concerned citizens go to town guards don't start fights. When Paladin says common people that we didn't take it buzz off, common people listen. When heavily armed adventurers say peasants "get out before you get hurt" peasants ****s their pants and run away. And last and most important there is absolutely no chance that normal peasants would ever start fight with heavily armed adventurers. That is just ridiculous.

It is RP thing, if peasants are played like thugs they are treated like thugs. How that situation should have gone is:

"The young lady over there says you stole her coin purse and threatened her because you don't like the deity she serves."

"Get out of here, you have the wrong people."

"Just give us the purse back or we'll have to teach you a lesson!" "Ok we go now."
Maybe they could have gone to talk with town guards after that, but intimidation is not how common peasants deal with dangerous adventurers.
Again they are not played as thugs, at best irresponsible idiots. Peasants act as idiots. Gosh, what a surprise.

A paladin is supposed to be a paragon of good and law. And yes, going to the town guards is the logical option. So why the friggin' heck doesn't the Paladin propose that? So the answer "Get out of here, you have the wrong people." is exactly where the Paladin's fall starts.

ETA: the burden to act responsibly should not be on some hicks, it should be on the guy who is supposed to be the paragon of good and law.

Keltest
2018-03-03, 09:30 PM
Again they are not played as thugs, at best irresponsible idiots. Peasants act as idiots. Gosh, what a surprise.

A paladin is supposed to be a paragon of good and law. And yes, going to the town guards is the logical option. So why the friggin' heck doesn't the Paladin propose that? So the answer "Get out of here, you have the wrong people." is exactly where the Paladin's fall starts.

ETA: the burden to act responsibly should not be on some hicks, it should be on the guy who is supposed to be the paragon of good and law.

First of all, yes, they were played as thugs. They tried to use threat of force (and then actual force) to take the law into their own hands at the behest of a patron. They operated outside the bounds of the law (no, assaulting people for a good reason does not make it not assault) in a violent fashion. They made no effort to report an alleged crime to the legitimate authorities. They might be idiots, but they are also thugs. Well meaning thugs, but thugs none the less.

Secondly, on an intelligence scale, this is about as bad an idea as charging a fortified gun emplacement with nothing but combat knives. There is no scenario where this results in any sort of victory for those doing the charging. Its just not feasible. Even a random peasant should recognize that their unarmored rear stands no chance against the guy in full plate, even if he "just" looks like a garden variety knight instead of a Fist of Justice. Again, combat knife versus gun emplacement.

Thirdly, a paladin is responsible for their own behavior. Allegedly good men who can be persuaded into attack random people on the word of a stranger aren't actually all that good. Allegedly innocent people who attack others in the middle of the street are not innocent. The party is not responsible for this group throwing themselves on the party's swords, and they certainly aren't obligated to hold back against a targeted mugging.

Boci
2018-03-03, 09:42 PM
First of all, yes, they were played as thugs. They tried to use threat of force (and then actual force) to take the law into their own hands at the behest of a patron. They operated outside the bounds of the law (no, assaulting people for a good reason does not make it not assault) in a violent fashion. They made no effort to report an alleged crime to the legitimate authorities. They might be idiots, but they are also thugs. Well meaning thugs, but thugs none the less.

By modern standards, sure. In the middle ages? It was expected that peasants would occassionally take the law into their own hands. Depending on their location, it might be the default.

Its one of the problems of D&D's blending of mideval and modern odeologies, it can lead to two ways of reading a situation.

Keltest
2018-03-03, 09:48 PM
By modern standards, sure. In the middle ages? It was expected that peasants would occassionally take the law into their own hands. Depending on their location, it might be the default.

Its one of the problems of D&D's blending of mideval and modern odeologies, it can lead to two ways of reading a situation.

As a rule of thumb, no they did not, unless they were backed into a corner. If they caught a thief in their house, they might chase him out with a pitchfork, but they didn't go attacking suspected criminals in the street with no evidence, especially if they were armed and dangerous looking.

And if youre going to argue historical precedent, most peasants didn't carry weapons with them about their day, beyond maybe a knife or something.

Boci
2018-03-03, 09:56 PM
As a rule of thumb, no they did not, unless they were backed into a corner.

I'm pretty sure they did. Police didn't exist back then. The lcoal authority was often the land lord, who could live a day's travel away, and likely didn't care.


And if youre going to argue historical precedent, most peasants didn't carry weapons with them about their day, beyond maybe a knife or something.

That's another good point. D&D isn't a blend of two things: modern morality and mideval morality, its a mix of three things: modern morality, midevial morality, and what people think medical morality was.

Keltest
2018-03-03, 10:04 PM
I'm pretty sure they did. Police didn't exist back then. The lcoal authority was often the land lord, who could live a day's travel away, and likely didn't care.

A lord had soldiers and guards who policed his realm, its not like anything outside the castle was lawless territory. True, he wouldn't scour the countryside for somebody who stole a loaf of bread, but then, neither would peasants. Bandits and other marauders were significantly more dangerous, and the lord would in fact actively take steps to hunt them down, both out of a sense of obligation and because his livelihood depended on the peasants in a very real way, and having somebody out burning and murdering them is a Bad Thing.

Having said that, anybody remotely well equipped would basically slaughter peasants in a fight unless the peasants were prepared and seriously outnumbered the marauders. The fact of the matter was, equipment was the deciding factor in those confrontations 99 times out of 100.

Boci
2018-03-03, 10:09 PM
A lord had soldiers and guards who policed his realm, its not like anything outside the castle was lawless territory.

Again, depending on where, no, no they didn;t. Soliders were levied in times of war and wouldn't be a thing otherwise, and guards could be rare, especially for a lesser noble or one fallen on hard times. His house would be guarded. His realm patrol? Less certain.


The fact of the matter was, equipment was the deciding factor in those confrontations 99 times out of 100.

That statistic seems suspect. Training and moral sound like they would be important too. How do you determine wehat won a battle? Seems like there'd rarely be a control fight where equipment was the only variable.

Keltest
2018-03-03, 10:16 PM
Again, depending on where, no, no they didn;t. Soliders were levied in times of war and wouldn't be a thing otherwise, and guards could be rare, especially for a lesser noble or one fallen on hard times. His house would be guarded. His realm patrol? Less certain.
What sort of crimes are you imagining taking place out in the middle of the countryside, exactly, that would require a violent and immediate response, that also wouldn't grab the attention of the lord?



That statistic seems suspect. Training and moral sound like they would be important too. How do you determine wehat won a battle? Seems like there'd rarely be a control fight where equipment was the only variable.

To be clear, by "those confrontations" I meant between marauders and villagers. Wearing a suit of chainmail and having a sword made it extremely difficult for unarmored opponents to kill you. You wouldn't even have to be particularly skilled, because chainmail with a gambeson and helmet left a majority of your body protected in such a way that you could be far, far more aggressive, and make more mistakes, than a peasant armed with, say, a woodcutting axe. Even if they had a sword on their person, which would be implausible if theyre out in the countryside, theyre going to have their hands full not being sliced to ribbons.

Boci
2018-03-03, 10:23 PM
What sort of crimes are you imagining taking place out in the middle of the countryside, exactly, that would require a violent and immediate response, that also wouldn't grab the attention of the lord?

Someone stabs someone? The lords not going to care about a single stabbing of a peasant, but the others in the settlement will. Even if the lord does care, if they live a day away, they're not going to know, and there and back is 2 days, so it seems like peasants would be better suited handling that themselves.


To be clear, by "those confrontations" I meant between marauders and villagers. Wearing a suit of chainmail and having a sword made it extremely difficult for unarmored opponents to kill you. You wouldn't even have to be particularly skilled

That sounds like such a contrived scenario, and pretty hard to prove. How do you imagine this scenario presents itself? You have a guy in chainmail, not particularly skilled, against an unarmed guy?

Keltest
2018-03-03, 10:31 PM
Someone stabs someone? The lords not going to care about a single stabbing of a peasant, but the others in the settlement will. Even if the lord does care, if they live a day away, they're not going to know, and there and back is 2 days. Ok, first, what kind of settlement are you imagining? Are we talking farmland where the nearest neighbor is half a mile away, or a town at a crossroads with an inn? For the former, the peasants are unlikely to know about the stabbing in order to react to it. In the latter, there will be some administrator responsible for administering justice.




That sounds like such a contrived scenario, and pretty hard to prove. How do you imagine this scenario presents itself? You have a guy in chainmail, not particularly skilled, against an unarmed guy?
Yes? Have you not heard of banditry? Someone begs, buys or steals a hauberk and sword, and suddenly theyre five times as dangerous as the peasant woodcutter theyre menacing. get a group of them, and any town without an active militia and at least a few minutes warning is getting overrun. The lord notices, sends some men to hunt the marauders down, and the peasants stop being involved after pointing the way they ran off.

Boci
2018-03-03, 10:36 PM
Ok, first, what kind of settlement are you imagining? Are we talking farmland where the nearest neighbor is half a mile away, or a town at a crossroads with an inn?

Why are the two options you are offering a single farm and a fully developed town?


Someone begs, buys or steals a hauberk and sword, and suddenly theyre five times as dangerous as the peasant woodcutter theyre menacing.

Certainly sounds plausible, but you're presenting this as fact, in which case, citation needed.

Keltest
2018-03-03, 10:56 PM
Why are the two options you are offering a single farm and a fully developed town? Because that wasn't a rhetorical question, I wanted an actual answer. What kind of settlement are you imagining?




Certainly sounds plausible, but you're presenting this as fact, in which case, citation needed.

Theres kind of a lot of history behind various armor and weapons, but the basic principal was that the more metal you were wearing, the harder it was to outright kill you. Duels between knights in full plate were as much contests to see who could knock the other down first as they were actually attempts to injure their opponent with their weapon. You can see it in the evolution of shields as well; as armor got more protective and sophisticated, shields got smaller and were used less often. They just didn't offer any additional protection, and the second hand was better used holding your weapon.

Its a fascinating subject, IMO, and I cant really do it justice in a forum thread. I highly recommend you look into it yourself, because its really cool if you have any interest in the historical aspect of these things. There is a lot of it though.

The long and short of it was, swords don't cut through full plate, like, at all. Its just not a thing that would happen. Go figure, armor actually protected people. Chain armor was weaker, and you could actually stab somebody through it, or cut them if the weapon was heavy enough, but as the following video mentions a few times, the guy wearing that armor is rather unlikely to let you do what you need to line up that strike, and chain was just as good at protecting from slashing attacks as plate was. If you didn't have armor yourself, he could basically do whatever he wanted to you.

https://youtu.be/osTQrJ_axfc?t=117

It starts partway through where they try to puncture some thin plate with a sword, but they go over a couple other ways to not fight a person in armor as well, as well as some things that actually did work a bit.

Berenger
2018-03-04, 06:30 AM
I'm pretty sure they did. Police didn't exist back then. The lcoal authority was often the land lord, who could live a day's travel away, and likely didn't care.
Up to and including early modern times, "police" in europe typically consisted of a posse of all able-bodied men of good standing, led and organized by local authorities. For this reason, there was often a legal obligation to own weapons (and sometimes armor). Of course, this totally doesn't work with D&D because armed commoners are obviously laughable childlike non-threats as established in this thread, so these ten guys can't possibly have been part of such a posse.

hamishspence
2018-03-04, 06:46 AM
If it was Star Wars, one commoner would have knocked the paladin to the ground, stood over them with club close to neck, and said "The purse. The lady says you stole it."

These guys are, if anything, showing restraint compared to Rey, who we're supposed to sympathise with as the protagonist.

Boci
2018-03-04, 07:30 AM
Up to and including early modern times, "police" in europe typically consisted of a posse of all able-bodied men of good standing, led and organized by local authorities. For this reason, there was often a legal obligation to own weapons (and sometimes armor). Of course, this totally doesn't work with D&D because armed commoners are obviously laughable childlike non-threats as established in this thread, so these ten guys can't possibly have been part of such a posse.

Not really. Its important to remember that D&D games are typically not representative of the world as a whole. You're dealing with a-typical indeviduals, generally rule of thumb is PC classes are rare, who seeks out dangerous situations. Armed commoners for example would be good at handling, other commoners, or a few goblins, which the game tends to gloss over, because they're too weak for the PCs to bother with.

Corneel
2018-03-04, 07:39 AM
First of all, yes, they were played as thugs. They tried to use threat of force (and then actual force) to take the law into their own hands at the behest of a patron. They operated outside the bounds of the law (no, assaulting people for a good reason does not make it not assault) in a violent fashion. They made no effort to report an alleged crime to the legitimate authorities. They might be idiots, but they are also thugs. Well meaning thugs, but thugs none the less.

Secondly, on an intelligence scale, this is about as bad an idea as charging a fortified gun emplacement with nothing but combat knives. There is no scenario where this results in any sort of victory for those doing the charging. Its just not feasible. Even a random peasant should recognize that their unarmored rear stands no chance against the guy in full plate, even if he "just" looks like a garden variety knight instead of a Fist of Justice. Again, combat knife versus gun emplacement.

Thirdly, a paladin is responsible for their own behavior. Allegedly good men who can be persuaded into attack random people on the word of a stranger aren't actually all that good. Allegedly innocent people who attack others in the middle of the street are not innocent. The party is not responsible for this group throwing themselves on the party's swords, and they certainly aren't obligated to hold back against a targeted mugging.
The words in bold are all that that should be needed for a Paladin to show restraint. The rest is simply making excuses to be able to play the Paladin as a fighter with fancy powers with total disregard for what a Paladin is supposed to be.

Keltest
2018-03-04, 08:37 AM
The words in bold are all that that should be needed for a Paladin to show restraint. The rest is simply making excuses to be able to play the Paladin as a fighter with fancy powers with total disregard for what a Paladin is supposed to be.

Paladins are not mind readers, and attacking somebody with a weapon, no matter your intentions, is still attacking somebody with a weapon.

Florian
2018-03-04, 09:07 AM
Because that wasn't a rhetorical question, I wanted an actual answer. What kind of settlement are you imagining?

You know that this actually doesn't matter. The rule of "Law" always depends on the ability to organize and bring actual power to bear to enforce it. Machiavellis description of how renaissance Florence was governed an how power and enforcement were distributed is actually a good read and food for thought how and why we later centralized that and put it into the hand of the state (after the state was invented and formalized as such).

Pleh
2018-03-04, 11:29 AM
If it was Star Wars, one commoner would have knocked the paladin to the ground, stood over them with club close to neck, and said "The purse. The lady says you stole it."

These guys are, if anything, showing restraint compared to Rey, who we're supposed to sympathise with as the protagonist.

To be fair, Rey isn't a mere peasant. She's a mary sue chosen one (with a tendency to the dark side). She wins fights by showing up (especially when the odds ate against her).

Not terribly relevant to a paladin confronted by bamboozled commoners.

icefractal
2018-03-04, 03:51 PM
As far as the relative power thing goes, it's definitely not an argument in favor of the Paladin. I'm pretty sure that "You guys are mere peasants I could easily kill, so I don't have to listen to you. Bugger off or get sworded." would be a blatant failure of Paladin 101.

Whether the group was foolish to challenge the party in the first place has no bearing on whether it was acceptable to kill them.

PersonMan
2018-03-04, 03:57 PM
As far as the relative power thing goes, it's definitely not an argument in favor of the Paladin. I'm pretty sure that "You guys are mere peasants I could easily kill, so I don't have to listen to you. Bugger off or get sworded." would be a blatant failure of Paladin 101.

Whether the group was foolish to challenge the party in the first place has no bearing on whether it was acceptable to kill them.

I think the argument is more like:

1: A weak individual (or group of the same) would not make a suicidal attack on a stronger individual / group
2: The peasants (presumably weak) could identify the party as stronger
3: An attack on the party by the peasants doesn't make sense here or The peasants could be assumed (by the players/characters) to be a legitimate threat warranting a full response

Davrix
2018-03-04, 07:17 PM
Here is a scenario:

An evil woman pretends to be a helpless peasant girl. She convinces a group of 10 men that the PCs were discriminating her because she worships a particular deity other than their own and they robbed her of her coin purse and threatened to beat her if she speaks a word of it to anyone. Trying to be local good samaritans, they took it upon themselves to find the PCs, retrieve the purse, and teach the adventurers a lesson.

The men approach with weapons drawn just to make more of an intimidating presence. They confront the PCs, demand the purse back, and since the PCs respond with attitude and intimidation instead of trying to explain their mistake, one of the locals swings at a PC attempting to deal nonlethal damage. The PCs respond in full force and kill half of the men until the rest finally surrender.

This happens in a big city with laws just like any civilized city would have. The PCs were obviously more powerful than these men and one of the PCs is a Paladin. They knew these men made a mistake and were of no threat, but rather than doing what they could to explain their way out of a fight, or try to apprehend the men so that the authorities could sort things out, they killed them. The paladin can detect evil at will and never did. In fact, the paladin isn't even remorseful. As far as he's concerned, they started it and they got what they deserved.

That doesn't sound very lawful to me. I'd hate to penalize the Paladin, but this is pretty much his attitude towards every situation and it might be time to make him deal with the consequences if this is something that warrants it. He knows how to play a paladin (it's his favorite class to play), so a warning isn't going to remind him of anything he doesn't already know. What do you think?


Ah I love a good paladin issue.

I havn't read every post in this thread so I will simply reply as if I am just responding to the OP

I guess my biggest question here though would be is this something you normally pull on the party in the past or is this out of the blue because players sometimes get used to a certain DM style and if you throw them a curve ball suddenly it can catch them off guard and a mistake like this happens or they don't see it as one.

My real issue is that you state the people come with their weapons drawn. Which means they are openly hostile to the party. So the players first response will not be reason its going to either be intimidation or make fun of these low level louts. Also I have to ask, is the paladin openly wearing his armor and holy symbol? wouldn't any of these people have stopped and though, why would a paladin be so cruel? The other issue is you had the NPC attack first. Which makes them even more of the aggressor and the party responds in kind. With Force. Now granted they could of simply knocked them over the head and laughed back towards the bar but as I said I'm not sure what kind of game you run so maybe they though this was the typical response you expected out of them.

So the problems as I see it is that this just stinks of a bad set up. Aka, the bag of kittens vs the bag of puppies drowning in the river for the poor paladin.

The peasants come up with weapons drawn, demand what they wish and by the sounds of it. Not explaing any reasons of why they are doing what they are doing. The party responds with snark and the NPC takes a swing at someone. Fight fight fight. Dead NPC's This has problems all over it if that's what took place.


So my advice, be a little more careful on how you set these things up, by what you have written. You left very little wiggle room for anyone to stop and think common sense. Especially the NPC's so part of this whole situation is on you.

I think the paladin is right in saying they got what they were asking for. However here is the sticking point. Did he actually kill any of the men or was that accomplished by other party members? If he was knocking people out or moved to save some of them with healing after the fight I wouldn't say he really violated his oaths. Now if he did kill them and did not bother to try and save any of them and simply is going about going stupid peasants yea. A little recompense is probably in order. My suggestion is have a crack appear in his holy symbol or it becomes discolored. Some sign that his god is unhappy with him and play it out. But don't simply take away his powers. Not unless he keeps up beating people to death for no reason.

Mr Beer
2018-03-04, 11:01 PM
Having said that, anybody remotely well equipped would basically slaughter peasants in a fight unless the peasants were prepared and seriously outnumbered the marauders. The fact of the matter was, equipment was the deciding factor in those confrontations 99 times out of 100.

This sounds a bit like a Dung Age myth to me - 'peasant' is a broad term and medieval times includes hundreds of years and many different cultures. In various times and places peasants might also be hardened warriors with access to battlefield-grade weaponry.

If you have a few well trained guys in good quality steel plate and equipped with steel-bladed polearms, yeah they are going brutally murder many times their number in untrained unarmoured guys wielding sticks and knives. And in fact as you rightly imply, those untrained unarmoured guys are not going to march up to the heavily armoured death machines and start a fight anyway. But that's only one possible scenario.

hamishspence
2018-03-05, 05:44 AM
The peasants come up with weapons drawn, demand what they wish and by the sounds of it. Not explaing any reasons of why they are doing what they are doing. The party responds with snark and the NPC takes a swing at someone. Fight fight fight. Dead NPC's

The "retrieving stolen property" reason was given:




The PC is never really identified as a paladin on sight based on his attire and general attitude. It's not my doing, it's the players. As far as anyone knows, he could be a fighter, a cleric, a knight, etc, etc. He's also a dwarven king, but chooses not to make it visually obvious that he's royalty. He doesn't even wear a crown. This is all by his choice.

Also, there was more bantering back and forth than that, but it was basically the same repetitive dialogue. Not word by word, but it went something like:

*in the middle of a busy street

"The young lady over there says you stole her coin purse and threatened her because you don't like the deity she serves."

"Get out of here, you have the wrong people."

"Just give us the purse back or we'll have to teach you a lesson!"

"We didn't take her purse! Get out of my way before you get hurt!"

"We ain't lookin' for a fight, but we're going to get her purse back if it means we gotta do this the hard way!"

"Let's do it the hard way then. We didn't take any woman's purse."

*NPC tries to clock the Paladin with the pommel of his sword and terribly misses

PCs cast Slow and Entangle, kill half of the NPCs (even two of them that tried running away). NPCs surrender. PCs had flesh wounds, Paladin was never wounded.

Pleh
2018-03-05, 05:58 AM
The peasants come up with weapons drawn, demand what they wish and by the sounds of it. Not explaing any reasons of why they are doing what they are doing. The party responds with snark and the NPC takes a swing at someone. Fight fight fight. Dead NPC's This has problems all over it if that's what took place.


A few critical details have since surfaced.

The woman was a disguised succubus (the party didn't seem to know that).

The paladin was specifically not recognizable as a paladin (not in any meaningful way).

The party saw the exchange between the succubus and the posse from across the street (but didn't hear what was being said).

The party used an Entangle spell to make the posse easier to kill, when it could just as easily have helped subdue.

Most importantly, the party still killed members of the posse even as they withdrew from the fight to flee. To me, this last detail crosses the line from self defense into personal vengeance.

If you act based on them not being a threat, order them to walk away, then kill thenm later for doing so, you just wanted to kill them. There is no honor or morals that defend this.

Tajl
2018-03-05, 07:13 AM
A few critical details have since surfaced.

The woman was a disguised succubus (the party didn't seem to know that).

The paladin was specifically not recognizable as a paladin (not in any meaningful way).

The party saw the exchange between the succubus and the posse from across the street (but didn't hear what was being said).

The party used an Entangle spell to make the posse easier to kill, when it could just as easily have helped subdue.

Most importantly, the party still killed members of the posse even as they withdrew from the fight to flee. To me, this last detail crosses the line from self defense into personal vengeance.

If you act based on them not being a threat, order them to walk away, then kill thenm later for doing so, you just wanted to kill them. There is no honor or morals that defend this.

Problem is that there was no reason for party to not expect them to be a threat. At first they of course would think so when they look like peasants. But that changes when they don't care about intimidation and instead attack. Normal peasants don't do that. It just is not possible so only logical explanation is that they are not normal peasants.

ruhirai
2018-03-05, 07:18 AM
This information was very useful to me.

hamishspence
2018-03-05, 07:22 AM
Problem is that there was no reason for party to not expect them to be a threat. At first they of course would think so when they look like peasants. But that changes when first they don't care about intimidation and instead attack. Normal peasants don't do that.

The Angry Mob is a very popular trope:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TorchesAndPitchforks

This one is smaller, and a bit less aggressive - but it's still plausible. Not every Intimidation attempt made on a small (but larger than their victims) group

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VictoryThroughIntimidation

will succeed.

Keltest
2018-03-05, 07:28 AM
The Angry Mob is a very popular trope:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TorchesAndPitchforks

This one is smaller, and a bit less aggressive - but it's still plausible. Not every Intimidation attempt made on a small (but larger than their victims) group

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VictoryThroughIntimidation

will succeed.

Which would be fine, if they didn't then proceed from intimidation to force. The group attacked the party. Even ignoring the level difference for a moment, theyre assaulting a group on the word of a stranger and have made no effort to confirm the truthfulness of either side, going so far as to ignore claims of innocence to insist they hand over money.

Tajl
2018-03-05, 07:43 AM
Not every Intimidation attempt made on a small (but larger than their victims) group
will succeed.

Every intimidation attempt will not success, but even failure will tell something about target. If intimidation doesn't work then target doesn't fear. If people who does intimidation is big scary adventurer and target is helpless peasant and intimidation still doesn't work, then there is something else going on. In this case DM just forgot that he was speaking as peasant not BBEG.

Narmoth
2018-03-05, 08:07 AM
Yes the paladin acts as the group leader and was dishing the attitude right back. I don't have a problem with him using intimidate in an attempt to just scare them off so he can continue on his way. I do however question his paladin status when intimidation isn't working and you don't even bother to try diplomacy to help them understand their mistake. Using your Superman analogy; I agree that he doesn't need to be a boy scout. However, Superman could be confronted by 50 humans with sticks and stones, all of them are demanding that he return the money to the bank (which he didn't take), maybe some of them even throw rocks at him, and he's still not going to fry 25 of them with his eye beams until the rest of them surrender. The PCs were not threatened by being outnumbered. They knew they would overpower them, which is why they responded with intimidation, cockiness, and were ready for a fight.

There are 2 interesting points here:
1. Diplomacy after intimidation usually doesn't work that well.
2. Now, I usually put points in both diplomacy and intimidation, and I guess since the paladin chose intimidation before diplomacy, he has some points in it. Now, intimidation failed. Usually, if I'm the player, that tells me that these are not lvl 0 characters I can just scare away, but an encounter where I will have to expect to fight.


Not to open up another can of worms, but the caster in the group cast Entanglement a round or two later. Most of the NPCs were entangled and the paladin continued to hack into them. Again, nothing wrong with that if he felt they really were defending themselves. The question is, were they really defending themselves and should the paladin have sought other means than flat out killing them?

Well, that part is more likely to cost him the paladin powers than anything else in this scenario, as he is attacking immobilized enemies.


So ten men armed with deadly weapons (swords and daggers) surrounded the group. They demanded the return of stolen goods. The PCs declined with an insult. The ten men armed with deadly weapons attack. Is there anything in this situation that tells the PCs that these men are not a real threat? Do levels exist as a real thing in this world, ala Goblins (http://goblinscomic.com/comic/02232010)? Or do the players just need to guess at the strength of their opposition? And these guys were part of a guild of local toughs? Unless you gave an explicit sign that these guys were not a threat ("they seem really unfamiliar with their weapons, and they're obviously no threat to you"), self defense using lethal force is justified.

good point. Also, it would help knowing the level of the group


Also, there was more bantering back and forth than that, but it was basically the same repetitive dialogue. Not word by word, but it went something like:

*in the middle of a busy street

"The young lady over there says you stole her coin purse and threatened her because you don't like the deity she serves."

"Get out of here, you have the wrong people."

"Just give us the purse back or we'll have to teach you a lesson!"

"We didn't take her purse! Get out of my way before you get hurt!"

"We ain't lookin' for a fight, but we're going to get her purse back if it means we gotta do this the hard way!"

"Let's do it the hard way then. We didn't take any woman's purse."

*NPC tries to clock the Paladin with the pommel of his sword and terribly misses

PCs cast Slow and Entangle, kill half of the NPCs (even two of them that tried running away). NPCs surrender. PCs had flesh wounds, Paladin was never wounded.

I wonder what the 10 men were expecting would happen. It's not like they have a lot of proof, and without involving the guard, they have no way to get back the purse except pleading or attacking.


The thing is, the rest of the dialogue doesn't change it. The PC's might, possibly, have settled that diplomatically, but if theyre in the middle of chasing down the succubus, its not unreasonable for them to brush off these ruffians. They said they didn't do it. The ruffians didn't even try and ascertain the truth of that statement, they just continued to demand a purse, and then attacked them. They might have said they weren't looking for a fight, but rather than, say, calling the guard, they decided to resort to their own weapons, and they attacked first. That's extremely shady. Frankly, I think these townspeople are more worthy of an alignment drop than the paladin. They tried to mug a group of people on the word of a stranger..

I have to agree with you


I think main problem with that encounter is that those peasants came to intimidate adventurers. That is something that weaklings just doesn't do. if every high level character looks like high level character then player characters would look like high level characters too and low level peasant wouldn't come to intimidate them. If every high level character doesn't look like high level character then those peasants still choose to come intimidate some well armed adventurers and because of that players had good reason to expect that they are not totally helpless. Helpless people just doesn't come to intimidate well armed adventurers, if they would they would have died long before players come to town. So if those peasants would have though that they are helpless peasants they wouldn't have come to intimidate players at first place and then intimidation, why didn't it work? If they were common peasants it should have worked. Problem is that those peasants behaved like they would have been high level characters is disguise.

So those peasants did something that weaklings never do and because of that players had no reason to believe that they are just common peasants.

Yes, I think I would have expected them to have character levels, or be monsters in disguise.


Concerned citizens go to town guards don't start fights. When Paladin says common people that we didn't take it buzz off, common people listen. When heavily armed adventurers say peasants "get out before you get hurt" peasants ****s their pants and run away. And last and most important there is absolutely no chance that normal peasants would ever start fight with heavily armed adventurers. That is just ridiculous.

It is RP thing, if peasants are played like thugs they are treated like thugs. How that situation should have gone is:

"The young lady over there says you stole her coin purse and threatened her because you don't like the deity she serves."

"Get out of here, you have the wrong people."

"Just give us the purse back or we'll have to teach you a lesson!" "Ok we go now."
Maybe they could have gone to talk with town guards after that, but intimidation is not how common peasants deal with dangerous adventurers.

I did this at a larp. The townspeople accused me of being a vampire (which I was) and I told them no, that they had no proof, and that I as a knight (which I also was) was not interested in the accusations of the commoners. They let me go

Pugwampy
2018-03-05, 09:19 AM
Paladins are very strict to play . A player should literally detect Evil if the party encounters anybody or anything . Thats all he has to keep him out trouble with his deity .

Answering non lethal force with lethal force should get that party not only a fallen paladin but also a fallen cleric assuming their diety,s are good aligned. Their powers are borrowed from a god . As far as this DM is concerned any god can flip the switch and cut power to paladins and clerics the moment they step out of line .

And why did the good non lethal fighting citizens not scream for the town guards when they were getting minced ? Whats the point of living in a town if you are denied such a basic protection service ?

Zombimode
2018-03-05, 09:24 AM
I wonder what the 10 men were expecting would happen. It's not like they have a lot of proof, and without involving the guard, they have no way to get back the purse except pleading or attacking.

I really wonder why appearently so many People here read this interaction and then can only blame the peasants.

Do you blame the owner of a bike if it gets stolen after forgetting to lock it?
Do you blame the victim of assault for walking into the wrong alley at the wrong time?
Do you blame the scrawny 60 kg guy that got beaten to a pulp for speaking up against the 120 kg muscle-bound bully?

Those things do matter if we talk about causal relationships. They matter when we talk about what would be a smart thing to do.


But this is not what we talk about here. The question of the thread is whether or not the Paladins Actions live up to the high standards of conduct Paladins subscribe to.
And, with THIS question in mind, I can not Interpret the intercation you've quoted as anything else but utter failure on the Paladins part*.


*IF the given interaction is truthful to what happend in the game - for that I would be really interested to get a Players account of the Exchange.

CharonsHelper
2018-03-05, 09:32 AM
Do you blame the scrawny 60 kg guy that got beaten to a pulp for speaking up against the 120 kg muscle-bound bully?

I do if the 60kg guy started the fight and took a swing at him first.

hamishspence
2018-03-05, 09:49 AM
Paladins are very strict to play . A player should literally detect Evil if the party encounters anybody or anything . Thats all he has to keep him out trouble with his deity .


Depends heavily on the setting. Not only are there many ways of fooling Detect Evil - but for some DMs, close to 1/3 of the population of an average town will detect as evil - with the assumption being that not everyone who's Evil-aligned deserves to be attacked.

Keltest
2018-03-05, 09:53 AM
I do if the 60kg guy started the fight and took a swing at him first.

Exactly.

Lets take a step back here. If these weren't peasants in the middle of a city, but orcs or bandits or whatever your favorite flavor of "random encounter of marauders" is, would this even be a debate? Literally the only reason ive seen that's remotely in favor of making the paladin fall is that the peasants were deceived innocents, which A: they totally were not, since they initiated violence against the party with no evidence that they had done anything wrong, and B: the only information the party had to work off of was that they were attacked by random people, which is a frequent enough occurrence that it has entered gamer slang.

hamishspence
2018-03-05, 10:01 AM
The party do have the information that their attackers believe them to be thieves.

Wrongly, yes - but they're still trying to rectify an injustice.


If the party had been conned themselves - they'd want to be given the benefit of the doubt for "wrongly initiating violence in an attempt to help the innocent"

Zombimode
2018-03-05, 10:05 AM
I do if the 60kg guy started the fight and took a swing at him first.

Even if the swing was made in a way that could not actually harm the bully (that is not aiming for eyes or other vulnerable parts)? The Retaliation send the scrawny guy into the Hospital. Is the moral blame still on the 60kg guy?


The specific example is not important. The point is that blaming victims of severe violence caused by Moral Agents is backwards. It is a Moral failure by itself.

If Joe the Commoner moves into the vicinity of a Balor "to get a look", it's Joes fault that he gets slaughtered. But there is no-one to blame since what Joe did has (ceteris paribus) no Moral value. And the Balor can't be blamed since it is not a Moral Agent.

Substitute "Balor" with "Bear" or "Vulcano".


But a Paladin is not only a Moral Agent. A Paladin is a Moral Agent that holds theirself to a very high standard of conduct.

Pleh
2018-03-05, 10:13 AM
Problem is that there was no reason for party to not expect them to be a threat. At first they of course would think so when they look like peasants. But that changes when they don't care about intimidation and instead attack. Normal peasants don't do that. It just is not possible so only logical explanation is that they are not normal peasants.

The problem is that normal peasants DID do this and the players made choices with the knowledge that the mob was no threat.

Zombimode
2018-03-05, 10:13 AM
Literally the only reason ive seen that's remotely in favor of making the paladin fall is that the peasants were deceived innocents

Well, appearently you missed the following things:
- the Paladin made no attempts whatsoever to solve the situation in a non-violent matter
- the Paladin made no attempts whatsoever to defeat the mob without killing them
- the Paladin continued to use leathal force against already defeated opponents


Also, your "if they weren't peasants" is goal-post shifting: "what if they werent clearly civilians but bandits or enemy soldiers?" Yeah, when the Situation is different conclusions tend to be different, too.

Keltest
2018-03-05, 10:22 AM
Well, appearently you missed the following things:
- the Paladin made no attempts whatsoever to solve the situation in a non-violent matter
- the Paladin made no attempts whatsoever to defeat the mob without killing them
- the Paladin continued to use leathal force against already defeated opponents


Also, your "if they weren't peasants" is goal-post shifting: "what if they werent clearly civilians but bandits or enemy soldiers?" Yeah, when the Situation is different conclusions tend to be different, too.

A paladin is not required to be non-violent, and while mercy is a virtue, its not a part of the paladin's code. There is a case for such being a chaotic act, since its in the middle of a city, but paladins do not fall for committing a chaotic act, just from an alignment change.

And its not goal shifting, its an attempt to point out that calling them peasants or civilians or whatever is immaterial to the actual scenario. They were armed and violent. They are functionally bandits in this encounter even if they do not normally engage in such activities.

hamishspence
2018-03-05, 10:31 AM
Vigilantes, not bandits. Exactly like the adventurers. These can be thought of as low level adventurers, who took up a "quest" that had been given them (by a villain).

Keltest
2018-03-05, 10:34 AM
Vigilantes, not bandits. Exactly like the adventurers. These can be thought of as low level adventurers, who took up a "quest" that had been given them (by a villain).

Semantics. A level 2 party has no grounds to complain if they attack a gold dragon (being generally ignorant of the nature of dragons and their convenient color coding) and it burns most of them to a crisp.

Furthermore, challenging lawbreakers is what guards are for. It would be one thing if the woman claimed the party was actively attempting to attack her (which would, strictly speaking, be true), but they have no business attacking people in full armor over a crime already committed.

hamishspence
2018-03-05, 10:41 AM
Semantics. A level 2 party has no grounds to complain if they attack a gold dragon (being generally ignorant of the nature of dragons and their convenient color coding) and it burns most of them to a crisp.

The difference being that there's no "color coding" here - if anything, an active attempt to obscure information about their nature:


The PC is never really identified as a paladin on sight based on his attire and general attitude. It's not my doing, it's the players. As far as anyone knows, he could be a fighter, a cleric, a knight, etc, etc. He's also a dwarven king, but chooses not to make it visually obvious that he's royalty. He doesn't even wear a crown. This is all by his choice.

Keltest
2018-03-05, 10:44 AM
The difference being that there's no "color coding" here - if anything, an active attempt to obscure information about their nature:

So what? Are you suggesting that makes it better? Replace the gold dragon with a red dragon, and the adventurers still have no grounds for complaint when things go wrong.

hamishspence
2018-03-05, 10:48 AM
While we don't know what the peasants' alignment is - people who are prepared to risk their own necks in order to help strangers, are generally good.

Every time a Good person kills another good person - it's a victory for Evil.

The peasants were showing restraint - trying to knock out their suspect with the pommels of their weapons.

Their adversaries, despite reason to believe that these people were trying to Do Good, showed no restraint at all.

Florian
2018-03-05, 10:48 AM
Well, appearently you missed the following things:
- the Paladin made no attempts whatsoever to solve the situation in a non-violent matter
- the Paladin made no attempts whatsoever to defeat the mob without killing them
- the Paladin continued to use leathal force against already defeated opponents


Also, your "if they weren't peasants" is goal-post shifting: "what if they werent clearly civilians but bandits or enemy soldiers?" Yeah, when the Situation is different conclusions tend to be different, too.

This is why I asked a bit upthread how and with what play style this specific group played earlier and up to this specific "incident" (and received no answer so far). If itīs been established that this is a kick in the door, slaughter them all, have fun at looting kind of gaming group, then the points you named are pretty irrelevant, as this is the established pattern for that particular group and the players acted in accordance to it. In this case, itīd actually be interesting to question why the gm chose to include an encounter that actually goes against the established pattern.

Keltest
2018-03-05, 10:52 AM
While we don't know what the peasants' alignment is - people who are prepared to risk their own necks in order to help strangers, are generally good.

Every time a Good person kills another good person - it's a victory for Evil.

The peasants were showing restraint - trying to knock out their suspect with the pommels of their weapons.

Their adversaries, despite reason to believe that these people were trying to Do Good, showed no restraint at all.

And why should they? These peasants initiated a confrontation, ignored the party's claims of innocence, and then attacked them unprovoked. I'm sure the peasants thought they were doing good, but actual do-gooders don't mug people in the middle of the street on the word of a stranger. That's why I keep comparing them to bandits: because theyre doing what bandits do!

hamishspence
2018-03-05, 10:55 AM
I'm sure the peasants thought they were doing good, but actual do-gooders don't mug people in the middle of the street on the word of a stranger.

Isn't that standard operating procedure for D&D adventurers though - at least in computer games with quests?

Keltest
2018-03-05, 11:01 AM
Isn't that standard operating procedure for D&D adventurers though - at least in computer games with quests?

Yes, which is why most D&D adventurers are regarded as being absolute lunatics. Also, doing so in most games with more than a background setting will get you in trouble with various groups when you do that.

Florian
2018-03-05, 11:05 AM
Isn't that standard operating procedure for D&D adventurers though - at least in computer games with quests?

They emulate hack and slay, yes. I'm actually wondering whether I've ever played a computer game where you could actually and actively "fall".

CharonsHelper
2018-03-05, 11:46 AM
They emulate hack and slay, yes. I'm actually wondering whether I've ever played a computer game where you could actually and actively "fall".

You could in Baldur's Gate if you killed anyone the game deemed a non-combatant.

Pleh
2018-03-05, 01:19 PM
So what? Are you suggesting that makes it better? Replace the gold dragon with a red dragon, and the adventurers still have no grounds for complaint when things go wrong.

This was an impressive leap of goalshifting.

So the paladin shouldn't fall if their behavior is no worse than an average Red Dragon?

Tajl
2018-03-05, 01:30 PM
The problem is that normal peasants DID do this and the players made choices with the knowledge that the mob was no threat.

No normal peasants didn't do that because not caring about intimidation and starting fight changed them to something else. It is not possible to stay as normal peasant and act like thug.

It is same if my character is innocent saint and them I play him as jerk and steal candy from kids. I can't expect that people treat me like innocent saint after that. Instead they treat me as a jerk who steal candy from kids.

Tajl
2018-03-05, 01:31 PM
You could in Baldur's Gate if you killed anyone the game deemed a non-combatant.

How many times those non-combatans attacked party?

Tajl
2018-03-05, 01:45 PM
Well, appearently you missed the following things:
- the Paladin made no attempts whatsoever to solve the situation in a non-violent matter
- the Paladin made no attempts whatsoever to defeat the mob without killing them
- the Paladin continued to use leathal force against already defeated opponents


Also, your "if they weren't peasants" is goal-post shifting: "what if they werent clearly civilians but bandits or enemy soldiers?" Yeah, when the Situation is different conclusions tend to be different, too.

Paladin code says: " A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."

Those peasants were threatening innocent party with violence and then they started the fight. Paladin code doesn't say anything about mercy for the wicked, instead it demands that he punish people who do exactly what those peasants were doing.

CharonsHelper
2018-03-05, 02:33 PM
How many times those non-combatans attacked party?

Oh - they didn't. About the only time that it really happened was with all of the dopplegangers scattered about. The game made it easy to attack a peasant by slipping a few actual peasants mixed in with a series of dopplegangers you came across. By the 3rd one it became REALLY tempting to just start killing everyone in the area so that they didn't get a free swing or two at you.

Either that or you might have fallen if you were sloppy about where you aimed a fireball. (I don't think that the game differentiated between which party member actually killed the peasant.)

Koo Rehtorb
2018-03-05, 02:59 PM
Okay if the paladin was actually personally cutting down fleeing peasants as they ran away then you're probably justified in making him fall.

Tajl
2018-03-05, 03:21 PM
Okay if the paladin was actually personally cutting down fleeing peasants as they ran away then you're probably justified in making him fall.

Though you would also be justified to make him fall if he let them get away without punishment as his code requires that he punish those who threaten innocents.

icefractal
2018-03-05, 03:40 PM
So what? Are you suggesting that makes it better? Replace the gold dragon with a red dragon, and the adventurers still have no grounds for complaint when things go wrong.Red Dragons are generally evil. Not a good model for a Paladin to follow. And yes, I would expect a Gold Dragon not to summarily vaporize people who annoyed it.

People are talking about "the villagers should have expected this" as if it affected the morality of the Paladin's actions. Why would it? If you leave your car unlocked in a bad part of town and it gets stolen, is the thief actually innocent of any crime because you were foolish? Doesn't matter how stupid the villagers were to attack the party; it doesn't change the morality of killing them.

Also, even IRL, where 'nonlethal' damage isn't guaranteed to be such, there's a legal difference between different levels of force. If someone punches you in a bar fight and you respond by killing them, you're probably not going to be in the clear for self defense.


I know that people hate the whole Paladin falling thing, but I think that "make it work 4E style, falling is not a thing" is a better solution than having them stay Good when they really aren't.

SilverCacaobean
2018-03-05, 03:42 PM
Personally I think this whole scenario is fall-worthy, but that doesn't mean I'd make him fall. I'd only make him fall if I'd previously agreed with the player that his class would be susceptible to my own moral judgement. Many take this for granted, but I wouldn't. If we hadn't had this conversation, I would tell him what I think about what he did but then actually ask him if he thinks he should fall and I'd only make the decision myself if he told me that it's up to me, otherwise it's up to him. No need to spoil anyone's fun and if you have philosophical disagreements about good and evil, the game table isn't the place to solve them, especially not with one of you (the dm) in a position of authority. Unless, of course, you two enjoy this kind of thing and you're good enough friends that he knows you won't abuse that authority.


However, I believe the juicy part of this whole thing is the other consequences their heavy-handed and pretty short-sighted handling of this situation will have, as others have mentioned. Examples:

1) It could directly influence the community, depending on how much power the guild has and how important the ones killed were. If the guild lost much power by this it could create a power vacuum that will be filled by some other faction, or if not, then depending on who died it could result in in-fighting for leadership. If the guild, even if they're crude and a bit thuggish, were keeping other criminals in check, now that they've lost people crime could rise, etc. That's all assuming they're generally good for the community. If they're actually bad, maybe make the community benefit from their getting weakened.

2) Again, depending on the guild's standing in the community, the heroes could easily become vilified if their explanations of why this happened don't satisfy. If the guild are well loved, it's pretty easy for people to minimize their role in what happened and consider the party murderers. Rumors don't have to be accurate at all and as you can see even your own accurate description of what happened has people defending the guild's actions. Now imagine if they actually knew them personally. If the guild is disliked or hated though, the party could be loved. Either way and even if the communities feeling towards the guild are neutral, the party will be feared.

3) There's going to be a trial, right? This could depend a lot on how the players handle number 2. You don't have to make authorities an ultra lawful entity that will do their best to make a fair judgement. If the party are universally hated( or loved) and people are vocal about it, the authorities might exile them( or acquit them) even if they don't really think they're guilty( or innocent) to avoid civil unrest. Now I'm not saying it should be a rigged trial, just that this could play a role in its outcome. It wouldn't surprise me if they lost it regardless judging by the communication skills they've displayed :smalltongue:. If they win the trial without having secured the peoples' confidence on the other hand, the community's trust in authorities would lessen. Some people could even turn outright hostile to them.

4) Simplest one, some people( relatives or friends of the dead) might seek revenge. You could make an antagonist out of this.


Of course, if you don't think giving too much weight to this will be fun, you could just have the leader of the tough guy guild find out that they were tricked by a succubus and resolve this situation.


Keep in mind I don't have any experience dming at all and only have very little as a player so take my advise and ideas with a grain of salt.

Pleh
2018-03-05, 04:07 PM
Though you would also be justified to make him fall if he let them get away without punishment as his code requires that he punish those who threaten innocents.

Maybe if their code is defined as "lawful stupid," sure.

Technically, we don't know that the party actually WAS innocent (maybe of their accused crime, but maybe not of any other).

There has to be some accounting for motive and intent. These guys were bluffed by a supernatural personification of evil temptations. It's quite reasonable to argue that they cannot be held guilty for failing a sense motive check they might have literally not been able to succeed at.

Now it's the paladin threatening and murdering innocents.

Pleh
2018-03-05, 04:12 PM
Red Dragons are generally evil. Not a good model for a Paladin to follow. And yes, I would expect a Gold Dragon not to summarily vaporize people who annoyed it.

People are talking about "the villagers should have expected this" as if it affected the morality of the Paladin's actions. Why would it? If you leave your car unlocked in a bad part of town and it gets stolen, is the thief actually innocent of any crime because you were foolish? Doesn't matter how stupid the villagers were to attack the party; it doesn't change the morality of killing them.

Also, even IRL, where 'nonlethal' damage isn't guaranteed to be such, there's a legal difference between different levels of force. If someone punches you in a bar fight and you respond by killing them, you're probably not going to be in the clear for self defense.

Totally agree. I'd add that if you *accidentally* kill in self defense, you have a case to make in court. You *might* be guilty of manslaughter. They swung, you swung, they died before your defense could persuade them to back down.

If you chase them out of the bar when they want to stop fighting, knock them down, then hack them to pieces with a sword, that is murder with no semblance of self defense.

Tajl
2018-03-05, 04:14 PM
People are talking about "the villagers should have expected this" as if it affected the morality of the Paladin's actions. Why would it? If you leave your car unlocked in a bad part of town and it gets stolen, is the thief actually innocent of any crime because you were foolish? Doesn't matter how stupid the villagers were to attack the party; it doesn't change the morality of killing them.

I think example works the other way round. Is that thief innocent because before he stole that car he didn't do anything wrong? Villager who have not done anything is innocent, but villager who attacks party is not innocent any more. And of course actions of those villagers change morality of killing them. It is totally different to kill people who threaten and attack you compared to people who have done nothing to you.

Stupidity does not justify making crimes without consequences.

Tajl
2018-03-05, 04:25 PM
Maybe if their code is defined as "lawful stupid," sure.

Technically, we don't know that the party actually WAS innocent (maybe of their accused crime, but maybe not of any other).

There has to be some accounting for motive and intent. These guys were bluffed by a supernatural personification of evil temptations. It's quite reasonable to argue that they cannot be held guilty for failing a sense motive check they might have literally not been able to succeed at.

Now it's the paladin threatening and murdering innocents.

They were not dominated so they were responsible for their actions. It would have been different if that succubus would have dominated them to attack (though that would have been suicidal so even dominate spell wouldn't have been enough for that) That succubus didn't even ask them to attack...

icefractal
2018-03-05, 06:32 PM
They were not dominated so they were responsible for their actions. It would have been different if that succubus would have dominated them to attack (though that would have been suicidal so even dominate spell wouldn't have been enough for that) That succubus didn't even ask them to attack...Doesn't matter really, IMO. Even if they were just a group of thugs with the plan of "beat up the outsiders and steal their gold", it would be have been a failure of Good to kill them in response when it was obviously possible (easy, even) to defeat them without doing so. Not the worst one, and I wouldn't consider it to change alignment unless there was a repeated pattern, but potentially enough for a Paladin to fall (temporarily, unless they doubled down on the ruthlessness), especially considering the "chasing down fleeing people" part.

In terms of what I'd actually recommend doing - has this character received any warnings of divine disfavor before? If not, then do so now, maybe combined with a temporary (like 1-2 sessions) loss/weakening of powers. If they already have, then sure, have them fall - although the atonement shouldn't be too difficult, this is not the worst offense. However, if you think the player is going to have a big problem with this, then talk to them ahead of time and figure out something mutually acceptable.

Pleh
2018-03-05, 08:23 PM
They were not dominated so they were responsible for their actions. It would have been different if that succubus would have dominated them to attack (though that would have been suicidal so even dominate spell wouldn't have been enough for that) That succubus didn't even ask them to attack...

This is 3.5. Diplomacy and Bluff have pseudo magical effects at sufficient level.

Succubi don't need magic when the skill modifier is high enough to trump any opposed skill roll.

Narmoth
2018-03-06, 02:04 AM
I really wonder why appearently so many People here read this interaction and then can only blame the peasants.

But this is not what we talk about here. The question of the thread is whether or not the Paladins Actions live up to the high standards of conduct Paladins subscribe to.
And, with THIS question in mind, I can not Interpret the intercation you've quoted as anything else but utter failure on the Paladins part*.


*IF the given interaction is truthful to what happend in the game - for that I would be really interested to get a Players account of the Exchange.

It's a question about the game world. The peasants behave as bullies or thugs. Yes, they have some tiny justification, but their actions makes little sense except if they were looking for an excuse for attacking.

1. Someone stole a purse. Let's even assume it was immensely valuable. Now, why would they assume that the apparently quite well off (heavy armour is really, really expensive in most settings) armed group did it. After all, they are the least likely ones to have a motive. Now, they were seduced by a succubus, so most likely, they were willing to do anything to show off. (I'll get back to this point later)
2. Now, in the modern world, you would not see the police try to arrest armed people without themselves both bringing weapons and being willing to shoot to kill. The peasants might be stupid, but even they would expect that either the 5 armed people would be intimidated and surrender, or fight back. After trying the first option and failing to intimidate, they have only 2 choices: back down or attack. Here most groups would see this as extortion, not vigilantism. We are here at the classic troll and bridge - scenario: pay if you want to cross the bridge. Almost all adventurers attack in stead of paying. So why would the adventurers here show restraint?
3. Because of the succubus they will not back down, so they attack. The group has here no reason to believe that lethal force will not be used against them. After all, the peasants have threatened them. So when the peasants attack (yes, with a non-lethal attack, but still. Here it would help to know the partys lvl) they fight back. So far it's not against the paladin code. Depending on interpretation, killing the defeated opponents is. However, many let the paladin kill off the goblins that attacked the party even though they could subdue the goblins

Tajl
2018-03-06, 05:46 AM
Doesn't matter really, IMO. Even if they were just a group of thugs with the plan of "beat up the outsiders and steal their gold", it would be have been a failure of Good to kill them in response when it was obviously possible (easy, even) to defeat them without doing so. Not the worst one, and I wouldn't consider it to change alignment unless there was a repeated pattern, but potentially enough for a Paladin to fall (temporarily, unless they doubled down on the ruthlessness), especially considering the "chasing down fleeing people" part.

In terms of what I'd actually recommend doing - has this character received any warnings of divine disfavor before? If not, then do so now, maybe combined with a temporary (like 1-2 sessions) loss/weakening of powers. If they already have, then sure, have them fall - although the atonement shouldn't be too difficult, this is not the worst offense. However, if you think the player is going to have a big problem with this, then talk to them ahead of time and figure out something mutually acceptable.

In D&D people with good alignment kill people who do evil. Paladin have to be good but not exalted. Apostles Of Peace is another class and if Paladin was not exalted Paladin with Vow of Nonviolence he didn't do anything wrong. Of course they would have been able to defeat peasants without killing them, but why? If "peasants" are ready to attack random innocent people then there is good chance that next time they would attack someone who is not as good at defending themselves as party. In the big picture there is less trouble when those "peasants" got what they deserved.


This is 3.5. Diplomacy and Bluff have pseudo magical effects at sufficient level.

Succubi don't need magic when the skill modifier is high enough to trump any opposed skill roll.

Yes but succubi didn't force them to attack and it would have been beyond her abilities. Succubis are good at bluff but not that good. Instill suggestion would require that she beat peasants Sense motive check with 50, which is way beyond her abilities. With her bluff and diplomacy she can make peasants helpful and believe that those adventurers stole his purse. But after that those peasants decide their actions. In that situation peasants will go to talk adventurers but nothing forces them to attack. Even if they believe that adventurers have that purse and they would like to help that succubi, it doesn't force them to attack. Common peasants wouldn't attack dangerous adventurers even if it would be their own purse and they would see it in the hands of those adventurers. Because for common peasants attacking adventurers is suicide.

redwizard007
2018-03-06, 08:16 AM
2. Now, in the modern world, you would not see the police try to arrest armed people without themselves both bringing weapons and being willing to shoot to kill.


Where are you from?!?

In most of the civilized world police don't even carry firearms, let alone go into situations planning to shoot suspects. Even in the US they probably won't shoot you unless you have dark skin.

FYI, this is why we aren't supposed to bring up real world issues on the forum.

More specifically to the ACTUAL point, paladins that resort to violence unnecessarily, or lethal violence where more restraint would suffice are not playing the class (in most editions.) That behavior gets a pass for general PCs. It does not get a pass for characters dedicated to Good or Law.

Keltest
2018-03-06, 08:21 AM
Where are you from?!?

In most of the civilized world police don't even carry firearms, let alone go into situations planning to shoot suspects. Even in the US they probably won't shoot you unless you have dark skin.

FYI, this is why we aren't supposed to bring up real world issues on the forum.

More specifically to the ACTUAL point, paladins that resort to violence unnecessarily, or lethal violence where more restraint would suffice are not playing the class (in most editions.) That behavior gets a pass for general PCs. It does not get a pass for characters dedicated to Good or Law.

There is nothing in the paladin code that says they have to be nonviolent where possible, or merciful.

CharonsHelper
2018-03-06, 08:22 AM
Where are you from?!?

In most of the civilized world police don't even carry firearms, let alone go into situations planning to shoot suspects.

Please read what he wrote.


2. Now, in the modern world, you would not see the police try to arrest armed people without themselves both bringing weapons and being willing to shoot to kill.

Nowhere in the world are police going to try to arrest criminals with guns with nothing but a stern word. And unlike the movies - if a cop does fire his weapon - they shoot to kill. (Of course - they're supposed to draw their taser instead when they can - but they don't do that if the criminal has a gun of their own.)


There is nothing in the paladin code that says they have to be nonviolent where possible, or merciful.

+1

It's quite the opposite actually. The bulk of their class abilities are about doing violence to evildoers - which would be silly if they aren't supposed to use them. I generally think of paladins being more interested in justice than mercy - and justice is rarely merciful.

Pleh
2018-03-06, 08:29 AM
Yes but succubi didn't force them to attack and it would have been beyond her abilities. Succubis are good at bluff but not that good. Instill suggestion would require that she beat peasants Sense motive check with 50, which is way beyond her abilities. With her bluff and diplomacy she can make peasants helpful and believe that those adventurers stole his purse. But after that those peasants decide their actions. In that situation peasants will go to talk adventurers but nothing forces them to attack. Even if they believe that adventurers have that purse and they would like to help that succubi, it doesn't force them to attack. Common peasants wouldn't attack dangerous adventurers even if it would be their own purse and they would see it in the hands of those adventurers. Because for common peasants attacking adventurers is suicide.

RAW says the bluff check worked and they MUST act with the belief she was telling the truth. They are no longer totally responsible for their actions and the higher her check, the less responsible they are because epic skill checks can just as easily put them against a 50 DC to beat.

A bog standard succubus has +19 to bluff (putting a skill check as high as 39). The party is level is 9 while the Succubus is a CR 7, so the DM could be justified in tacking on heroic levels to make the succubus more level relevant, which could easily put us into the DC 50 range. But even if we didn't do any of that, a bog standard succubus rolling a 1 on bluff gets a 20 total, which is going to trounce just about any commoner.

But even if we hold the peasants accountable for failing a check they couldn't win, it still does not justify chasing them down and cutting them to pieces in cold blood. "They might do it to someone else" is hogwash. That is not justice. It's a flimsy excuse to murderhobo indiscriminately. It's fine for neutral adventurers, but not good aligned servants of peace and justice.

Keltest
2018-03-06, 08:34 AM
RAW says the bluff check worked and they MUST act with the belief she was telling the truth. They are no longer totally responsible for their actions and the higher her check, the less responsible they are because epic skill checks can just as easily put them against a 50 DC to beat.

A bog standard succubus has +19 to bluff (putting a skill check as high as 39). The party is level is 9 while the Succubus is a CR 7, so the DM could be justified in tacking on heroic levels to make the succubus more level relevant, which could easily put us into the DC 50 range. But even if we didn't do any of that, a bog standard succubus rolling a 1 on bluff gets a 20 total, which is going to trounce just about any commoner.

But even if we hold the peasants accountable for failing a check they couldn't win, it still does not justify chasing them down and cutting them to pieces in cold blood. "They might do it to someone else" is hogwash. That is not justice. It's a flimsy excuse to murderhobo indiscriminately. It's fine for neutral adventurers, but not good aligned servants of peace and justice.

The only thing a bluff check does is change what information they have to operate on. Theyre still responsible for what they do with that information, like, say, go attack somebody on the word of a stranger.

redwizard007
2018-03-06, 08:38 AM
Please read what he wrote.



Nowhere in the world are police going to try to arrest criminals with guns with nothing but a stern word. And unlike the movies - if a cop does fire his weapon - they shoot to kill. (Of course - they're supposed to draw their taser instead when they can.)

I should have taken the conversation away from arresting and towards walking a beat ( kind of like the PCs just minding their business.) Oh no, a group of citizens is approaching with non-lethal weapons. Should I a. Shoot them, b. Pepper spray them, c. Listen to them and respond verbally? A cop would probably go b. A good cop would probably go c. A Baltimore cop would go a.

Lets look at videos of protests turning into riots. What do the riot police have in their hands? A baton. A stick. A non-lethal option in their hand. In their hand. That looks like a first option as mandated by higher lawful authorities. They will escalate to pepper spray, teargass, tasers, shotguns firing beanbags, and assault rifles with rubber bullets as needed (and in certain cases escalate rather quickly,) but those are all designed to be non-lethal as well.

When entering the lair of a dangerous gang of stick wielding do-gooders, I don't think we could expect a lethal response from almost any law enforcement agency in the world. Nor would we in a situation where a group of law enforcement officials are stopped on the street by a bunch of vigilantes. It's UTTERLY UNFATHOMABLE.

CharonsHelper
2018-03-06, 08:47 AM
Oh no, a group of citizens is approaching with non-lethal weapons and then attacks us.

Corrected that for you.

Keltest
2018-03-06, 08:48 AM
I should have taken the conversation away from arresting and towards walking a beat ( kind of like the PCs just minding their business.) Oh no, a group of citizens is approaching with non-lethal weapons. Should I a. Shoot them, b. Pepper spray them, c. Listen to them and respond verbally? A cop would probably go b. A good cop would probably go c. A Baltimore cop would go a.

Lets look at videos of protests turning into riots. What do the riot police have in their hands? A baton. A stick. A non-lethal option in their hand. In their hand. That looks like a first option as mandated by higher lawful authorities. They will escalate to pepper spray, teargass, tasers, shotguns firing beanbags, and assault rifles with rubber bullets as needed (and in certain cases escalate rather quickly,) but those are all designed to be non-lethal as well.

When entering the lair of a dangerous gang of stick wielding do-gooders, I don't think we could expect a lethal response from almost any law enforcement agency in the world. Nor would we in a situation where a group of law enforcement officials are stopped on the street by a bunch of vigilantes. It's UTTERLY UNFATHOMABLE.

I'm not sure what police would have to do with this, but a protest-turned-riot generally doesn't have a bunch of people armed with their own lethal weapons attacking people, so this analogy is falling flat pretty fast.

Tajl
2018-03-06, 08:54 AM
RAW says the bluff check worked and they MUST act with the belief she was telling the truth. They are no longer totally responsible for their actions and the higher her check, the less responsible they are because epic skill checks can just as easily put them against a 50 DC to beat.

A bog standard succubus has +19 to bluff (putting a skill check as high as 39). The party is level is 9 while the Succubus is a CR 7, so the DM could be justified in tacking on heroic levels to make the succubus more level relevant, which could easily put us into the DC 50 range. But even if we didn't do any of that, a bog standard succubus rolling a 1 on bluff gets a 20 total, which is going to trounce just about any commoner.

But even if we hold the peasants accountable for failing a check they couldn't win, it still does not justify chasing them down and cutting them to pieces in cold blood. "They might do it to someone else" is hogwash. That is not justice. It's a flimsy excuse to murderhobo indiscriminately. It's fine for neutral adventurers, but not good aligned servants of peace and justice.

Yes succubi beats peasants sense motive check so they believe that adventurers stole her purse. But +19 is not enough to beat their sense motive with 50 so Instill suggestion is beyond her abilities. Even if peasants would have wisdom 3 she couldn't do that. +19 is just not enough for that epic feat(Epic level handbook). Instill suggestion is epic skill ability so it is unlikely that opponents of lvl9 party could do it. Edit even Instill suggestion wouldn't work because "obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect". So it is not possible to force anyone to do suicidal attack with bluff. Even epic level characters cant do it.

Simply believing that adventurers stole something from someone does not force peasants to attack. Diplomacy 90 could do the trick but is is WAY beyond abilities of succubus.

Armed assault does justify quite a lot. It is not party's fault if people who started violence are bad at it and mercy is not mentioned in Paladins code.

redwizard007
2018-03-06, 08:59 AM
The men approach with weapons drawn just to make more of an intimidating presence. They confront the PCs, demand the purse back, and since the PCs respond with attitude and intimidation instead of trying to explain their mistake, one of the locals swings at a PC attempting to deal nonlethal damage. The PCs respond in full force and kill half of the men until the rest finally surrender.

This happens in a big city with laws just like any civilized city would have. The PCs were obviously more powerful than these men...

I think you fellas forgot what the OP actually stated...

NPCs tried to roll-play it out. PCs went hard ass. NPC tries to knock a PC out. PCs kill a bunch of NPCs.

Does that sound like the actions of a paragon of Good and Law?

The NPCs were NOT attacking lethaly. Would you see it differently if the NPC had punched the PC? What if he was a monk? How bout an ogre? At what point does a non-lethal attack warrant the death of multiple people?

Keltest
2018-03-06, 09:14 AM
I think you fellas forgot what the OP actually stated...

NPCs tried to roll-play it out. PCs went hard ass. NPC tries to knock a PC out. PCs kill a bunch of NPCs.

Does that sound like the actions of a paragon of Good and Law?

The NPCs were NOT attacking lethaly. Would you see it differently if the NPC had punched the PC? What if he was a monk? How bout an ogre? At what point does a non-lethal attack warrant the death of multiple people?

Non-lethal damage is fairly meaningless to the argument. Being unconscious at the hands of people who just beat the snot out of you is only a small step better than dead.

Pleh
2018-03-06, 09:16 AM
Yes succubi beats peasants sense motive check so they believe that adventurers stole her purse. But +19 is not enough to beat their sense motive with 50 so Instill suggestion is beyond her abilities. Even if peasants would have wisdom 3 she couldn't do that. +19 is just not enough for that epic feat(Epic level handbook). Instill suggestion is epic skill ability so it is unlikely that opponents of lvl9 party could do it. Edit even Instill suggestion wouldn't work because "obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect". So it is not possible to force anyone to do suicidal attack with bluff. Even epic level characters cant do it.

Simply believing that adventurers stole something from someone. Does not force peasants to attack.

Armed assault does justify quite a lot. It is not party's fault if people who started violence are bad at it and mercy is not mentioned in Paladins code.

All this is utterly irrelevent. The players butchered peasants they knew to be no threat to them, even killing them as they tried to run. Screw the lethal/nonlethal weapon debate. The OP specified the players made decisions from a mindset of knowing they would win without question. They knew the weapons wouldn't kill them even if they were "lethal weapons" like the episode of Sword Art Online where the protagonist goes back to a lower level and shows the bandits that they can't kill him because he regenerates health faster than they can deal damage.

When players operate on meta knowledge, the characters cannot be defended for their lack of certainty about the consequences of their actions.

The only real justification for this kind of extermination (unjustified, unnecessary harm to innocents) is when dealing with creatures that are irredeemably, intrinsically evil. In such cases destroying them is the only way to stop them.

And yes, the peasants were innocent. They only tried to arrest a group of muderous bandits and retrieve stolen goods.

CharonsHelper
2018-03-06, 09:23 AM
even killing them as they tried to run.

Where was this? I was under the impression that that was the opposite of what happened since the PCs ended up taking about half of them prisoner.

Tajl
2018-03-06, 09:41 AM
All this is utterly irrelevent. The players butchered peasants they knew to be no threat to them, even killing them as they tried to run. Screw the lethal/nonlethal weapon debate. The OP specified the players made decisions from a mindset of knowing they would win without question. They knew the weapons wouldn't kill them even if they were "lethal weapons" like the episode of Sword Art Online where the protagonist goes back to a lower level and shows the bandits that they can't kill him because he regenerates health faster than they can deal damage.

When players operate on meta knowledge, the characters cannot be defended for their lack of certainty about the consequences of their actions.

The only real justification for this kind of extermination (unjustified, unnecessary harm to innocents) is when dealing with creatures that are irredeemably, intrinsically evil. In such cases destroying them is the only way to stop them.

And yes, the peasants were innocent. They only tried to arrest a group of muderous bandits and retrieve stolen goods.

OP also played those "innocent" peasants like common thugs. They were only innocent in paper. Innocent people don't start to threaten people and definitely doesn't start fights. It is simply not possible, because that innocence is lost immediately when they start doing such things.

It doesn't matter if party knew that they would win. They were still attacked and had right to defend themselves. Thugs pretending to be peasants died, that is how it would have worked if they would have arrested them too, if it goes to medieval like justice system. It doesn't matter at all if they were lied to. They attacked and nothing succubi could have said wouldn't justify that.

Main problem with that scenario is that they shouldn't have attacked in first place. That was bad RP from DM. He didn't play peasant like peasants but like thugs or maybe BBEG as even normal thugs would leave lvl9 party alone or back off when they threaten them.

redwizard007
2018-03-06, 09:52 AM
I'm seeing an awful lot of "it was justified by _______ " arguments. May I point out that that reasoning does not mesh with Lawful Good at all.


Lawful good
A lawful good character typically acts with compassion and always with honor and a sense of duty. Such characters include righteous knights, paladins, and most dwarves.

Does that sound like what happened here?

It sounds a lot more like the Players abused the system to inflict a little carnage, expecting that they could hide behind the cry of "I was defending myself." That could certainly be Lawful, but it most certainly isn't Good. They could have restrained, incapacitated, charmed, or used any number of other options that did not result in death to multiple citizens. I would even entertain the argument that killing the first attacker MIGHT have been justified if the PCs had used that as a chance to end the fight with a bluff or diplomacy check. Killing half the rabble crossed lines over and over again. That certainly isn't Good.

Having said all that, if this was 5th edition then it might very well slip in under the newer Paladin Codes depending on which was chosen. I am not sifting back through all the back and forth to find the edition and or appropriate Code. It wasn't tagged, so... If its 2nd through 4th edition, yes, they have a problem. If its 5th edition then we need more information. If its 1st edition then I am unqualified to have an opinion.

Pleh
2018-03-06, 09:57 AM
It came up on page 3 by the original poster (this quote has a link back to the page in the thread)


Yeah, I did mention it in another post, thanks for clarifying that for me.

The PC is never really identified as a paladin on sight based on his attire and general attitude. It's not my doing, it's the players. As far as anyone knows, he could be a fighter, a cleric, a knight, etc, etc. He's also a dwarven king, but chooses not to make it visually obvious that he's royalty. He doesn't even wear a crown. This is all by his choice.

Also, there was more bantering back and forth than that, but it was basically the same repetitive dialogue. Not word by word, but it went something like:

*in the middle of a busy street

"The young lady over there says you stole her coin purse and threatened her because you don't like the deity she serves."

"Get out of here, you have the wrong people."

"Just give us the purse back or we'll have to teach you a lesson!"

"We didn't take her purse! Get out of my way before you get hurt!"

"We ain't lookin' for a fight, but we're going to get her purse back if it means we gotta do this the hard way!"

"Let's do it the hard way then. We didn't take any woman's purse."

*NPC tries to clock the Paladin with the pommel of his sword and terribly misses

PCs cast Slow and Entangle, kill half of the NPCs (even two of them that tried running away). NPCs surrender. PCs had flesh wounds, Paladin was never wounded.

Emphasis mine.

Keltest
2018-03-06, 10:17 AM
I'm seeing an awful lot of "it was justified by _______ " arguments. May I point out that that reasoning does not mesh with Lawful Good at all.



Does that sound like what happened here?

It sounds a lot more like the Players abused the system to inflict a little carnage, expecting that they could hide behind the cry of "I was defending myself." That could certainly be Lawful, but it most certainly isn't Good. They could have restrained, incapacitated, charmed, or used any number of other options that did not result in death to multiple citizens. I would even entertain the argument that killing the first attacker MIGHT have been justified if the PCs had used that as a chance to end the fight with a bluff or diplomacy check. Killing half the rabble crossed lines over and over again. That certainly isn't Good.

Having said all that, if this was 5th edition then it might very well slip in under the newer Paladin Codes depending on which was chosen. I am not sifting back through all the back and forth to find the edition and or appropriate Code. It wasn't tagged, so... If its 2nd through 4th edition, yes, they have a problem. If its 5th edition then we need more information. If its 1st edition then I am unqualified to have an opinion.

The problem here is that you've created a scenario where a Good character cannot kill his opponents. That's totally unreasonable. They might regret the loss of life, but if you attack a good person, they are perfectly within their rights to respond with all the force at their disposal. Good isnt required to hold back just because their opponents are below their weight class, especially when their opponents are behaving entirely contrary to all logic and common sense.

The DM screwed up here, plain and simple. Punishing the player(s) for that is not appropriate.

Pleh
2018-03-06, 10:28 AM
The problem here is that you've created a scenario where a Good character cannot kill his opponents. That's totally unreasonable. They might regret the loss of life, but if you attack a good person, they are perfectly within their rights to respond with all the force at their disposal. Good isnt required to hold back just because their opponents are below their weight class, especially when their opponents are behaving entirely contrary to all logic and common sense.

The DM screwed up here, plain and simple. Punishing the player(s) for that is not appropriate.

No, what we have in this scenario is a Good character who went out of their way to kill opponents who wished to stop fighting and seek less violent solutions because they didn't want to die.

I don't believe anyone here is arguing that the loss of life during the actual combat itself and the death it brought was the real problem here. When people start fights, sometimes they die. That by itself is a very Moral Neutral scenario.

When they Entangle fleeing opponents and run them through with a sword, it's no longer neutral. That is unquestionably an evil act (unless there is reason to believe the fleeing opponents were irredeemably evil which average commoners are not). The real question is how great of an evil act was it? Is it great enough to fall the paladin, to which the answer is, "it could be."

It wasn't that the DM presented a scenario where the players couldn't fight back or kill in self-defense. It was that the players demanded that the attackers surrender as prisoners or DIE. It is not self defense to prevent your attacker from running away. It is not justified to then kill them for running away just because they threw a non-lethal swing at you.

At that point, all you're trying to do is tell the rest of the commoners, "if you mess with us, we will punish you."

I think a hero drawing power from the ideals of virtue could reasonably lose access to their power for taking such a stance.

hamishspence
2018-03-06, 10:30 AM
They are, however, required to keep the motives (and context) of the people attacking them in mind, when judging what degree of violence is appropriate.

Similarly, if you're a paladin and a celestial is, for some reason, attacking you (maybe they've decided that The Needs of the Many require it, or they've been convinced to attack you by a caster using Planar Ally) - you should be trying to take the celestial down in a non-deadly way.

Keltest
2018-03-06, 10:49 AM
They are, however, required to keep the motives (and context) of the people attacking them in mind, when judging what degree of violence is appropriate.

Similarly, if you're a paladin and a celestial is, for some reason, attacking you (maybe they've decided that The Needs of the Many require it, or they've been convinced to attack you by a caster using Planar Ally) - you should be trying to take the celestial down in a non-deadly way.

their motive was to beat the party unconscious and take money from them. Why does this keep getting ignored? Its immensely relevant.

hamishspence
2018-03-06, 10:54 AM
their motive was to beat the party unconscious and take money from them. Why does this keep getting ignored?

Their motive (because they were gullible) was to take goods they believed the party had stolen (and only those goods) and return them to the "victim of the theft".

A case could be argued that the only way for Robin Hood types to be good rather than neutral or worse, is for them to steal ill-gotten gains from the rich and dishonest - rather than robbing the rich and honest.

Keltest
2018-03-06, 11:45 AM
Their motive (because they were gullible) was to take goods they believed the party had stolen (and only those goods) and return them to the "victim of the theft".

A case could be argued that the only way for Robin Hood types to be good rather than neutral or worse, is for them to steal ill-gotten gains from the rich and dishonest - rather than robbing the rich and honest.

Robin Hood also typically didn't intentionally commit his thefts through overt violence against the target. He used cleverness and misdirection rather than threat of force.

hamishspence
2018-03-06, 11:55 AM
Not in most of the versions I read. Overwhelming threat of force was Robin's MO. Random rich guy walks into Sherwood - is surrounded by bow-wielding Merry Men and encouraged to "pay the toll".

Narmoth
2018-03-06, 11:58 AM
The only thing a bluff check does is change what information they have to operate on. Theyre still responsible for what they do with that information, like, say, go attack somebody on the word of a stranger.

I think with the succubus it's more like your best friend telling he was robbed. still, they do in fact attack someone only by the word of someone else. now, let us say that the party ignored the non-lethal attack. what would the peasants do next?

Mordar
2018-03-06, 12:43 PM
All this is utterly irrelevent. The players butchered peasants they knew to be no threat to them, even killing them as they tried to run. Screw the lethal/nonlethal weapon debate. The OP specified the players made decisions from a mindset of knowing they would win without question. They knew the weapons wouldn't kill them even if they were "lethal weapons" like the episode of Sword Art Online where the protagonist goes back to a lower level and shows the bandits that they can't kill him because he regenerates health faster than they can deal damage.

When players operate on meta knowledge, the characters cannot be defended for their lack of certainty about the consequences of their actions.

The only real justification for this kind of extermination (unjustified, unnecessary harm to innocents) is when dealing with creatures that are irredeemably, intrinsically evil. In such cases destroying them is the only way to stop them.

And yes, the peasants were innocent. They only tried to arrest a group of muderous bandits and retrieve stolen goods.

So...players should use meta knowledge to work in favor of your point of view of this situation (the PCs knew the mob (not peasants) couldn't really harm them, so they should just let the 10 armed men have their way* or ignore them and walk on as opposed to treating them as a potential threat) but not use meta knowledge to work in opposition to your point of view of this situation (the PCs knew the mob couldn't hurt them so the PCs could totally "dis" them and then cut them apart once they attacked)? Is that really what you meant, or am I misreading this?

Meta knowledge is the *only* thing that brings this fight into question. It is the only thing that allows the PCs to know that the mob isn't a threat, and thus shouldn't be taken seriously and fought as deadly adversaries until they surrender or flee.

At best the mob is a group of armed vigilantes, seeking street justice on some people (men?) who intimidated and robbed a woman. It is not their job to arrest anyone, and while they were acting in good faith, they weren't preventing immediate harm to the woman. The PCs are quite possibly murderous, but that wasn't expressed to the mob (as they weren't talking to a ghost...). The correct course of action in this city (not village, hamlet or settlement) is certainly to go to the City Watch. Maybe one or two follow the PCs, maybe one or two approach them and try to talk it out...but the best, most lawful course would be to fetch the Watch. And yes, the *city* has a watch...note OP's commentary that it is a "big city with laws just like any civilized city would have". They are duped, yes, and not evil, but their actions were of their own choice and were legitimately met with force.

The entire idea of the succubus is predicated on "allowing" the victim(s) to make a bad choice of their own free will. Sure, mislead, misdirect and bait bad action, but do not compel, dominate or mind control. It worked. Totally sucks to be the 10 guys in the mob thinking you were doing something right, but they still should have known that attacking the party with drawn weapons (lethally at first or not) wasn't the right, just, lawful or smart thing to do. It might be defensible as "Good", but certainly not good.

All of that being said, as I mentioned before I have more and more doubts about the paladin (killing entangled foes when other reasonable options are available might be a tipping point...need a bit more info). But the fact that the Paladin might still deserve repercussions does not somehow absolve the mob of their culpability and certainly doesn't retroactively convert them to "innocent" (unless, of course, they had pre-purchased indulgences...:smallwink:).

- M

* - Yes, I realize this is the preferred story option because we know the mob's "way" is a conversation about a supposed theft, and a plot hook for the succubus story. But since the conversation is predicated on the approach of 10 armed men attempting to intimidate a group of warriors...selecting this option might be the most "meta" choice of all.

hamishspence
2018-03-06, 01:32 PM
The correct course of action in this city (not village, hamlet or settlement) is certainly to go to the City Watch. Maybe one or two follow the PCs, maybe one or two approach them and try to talk it out...but the best, most lawful course would be to fetch the Watch. And yes, the *city* has a watch...note OP's commentary that it is a "big city with laws just like any civilized city would have".

In most D&D cities, there isn't a City Watch, even if there is a judiciary.

Page 157, Cityscape:

"While the city watch is a staple of many fantasy cities, the truth is that only a few cities make use of organised police forces. In other cases, the city relies on adventurers and private citizens to apprehend criminals."

Page 103, DMG II

"Few jurisdictions maintain organised police forces. Armed tax officials extract revenue from those who owe it, but no officers dedicate themselves to investigating crimes or arresting criminals. Routine neighbourhood patrols are unknown. When crimes occur, the mayor musters a force of armed men to locate and then kill or capture the wrongdoers."

Narmoth
2018-03-06, 02:40 PM
No, what we have in this scenario is a Good character who went out of their way to kill opponents who wished to stop fighting and seek less violent solutions because they didn't want to die.

I don't believe anyone here is arguing that the loss of life during the actual combat itself and the death it brought was the real problem here. When people start fights, sometimes they die. That by itself is a very Moral Neutral scenario.

It seems to me that some argue that the paladin using violence to begin with, that is, at the start of the combat, is the issue. For my part, that is what I disagree with, and that was how the initial problem was presented. The entangle spell was mentioned later.


When they Entangle fleeing opponents and run them through with a sword, it's no longer neutral. That is unquestionably an evil act (unless there is reason to believe the fleeing opponents were irredeemably evil which average commoners are not). The real question is how great of an evil act was it? Is it great enough to fall the paladin, to which the answer is, "it could be."

This part I agree is problematic. However, if we allow the paladin to kill orcs in stead of capturing them, the same should apply to bandits. And if that applies to bandits, one can argue, like some have done, that it should apply to the peasants as well.


It wasn't that the DM presented a scenario where the players couldn't fight back or kill in self-defense. It was that the players demanded that the attackers surrender as prisoners or DIE. It is not self defense to prevent your attacker from running away. It is not justified to then kill them for running away just because they threw a non-lethal swing at you.

At that point, all you're trying to do is tell the rest of the commoners, "if you mess with us, we will punish you."

I think a hero drawing power from the ideals of virtue could reasonably lose access to their power for taking such a stance.

yes, that kind of stinks.
However, let's look at a related scenario going on in a game where I am the paladin player:
scenario
the group slaid demons summoned by the executioner of the town. the demons turn to dust when they are killed, so no proof of their existence. The executioner was captured and questioned, however we have no way to have him tried, as we have no tangible proof of his involvement (we are low level, so spells can't really solve this)
scenario ends
should we execute him because we have no proof to win a courtcase against him?
should we let him go so he can repeat his crimes?
should we carry him around indefinitely, with all the problems that gives us?

icefractal
2018-03-06, 04:18 PM
The problem here is that you've created a scenario where a Good character cannot kill his opponents. That's totally unreasonable. They might regret the loss of life, but if you attack a good person, they are perfectly within their rights to respond with all the force at their disposal. Good isnt required to hold back just because their opponents are below their weight class, especially when their opponents are behaving entirely contrary to all logic and common sense.

The DM screwed up here, plain and simple. Punishing the player(s) for that is not appropriate.Yup, good-aligned characters occasionally having to take a -4 to hit, against foes they would still defeat easily, is pretty much a death sentence. Might as well give up and let evil win if we can't smite the **** out of anyone who defies us.



There is nothing in the paladin code that says they have to be nonviolent where possible, or merciful."Justice without mercy" is a pretty classic LN attitude. Or even LE if you take it to extremes. Judge Dred is not a Paladin.

Mordar
2018-03-06, 04:23 PM
In most D&D cities, there isn't a City Watch, even if there is a judiciary.

Page 157, Cityscape:

"While the city watch is a staple of many fantasy cities, the truth is that only a few cities make use of organised police forces. In other cases, the city relies on adventurers and private citizens to apprehend criminals."

Page 103, DMG II

"Few jurisdictions maintain organised police forces. Armed tax officials extract revenue from those who owe it, but no officers dedicate themselves to investigating crimes or arresting criminals. Routine neighbourhood patrols are unknown. When crimes occur, the mayor musters a force of armed men to locate and then kill or capture the wrongdoers."

In virtually every "D&D city" that I have played in or DMed there has been a city watch. Towns, villages and hamlets might have a sheriff or constable, but not always. From the OP, I very much would expect this city to have a Watch. If a DM I was playing with decided that the cities of his world *didn't* have Watches, I would be surprised (but not miffed or anything like that and would certainly not pitch any sort of fit). But it would certainly subvert my expectation, based literally on decades of play.

I understand the context of the quotes I find the opening clause of the Cityscape quote to run very much counter to the point it is trying to make. To paraphrase for humor: "The City Watch is a staple of many fantasy cities. You're going to be playing a fantasy RPG, probably in no small part because you like the fantasy stories that spawn those fantasy cities. And while you are playing the fantasy RPG you'll totally be visiting fantasy cities. But these fantasy cities won't be like the fantasy cities you read about because REALISM! Never mind the long history of fiction, even specifically D&D branded fiction, having city watches in all the key cities."

Heck, even Sanctuary had a Watch of sorts! :smallconfused:

Of course, the OP can confirm or deny the existence of such a police force in his city if he likes.

But let's go with the idea that there isn't a Watch. Does that change the scope of the interaction, or just further limit the reasonable choices the mob can make? Would denizens of the world/kingdom/city now respond to an armed group demanding something that isn't theirs differently? Does the entire "judiciary" become Justice by Might? Because if there is no Watch, no legal recourse for the victims of crimes other than recruiting a mob to employ street justice, what other choice did the mob have but to confront the party?

- M

Tajl
2018-03-06, 04:37 PM
, what other choice did the mob have but to confront the party?

- M

Do what every sane person would do in that situation. Give up and continue living. Normal people doesn't start fights with clearly superior opponents. That just doesn't happen.

Mordar
2018-03-06, 04:55 PM
Do what every sane person would do in that situation. Give up and continue living. Normal people doesn't start fights with clearly superior opponents. That just doesn't happen.

Once the party didn't back down, I absolutely agree. I'm reminded of the Eddie Murphy bit about Poltergeist and Amityville...to paraphrase

Mob: "Hey, you got that woman's money?"
PCs: "No. Leave us alone."
Mob: "Well, we tried. Sorry lady, you're on your own."

- M

SilverCacaobean
2018-03-06, 05:07 PM
Normal people doesn't start fights with clearly superior opponents. That just doesn't happen.

False. Besides, how do you know that they looked "clearly superior"? Sure level 9 characters do understand that they're special after having observed taking a fireball to the face and only getting slightly injured, but low-level peasants don't necessarily know that's how this world works, or even if they do, if high level characters are rare the tough guy guild won't avoid every combat on the off-chance the ones facing them are demigods.

Narmoth
2018-03-06, 05:11 PM
False. Besides, how do you know that they looked "clearly superior"? Sure level 9 characters do understand that they're special after having observed taking a fireball to the face and only getting slightly injured, but low-level peasants don't necessarily know that's how this world works, or even if they do, if high level characters are rare the tough guy guild won't avoid every combat on the off-chance the ones facing them are demigods.

they had plate armour. that's clearly superior

SilverCacaobean
2018-03-06, 05:13 PM
they had plate armour. that's clearly superior

One on one yes, but they had numbers. If they were around the same level, they'd probably succeed in subduing them. If the peasants have no notion of "levels", their assumption that they could win isn't unreasonable.

EDIT: I mean I'm also assuming, I have no idea if they do, but the fact that they tried to retreat when they were massacred suggests that the weren't suicidal, they just miscalculated, possibly because they don't understand "levels".

Tajl
2018-03-06, 05:42 PM
One on one yes, but they had numbers. If they were around the same level, they'd probably succeed in subduing them. If the peasants have no notion of "levels", their assumption that they could win isn't unreasonable.

EDIT: I mean I'm also assuming, I have no idea if they do, but the fact that they tried to retreat when they were massacred suggests that the weren't suicidal, they just miscalculated, possibly because they don't understand "levels".

They are peasants not idiots so they know that they when it comes to fighting practically anyone is more skilled than they. And even if they would think that somehow they could take that plated guy out, they would know that it wouldn't happen without casualties. Most likely most of them would die even if they would win. How many lives they are willing to sacrifice for strangers purse? Even as miscalculation that just doesn't work.

Sometimes players do things that their character would never do. This time DM made that same mistake.

Davrix
2018-03-06, 05:51 PM
A few critical details have since surfaced.

The woman was a disguised succubus (the party didn't seem to know that).

The paladin was specifically not recognizable as a paladin (not in any meaningful way).

The party saw the exchange between the succubus and the posse from across the street (but didn't hear what was being said).

The party used an Entangle spell to make the posse easier to kill, when it could just as easily have helped subdue.

Most importantly, the party still killed members of the posse even as they withdrew from the fight to flee. To me, this last detail crosses the line from self defense into personal vengeance.

If you act based on them not being a threat, order them to walk away, then kill thenm later for doing so, you just wanted to kill them. There is no honor or morals that defend this.

Man this thread just keeps exploding heh.

All this though and the fact the OP did say the NPC's claimed to be trying to acquire stolen goods back from them should of sent warning bells all around and yea the parts about them Trapping them to kill and chasing after them after the fight.... Oh no no no that's far over the line at this point. City watch should be involved and I'm pretty sure yea the paladin needs to have his powers stripped until he repents and tries to fix this. There is a big difference between self defense and chasing after fleeing common folk

SilverCacaobean
2018-03-06, 06:02 PM
They are peasants not idiots so they know that they when it comes to fighting practically anyone is more skilled than they.

They're not just peasants, they're members of the local tough guy guild. It's probably the opposite of what you said, they're probably the toughest people they know.


Most likely most of them would die even if they would win.

What, plate armor is that good?

Florian
2018-03-06, 06:10 PM
What, plate armor is that good?

Pretty much. The later versions were basically the MBT of their time. Contrast jousting between two guys in plate armor to what the same lance does to an unarmored or lightly armored target to know why.

Pleh
2018-03-06, 06:14 PM
So...players should use meta knowledge to work in favor of your point of view of this situation (the PCs knew the mob (not peasants) couldn't really harm them, so they should just let the 10 armed men have their way* or ignore them and walk on as opposed to treating them as a potential threat) but not use meta knowledge to work in opposition to your point of view of this situation (the PCs knew the mob couldn't hurt them so the PCs could totally "dis" them and then cut them apart once they attacked)? Is that really what you meant, or am I misreading this?

Meta knowledge is the *only* thing that brings this fight into question. It is the only thing that allows the PCs to know that the mob isn't a threat, and thus shouldn't be taken seriously and fought as deadly adversaries until they surrender or flee.

No, I don't think meta knowledge should be used at all, but it certainly shouldn't be allowed benefit the players choices and be ignored in the face of their consequences. The players seemed to be making choices based on their meta knowledge of the scenario, but the characters should not be immune to the consequences of operating in a manner created by employing meta knowledge.

Characters who act based on outside information are often ignoring the in-universe information they are meant to be using. In this case, the Paladin should probably have felt a great deal more empathy with these NPCs. Instead, they focused on the out of game information about how the NPCs didn't have the power to stop them, which to the rest of the world of NPCs they inhabit makes them look like sadistic psychopaths (such as people who feel no remorse or empathy for butchering a group of misguided commoners even after they have broken from their delusion). Since Meta Knowledge does not exist within the game world to justify their actions, only to justify the player's decisions in our world, the characters should experience the consequences of acting like sadistic psychopaths.

Done poorly, it can become punishing the players, which is very bad. But doing nothing is also wrong because it delegitimizes the logical consequences of the character's actions.

You don't get to be Good and cut down fleeing people.


At best the mob is a group of armed vigilantes, seeking street justice on some people (men?) who intimidated and robbed a woman. It is not their job to arrest anyone, and while they were acting in good faith, they weren't preventing immediate harm to the woman. The PCs are quite possibly murderous, but that wasn't expressed to the mob (as they weren't talking to a ghost...). The correct course of action in this city (not village, hamlet or settlement) is certainly to go to the City Watch. Maybe one or two follow the PCs, maybe one or two approach them and try to talk it out...but the best, most lawful course would be to fetch the Watch. And yes, the *city* has a watch...note OP's commentary that it is a "big city with laws just like any civilized city would have". They are duped, yes, and not evil, but their actions were of their own choice and were legitimately met with force.

I agree, until they started murdering people that were only trying to run away.


The entire idea of the succubus is predicated on "allowing" the victim(s) to make a bad choice of their own free will. Sure, mislead, misdirect and bait bad action, but do not compel, dominate or mind control. It worked. Totally sucks to be the 10 guys in the mob thinking you were doing something right, but they still should have known that attacking the party with drawn weapons (lethally at first or not) wasn't the right, just, lawful or smart thing to do. It might be defensible as "Good", but certainly not good.

All of that being said, as I mentioned before I have more and more doubts about the paladin (killing entangled foes when other reasonable options are available might be a tipping point...need a bit more info). But the fact that the Paladin might still deserve repercussions does not somehow absolve the mob of their culpability and certainly doesn't retroactively convert them to "innocent" (unless, of course, they had pre-purchased indulgences...:smallwink:).

- M

I'm convinced this side of the argument has become entirely irrelevant. When members of the mob broke off from the fight to run away, any culpability from initiating the fight is gone because they have now initiated a non-violent dismissal of combat, which the party disallowed and murdered them.


However, let's look at a related scenario going on in a game where I am the paladin player:
scenario
the group slaid demons summoned by the executioner of the town. the demons turn to dust when they are killed, so no proof of their existence. The executioner was captured and questioned, however we have no way to have him tried, as we have no tangible proof of his involvement (we are low level, so spells can't really solve this)
scenario ends
should we execute him because we have no proof to win a courtcase against him?
should we let him go so he can repeat his crimes?
should we carry him around indefinitely, with all the problems that gives us?

Before we run off on this tangent, exactly how is it related to the topic besides just being another moral quandary for another paladin?

EDIT: Just remembered to add this point. I have consciously avoided the topic of goblins and orcs. That is a bad example to dive into because different systems handle their morality differently. That's why I made the distinction of describing "irredeemably evil creatures." If orcs and golbins are just humanoids with a bad rep, then murdering them indiscriminately is wrong. If they are unholy abominations who are unable to resist the temptation to kill people and eat babies, then exterminating them is good and right.

It's more about having empathy with creatures that have the potential to actually repent and become more good later. Human commoners, unlike goblins and orcs, do not have the tendency to be commonly interpreted as irredeemably evil. Even human bandits that you use to bridge the gap are far more questionable in how redeemable they are than orcs and goblins SOMETIMES are.

Tajl
2018-03-06, 06:20 PM
They're not just peasants, they're members of the local tough guy guild. It's probably the opposite of what you said, they're probably the toughest people they know.

Very unlikely if it is not tiny 2 houses town. Because peasant is weakest NPC class so practically anyone is tougher than them including people and especially monsters. If they would have fought any battles they would know how poor they are and if they haven't fought any, they wouldn't start their first against people with way better equipment.



What, plate armor is that good?

Both real life plate and D&D plate. Real life guy with plate and sword against guys without armor is not going to end well for guys without armor. Real life plate was very good protection against melee weapons. So good that with normal peasant tools it is practically impossible to hurt him without first taking him down, which is not going to happen because sword is perfect tool for killing people without armor.

In game plated guy have good AC, peasants have no base attack bonus and maybe +1 from strenght, if they even have any strenght bonus. They are not going to hit easily while even worst swordsman in the D&D universe will hit them easily.

Tajl
2018-03-06, 06:56 PM
Characters who act based on outside information are often ignoring the in-universe information they are meant to be using. In this case, the Paladin should probably have felt a great deal more empathy with these NPCs. Instead, they focused on the out of game information about how the NPCs didn't have the power to stop them, which to the rest of the world of NPCs they inhabit makes them look like sadistic psychopaths

In game information is that group of ten armed people comes to threaten them and then attack. They may have looked like peasants but they certainly didn't act like peasants. Why should Paladin have any empathy for bandits? Fact that they were true peasants is outside information and they didn't act like peasants.



You don't get to be Good and cut down fleeing people.

What you think would be punishment for those peasants according to law. If law is anything like medieval laws were armed assault against knight (Paladin) wouldn't end well for peasants. Most likely they would be hanged. So killing them would just save time and money. Paladin serves law too and can't really let criminals get away. If they stop and surrender then it is different case as Paladin can give them to authorities.



When members of the mob broke off from the fight to run away, any culpability from initiating the fight is gone because they have now initiated a non-violent dismissal of combat, which the party disallowed and murdered them.

So you start fight and when you start losing you could just walk away and people you just attacked should let you go just like that like you were not quilty at anything? It doesn't work like that in real life and there is no reason why it should work like that in D&D.

Oryan77
2018-03-06, 07:40 PM
Since so many people have given so much input to this scenario, I feel I owe everyone an update.

I personally as a player and a DM felt that the paladin should lose his abilities until he could later right his wrongs. As I mentioned, I did not plan this encounter in order to set a "trap" for the paladin like a few accused me of doing (gee thanks). I didn't even think about what the paladin actually did until days later.

My intentions are never to screw a player over for my own enjoyment. I will however referee the world around the PCs in ways that I believe are logical and just. Even then, I'm only a guy making my best judgement calls for the fun & fairness of the game. I sure wish more players could keep that in mind before tearing their DMs a knew @$#%@%#.

I also understand how players could see two sides to this encounter. So rather than being heavy handed, I started the last session out explaining the scenario to the players. I then asked each person to give his honest opinion on what he feels should happen to the paladin. The player of the paladin even stated his case and was making jokes about it because he knows what he did is highly suspect and there wasn't much he could say in his own defense.

Every single player had a similar opinion and said that, yes, he did violate his paladin code, but not to the extent where they think his deity Clangeddin would fully punish him. They unanimously voted that he temporarily lose a single ability or two. The player didn't argue about his fate.

I haven't decided which ability he will lose yet. I suggested Lay on Hands, but I may go with something else since they lack in the healing department as it is.

I do have a courtroom scenario planned in a couple of sessions in regards to this street brawl. Depending on how he responds in court and conducts himself, it could be a good opportunity for him to already regain his abilities. Losing his ability for only a couple of sessions isn't so bad at all if he will jump at this chance.

I apologize, but I simply cannot respond to all of the rest of the questions that were brought up over the past few pages. I did read everything, but I just don't see any good coming from responding to them at this point. I appreciate all of the great feedback and interest in this scenario and the people on the other side of the debate had a big influence on my decision to let the group vote rather than just myself.

icefractal
2018-03-06, 07:59 PM
Both real life plate and D&D plate. Real life guy with plate and sword against guys without armor is not going to end well for guys without armor. Real life plate was very good protection against melee weapons. So good that with normal peasant tools it is practically impossible to hurt him without first taking him down, which is not going to happen because sword is perfect tool for killing people without armor.Not really the case in D&D. It's great armor, but it's not some quantum leap to invincibility.

Let's say that "local tough guys" means 1st-2nd level Warriors. So let's say a +2 attack bonus. Against someone in leather armor, they've got a 55% chance to hit. Plate makes it a 25% chance. That is a notable difference, but it's not at "just give up" levels, especially with a numbers advantage. And regarding exclusivity, it's expensive but not that expensive - having it is no guarantee of bad-ass status.

Also - what bearing does this tangent have anyway? Did being foolish become deserving of death while I wasn't looking?

redwizard007
2018-03-06, 08:30 PM
I'm just posting so I remember to check in this weekend when we are on page 45 of the "it's OK," "no it's not" argument with absolutely no one having changed their mind at all and OP having resolved the issue in game already.

CharonsHelper
2018-03-06, 09:18 PM
"Justice without mercy" is a pretty classic LN attitude. Or even LE if you take it to extremes. Judge Dred is not a Paladin.

I never thought that Dredd is really interested in something as vague as "justice" - just "the law".

Boci
2018-03-06, 10:58 PM
Meta knowledge is the *only* thing that brings this fight into question. It is the only thing that allows the PCs to know that the mob isn't a threat, and thus shouldn't be taken seriously and fought as deadly adversaries until they surrender or flee.

As previously mentioned, the PCs should know this, because levels are observable in game.

"Hey, didn't we get ambushed by 12 soldiers, decently equipt and presuambly better trained? I don't think 10 unarmoured peasants facing us down straight on are a threat"

Is a perfectly reasonable sentence for a character to say IC. How would the rest of the party respond?

Keltest
2018-03-06, 11:19 PM
As previously mentioned, the PCs should know this, because levels are observable in game.

"Hey, didn't we get ambushed by 12 soldiers, decently equipt and presuambly better trained? I don't think 10 unarmoured peasants facing us down straight on are a threat"

Is a perfectly reasonable sentence for a character to say IC. How would the rest of the party respond?

This goes both ways. If the players can see level 1 mooks, then the peasants can see level 9 players and go "what was the plan again?"

Boci
2018-03-06, 11:27 PM
This goes both ways. If the players can see level 1 mooks, then the peasants can see level 9 players and go "what was the plan again?"

Not as clearly. Remember I reference an ingame event, not their levels. If the peasants saw the 4 PCs get ambushed by 12 soliders and emerged relativly unscathed, yeah, they shouldn't be attacking, but without further context 4 adventurers, even well equipt, that doesn't automatically mean undefeatable. Had the party been 1st level they may have reacted differently for example.

Keltest
2018-03-06, 11:30 PM
Not as clearly. Remember I reference an ingame event, not their levels. If the peasants saw the 4 PCs get ambushed by 12 soliders and emerged relativly unscathed, yeah, they shouldn't be attacking, but without further context 4 adventurers, even well equipt, that doesn't automatically mean undefeatable. Had the party been 1st level they may have reacted differently for example.

Even a first level party with any spellcasters have a significant advantage over a group of peasants. See above about challenging a gold dragon in its lair.

Boci
2018-03-06, 11:34 PM
Even a first level party with any spellcasters have a significant advantage over a group of peasants.

Significant advantage =! undeatable. A 1st level party likely wouldn't risk their lives over a purse, especially not when victory doesn't really give them much.

Keltest
2018-03-06, 11:35 PM
Significant advantage =! undeatable. A 1st level party likely wouldn't risk their lives over a purse, especially not when victory doesn't really give them much.

But the peasants would, apparently? You've got a pretty immense double standard going on here.

Boci
2018-03-06, 11:36 PM
But the peasants would, apparently? You've got a pretty immense double standard going on here.

Nope. For the peasants, justice and law are on the line. They can't just let armed indeviduals walk over them.

Basically, its not true to say "it cuts both ways" and leave it at that. Yes, both sides will have an idea as to what levels are, but PCs will have a rough idea of their level, better so than the peasants.

Keltest
2018-03-06, 11:42 PM
Nope. For the peasants, justice and law are on the line. They can't just let armed indeviduals walk over them.

Basically, its not true to say "it cuts both ways" and leave it at that. Yes, both sides will have an idea as to what levels are, but PCs will have a rough idea of their level, better so than the peasants.

Like I said, this is a huge double standard. If the PCs can look at the peasants and decide "these guys are chumps" then the peasants can look at the PCs and decide "these guys are totally out of our league". You cant have one without the other.

Boci
2018-03-06, 11:44 PM
Like I said, this is a huge double standard. If the PCs can look at the peasants and decide "these guys are chumps" then the peasants can look at the PCs and decide "these guys are totally out of our league". You cant have one without the other.

Repeated saying "double standards" doesn't make it so. The PCs know the peasants are chumps because they know what they have previously accomplished and can compare. The peasants can't make this comparison. Thus, no double standards.

icefractal
2018-03-07, 12:16 AM
Like I said, this is a huge double standard. If the PCs can look at the peasants and decide "these guys are chumps" then the peasants can look at the PCs and decide "these guys are totally out of our league". You cant have one without the other.No, not really. I would think it obvious that high-level characters know more about their capabilities vis-a-vis low-level characters than vice-versa. Not only do the former have more knowledge and experience, but they used to be low-level characters themselves, whereas the reverse isn't true.

Also, if neither group has anything to signify how powerful they are (again, "well equipped with good weapons and armor" just means you're like, 3rd+ level, or are rich), then the default guess (for both) would be "low level", simply because there are a lot more low-level people than high-level ones.

But for that matter, I wouldn't be recommending a fall if the Paladin mistook them as serious threats and took a single lethal swing. Continuing to do so when the situation becomes obvious is the issue.


And - yes, I'm going to keep repeating it because people keep ignoring it - how in the nine hells would the townsfolk being foolish and attacking people out of their league make it more ok to kill them? That's just a total non-sequitor.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-03-07, 03:29 AM
And - yes, I'm going to keep repeating it because people keep ignoring it - how in the nine hells would the townsfolk being foolish and attacking people out of their league make it more ok to kill them? That's just a total non-sequitor.

People have answered this repeatedly.

1) People aren't suicidal.
2) It would be suicidal for normal peasants to attack well armed adventurers.
---
3) Therefore, these aren't normal peasants and are more dangerous than they appear to be.

I don't especially agree with it, but don't act like no one has explained this.

hamishspence
2018-03-07, 04:41 AM
A stunning blow to the head can be effective even against people in armour.

The "peasants" outnumber the adventurers.

In virtually every "D&D city" that I have played in or DMed there has been a city watch. Towns, villages and hamlets might have a sheriff or constable, but not always. From the OP, I very much would expect this city to have a Watch. If a DM I was playing with decided that the cities of his world *didn't* have Watches, I would be surprised (but not miffed or anything like that and would certainly not pitch any sort of fit). But it would certainly subvert my expectation, based literally on decades of play.

I understand the context of the quotes I find the opening clause of the Cityscape quote to run very much counter to the point it is trying to make. To paraphrase for humor: "The City Watch is a staple of many fantasy cities. You're going to be playing a fantasy RPG, probably in no small part because you like the fantasy stories that spawn those fantasy cities. And while you are playing the fantasy RPG you'll totally be visiting fantasy cities. But these fantasy cities won't be like the fantasy cities you read about because REALISM! Never mind the long history of fiction, even specifically D&D branded fiction, having city watches in all the key cities."

Heck, even Sanctuary had a Watch of sorts! :smallconfused:

Of course, the OP can confirm or deny the existence of such a police force in his city if he likes.

But let's go with the idea that there isn't a Watch. Does that change the scope of the interaction, or just further limit the reasonable choices the mob can make? Would denizens of the world/kingdom/city now respond to an armed group demanding something that isn't theirs differently? Does the entire "judiciary" become Justice by Might? Because if there is no Watch, no legal recourse for the victims of crimes other than recruiting a mob to employ street justice, what other choice did the mob have but to confront the party?
Regarding "city watch" it may be more a case of "The city watch in most D&D cities is not an organized police force - it exists to break up drunken brawls and drag the brawlers off to the lockup to sleep it off".

Glorthindel
2018-03-07, 05:50 AM
Repeated saying "double standards" doesn't make it so.

And repeatedly saying "no" doesn't make it not.

Boci
2018-03-07, 06:03 AM
And repeatedly saying "no" doesn't make it not.

Which is probably why I then proceeded to explain why I felt it wasn't the case here (PCs know their power level relativle to peasants, but the same isn't true in reverse). You know, the part of my post you clipped from the quote.

Florian
2018-03-07, 06:15 AM
In virtually every "D&D city" that I have played in or DMed there has been a city watch. Towns, villages and hamlets might have a sheriff or constable, but not always. From the OP, I very much would expect this city to have a Watch. If a DM I was playing with decided that the cities of his world *didn't* have Watches, I would be surprised (but not miffed or anything like that and would certainly not pitch any sort of fit). But it would certainly subvert my expectation, based literally on decades of play.

I understand the context of the quotes I find the opening clause of the Cityscape quote to run very much counter to the point it is trying to make. To paraphrase for humor: "The City Watch is a staple of many fantasy cities. You're going to be playing a fantasy RPG, probably in no small part because you like the fantasy stories that spawn those fantasy cities. And while you are playing the fantasy RPG you'll totally be visiting fantasy cities. But these fantasy cities won't be like the fantasy cities you read about because REALISM! Never mind the long history of fiction, even specifically D&D branded fiction, having city watches in all the key cities."

Heck, even Sanctuary had a Watch of sorts! :smallconfused:

Of course, the OP can confirm or deny the existence of such a police force in his city if he likes.

But let's go with the idea that there isn't a Watch. Does that change the scope of the interaction, or just further limit the reasonable choices the mob can make? Would denizens of the world/kingdom/city now respond to an armed group demanding something that isn't theirs differently? Does the entire "judiciary" become Justice by Might? Because if there is no Watch, no legal recourse for the victims of crimes other than recruiting a mob to employ street justice, what other choice did the mob have but to confront the party?

- M

Oops, wanted to answer to that earlier.

I absolutely loathe the "city watch" / "sheriff" trope the way itīs mostly used. A bit upthread, I mentioned Machiavellis description of Florence and coming from Germany, I always took an interested in how that was handled in various cities at different times and how power structures like the Hanse or the feudal system changed that.

Take Florence as an example, because that was pretty advanced for a while. It didn't have a Watch and it didn't need one. What it had were the "color banners", so every guild had the right to set up laws and a court, recruit men to deal with policing/justice when it came to guild matters, but in turn had to train and support a "banner" of professional soldiers from their own ranks and hand over control to the ruling council in times of war and crisis.

In feudal germany, you were either "free" or "indentured", no difference between town or person. Might sound odd from our modern perspective, but how the system was set up with some of the old roman empire notions at the core, you either accepted your place in it, but were also fully protected by the legal system (Contrary to common tropes, even the lowliest indentured servant had a lot of legal rights and could drag his lord to court and win), while someone or someplace who/that was "free", or "Vogelfrei" (Free like a Bird), didn't have the obligations but also not the protection of a functional legal and judiciary system.

The Hanse time is practically a mix between those two, with the free cities managing to incorporate the "color banner" system as part of the greater feudal system.

Pleh
2018-03-07, 08:48 AM
In game information is that group of ten armed people comes to threaten them and then attack. They may have looked like peasants but they certainly didn't act like peasants. Why should Paladin have any empathy for bandits? Fact that they were true peasants is outside information and they didn't act like peasants.

Incorrect. As you pointed out, this is a city and would have a Watch. These men could be part of that force as much as any other able bodied peasants. They did not act as bandits, but as concerned, responsible citizens.


What you think would be punishment for those peasants according to law. If law is anything like medieval laws were armed assault against knight (Paladin) wouldn't end well for peasants. Most likely they would be hanged. So killing them would just save time and money. Paladin serves law too and can't really let criminals get away. If they stop and surrender then it is different case as Paladin can give them to authorities.

The paladin can't be protected by their station when they intentionally obscure it and fail to verbally indicate as much. If anything, that kind of law itself was never really Just to begin with and wouldn't be upheld by cosmic forces of Good (even if it might by cosmic forces of Law). Paladins must be LG, not just lawful.


So you start fight and when you start losing you could just walk away and people you just attacked should let you go just like that like you were not quilty at anything? It doesn't work like that in real life and there is no reason why it should work like that in D&D.

Except that most of us in real life aren't Paladins granted supernatural power for living to a higher standard of both Good and Law.

The reasons to let them go were apparent and known to the party:
these men were clearly mistaken/duped and no particular or sincere effort was made to seek nonviolent rectification of this fact.
the party chose to act on the knowledge that these men were of no particular threat in how they handled them, which was callous at best and sadistic at worst.
the men were clearly not looking to take their lives so it IS unreasonable to demand theirs in return. Please note that life lost in the contest isn't the problem, but continuing to insist after combat is over is simply cruel and has nothing to do with justice (even if they were bandits, you could capture fleeing targets instead of killing them).

In short, we are taking their lives for not only the mistakes of the NPCs, but for those of the party as well, none of which were their fault.

Justice would be only using lethal force until the combatant quit combat (by whatever meams) and absolutely no farther.

Tajl
2018-03-07, 10:17 AM
Incorrect. As you pointed out, this is a city and would have a Watch. These men could be part of that force as much as any other able bodied peasants. They did not act as bandits, but as concerned, responsible citizens.

They could have been part of the watch but they didn't as if they would have been then OP would have said so. They were just peasants no peasant watch. And responsible citizens doesn't attack anyone that is just BS.



The paladin can't be protected by their station when they intentionally obscure it and fail to verbally indicate as much. If anything, that kind of law itself was never really Just to begin with and wouldn't be upheld by cosmic forces of Good (even if it might by cosmic forces of Law). Paladins must be LG, not just lawful.

Only beggars are below peasants when it comes to social class. Beggars doesn't have armor so guy with plate is way beyond them when it comes to social class. They didn't ask anything before they started to threaten. If guy with plate would have been noble even that would have had very serious consequences for peasants, maybe even death. If they would have attacked noble it would have been certain death and death by sword would have been much nicer way to die than what they would have got. Argument that concerned responsible citizens would attack unknown party with rich equipment is ridiculous. Even if they would win the fight which would be unlikely there would be good chance that they would be hunted down later and if it would have been noble and they would have killed him it could be dead for their whole families too and at least their families would lose their lands.

For peasant attacking unknown party is way beyond stupid mistake. They would have to be totally insane.



Except that most of us in real life aren't Paladins granted supernatural power for living to a higher standard of both Good and Law.

The reasons to let them go were apparent and known to the party:
these men were clearly mistaken/duped and no particular or sincere effort was made to seek nonviolent rectification of this fact.
the party chose to act on the knowledge that these men were of no particular threat in how they handled them, which was callous at best and sadistic at worst.
the men were clearly not looking to take their lives so it IS unreasonable to demand theirs in return. Please note that life lost in the contest isn't the problem, but continuing to insist after combat is over is simply cruel and has nothing to do with justice (even if they were bandits, you could capture fleeing targets instead of killing them).

In short, we are taking their lives for not only the mistakes of the NPCs, but for those of the party as well, none of which were their fault.

Justice would be only using lethal force until the combatant quit combat (by whatever meams) and absolutely no farther.

Paladin serves law too and armed assault is not some petty crime. Only difference between murder and armed assault is that this time victims were better fighters. Next time that could be different so it is better that there will be no next time. I think there is no legal system where armed assault wouldn't have some serious consequences and there is good reasons for that. People who do armed attacks against random people are just too dangerous. Just like rabid dogs they are put down. Yes Paladin could be merciful but in this case there is absolutely no reason to do so because those "peasants" behave like crazy lunatics and paladins job is to protect innocent. Most innocent people can't defend themselves as well as Paladin and party so next time there would be innocent victims.

hamishspence
2018-03-07, 10:25 AM
Only beggars are below peasants when it comes to social class. Beggars doesn't have armor so guy with plate is way beyond them when it comes to social class.



To paraphrase Gendry from Game of Thrones:

"You don't need to be a noble to wear armour. Any idiot can wear armour"
"How do you know?"
"Because I sold armour."

In a world of adventurers - people who travel from country to country, in armour, owning no land and no rank - being suspicious of adventurers, is to be expected.

Indeed, when it comes to arresting the kind of person who is constantly on the move - it may be necessary to do so "on the spot" instead of trying to convince the local city guard to do so - because, by the time the city guard are convinced to come, the adventurers may have already gone.

We know that the 10 men who attacked the adventuring party were "lightly armoured" rather than not armoured at all, were "a guild of tough guys" and were using swords - they used sword hilts in attempt to, from their perspective, apprehend thieves who refused to admit their guilt:




They saw a peasant girl (young lady) point at them from a distance, the 10 men then looked in their direction, some words were exchanged, and then they confidently marched up the road to confront the PCs. The PCs saw the girl walk away behind a building during the exchange.

This is a scenario from the adventure. Not something that I came up with to challenge their alignments. The girl is a succubus hoping to keep the PCs off her trail and was using these men to eliminate the threat. Neither party knows the power level of each other and the 10 men were armed with swords and lightly armored, but seeing as how it was 10-4, they thought they could scare the PCs into just handing over the girls purse. The 10 men are part of a guild of tough guys, so they are confident guys even if a bit daft.

Perhaps the 10 men, in reality, would have been too intimidated to approach and threaten the well armed/armored PCs. That's the way it played out though.

Tajl
2018-03-07, 10:44 AM
To paraphrase Gendry from Game of Thrones:

"You don't need to be a noble to wear armour. Any idiot can wear armour"
"How do you know?"
"Because I sold armour."

In a world of adventurers - people who travel from country to country, in armour, owning no land and no rank - being suspicious of adventurers, is to be expected.

Indeed, when it comes to arresting the kind of person who is constantly on the move - it may be necessary to do so "on the spot" instead of trying to convince the local city guard to do so - because, by the time the city guard are convinced to come, the adventurers may have already gone.

When that armour is plate you have to be rich and if you are rich you are way beyond peasant when it comes to social class. Noble would be worst case for peasants as with noble it wouldn't matter if they would win that fight or lose as they would die anyway. It would even be better to lose as then there would be chance that their families would survive.