PDA

View Full Version : When players start their Knowledge(Monster manual) tests...



Elhann
2007-09-09, 11:03 AM
What do you do when one of the players usual reactions to descriptions of monsters is always relating them to a creature from the monster manual?

Example: "Once the winged creature the paladin detected as evil approaches, you realize it is a quite tall humanoid, resembling an ugly woman, with dirty, dark red hair, reddish skin with scales around her eyes and shoulders, wearing a bloddied hide armour.A pair of bat-like wings springs frome her back, allowing her a fairly clumsy flight. She dives on the priestesses, extending long and sharp claws, and attacks her." Paladin goes: Hey, NPC-priestess-name, beware of the succubus!

Succubus?! Nah, really, which part of "ugly", "long claws", "dirty hair", "clumsy flight" and a direct attack instead of disguising herself and seducing people didn't make him think it was not a succubus? She has bat wings and looks humanoid, and the townfolk address her as "the red deamon", so she must be a succubus?

I'm fairly sure that the rest of them also try to relate to known monsters, trying to determine a good strategy against the foe in question, but at least they try not to metagame so openly. I had a small herd of centaur rangers serving the ugly winged creature which is NOT a succubus, who have been spotted by the group, but are happy with following them at a distance. But I have decided to change them, just for a nice surprise.

I have used the tauric template from MM2. I know it is 3.0, but since there are no damage reduction issues, I'd say it shouldn't be a problem converting it. I ask you, do you see any glaring errors with the creature, and, if so, would you say it has too low or too high CR for its abilities?

Hobgobataur, hobgoblin bison-tauric creature (Lacking a better name, this will do:smalltongue:)

Large monstrous humanoid

DG: 6d8 +18 (39 pg)
Ini: +2
Speed: 40' (8 squares)
AC: 17 (-1 size, +2 DEX, +4 Natural, +2 heavy wooden shield), 11 touch, 15 flatfooted
Base attack/grapple: +6/+16 (+6 strength, +4 size)
Attack: large battle axe +12 (1d10 +6 20x3) c/c
or +7 throwing axe (1d6+6, 20 x3) distance
Full attack: +12/+7 large battle axe (1d10+6 20x3) and gore +6 (1d8 +3) c/c
or +7 throwing axe (1d6+6 20x3) distance --it has not quick draw, he shouldn't be able to throw more than one axe each tun, right?--
Space/Reach 10'/5'
Special attacks: Stampede
Special abilities: Scent, Low light vision, Darkvision 60'
Saves: Fort +5, Ref+7, Vol+5
Characteristics: STR 22, DEX 14, CON 16, INT 9, WIS 10, CHA 8
Skills: Listen +5, Spot +5, Hide +4, Move silently +4
Feats: Alertness, Power Attack, Weapon focus (Battle axe)
Environment: Warm hills
Organization: same as hobgoblins
Advance: by character class.
Treasure: standard
Alignement: Usually LE
CR: 4

Stampede (Ex): when a group of hobgobataurs overrun a creature, it suffers 1d12 pgs for each 5 hobgobataurs stampeding. A successfull CD19 reflex save halves the damage. The save is strength based.

***

On a side note, I have a question about the paladin. He is not a Miko detect'nsmite kind, but he is certainly very un-paladinish.
He "tries luck" with every single barmaiden, female bard, female merchant, every single woman who happens to be in the same inn, temple or plane of existence. And mind you, quite rudely. Having a CHA of 18 doesn't mean that if you tell a girl "Do you want to come to my room?" as an introduction she will happily leave every thing she is doing and follow you.
He is (IMVHO) quite hypocritical when it comes to violence. If he feels that his manliness (is that a real word?) is insulted, he is quick to threaten by voice, but up to this moment, either the dwarven fighter or the priest of Lathander have managed to prevent him from actually draw a weapon in such cases. But if they agree to assault the house of an evil sob (and having PLENTY of evidence that guy had a good smite coming), but the city guard can or will not do anything, he just follows the group, and doesn't attack, either lethal or non-lethally anyone who doesn't attack him first.
The dwarven fighter has (both IC and OOC) complained about what he calls "the not-so-brave Joul, chicken of Tyr": When things look like they can win, he is the first to charge and smite. At the first little hint of a tougher encounter (or not, really) he is quite happy to run away and leave weaker members of the team exposed. Case in point: last sesion, Joul the paladin was riding in front of the group, when his spot check wasn't good enough to save him from falling into the web of some huge spiders. As his escape artist check is negative, and his strength checks failed, he was unable to move, and was attacked by said huge spiders. The STR 10 Rogue managed to pull him out of the web (she rolled a natural 20 to save someone she despises and ussually addresses her as "whore", she had to be rewarded). Reaction of the paladin? Leave little AC20 rogue alone with 2 huge spiders, and help the AC 27 (magic vestment and shield of faith help lots) priest. Who was fighting a severely wounded spider and had it controlled. As a result, the rogue lost about 30 hps out of 45, and 6 points of strength. And still, the paladin says he is not the one to blame. And this is not the first or the second time something ike this happens.

The group tells him he doesn't deserve his divine powers, and the PO'ed rogue has warned him that if he keeps calling her a whore, specially after leaving her and her not spectacular AC or fortitude save against posionous creatures, perhaps one day he will wake up without his trouser titan. (Worded better IC, but the point was pretty much that)

Thing is, do you think the trouser titan is the only thing he should lose? And no, don't tell me to speak to him, as he has already been warned about his attitude.

Whoa, that was a long post. Thanks for reading.

Shas aia Toriia
2007-09-09, 11:16 AM
What are the paladin's WIS and CHA scores? If they're low, then maybe the paladin views that as justification for what he's doing.

SurlySeraph
2007-09-09, 11:16 AM
I don't think what he's done is quite bad enough to fall... yet. If he pulls something like that thing with the spiders again, though, make him fall. As-is, you might want to do something like make him lose a couple spells per day as punishment.

Elhann
2007-09-09, 11:20 AM
What are the paladin's WIS and CHA scores? If they're low, then maybe the paladin views that as justification for what he's doing.
INT 10, WIS 14, CHA 18.

Dullyanna
2007-09-09, 11:32 AM
On a side note, I have a question about the paladin. He is not a Miko detect'nsmite kind, but he is certainly very un-paladinish.
*Snipped

Being unpaladin-like is precisely what makes paladins fall. If you, as a DM, haven't given him an explicit warning already, then you probably should. If he blatantly acts unchivalrously again, then make him trip and fall. Hard:smallamused: .

Citizen Joe
2007-09-09, 11:53 AM
Wow, only one post to turn into a Paladin Falls debate...

Womanizing is not part of the paladin's code, and cannot be since women can be paladins. Thus you don't fall for womanizing or "spreading the word" as some put it. Tyr is a nordic god who sacrificed his hand to save the world. Note that the vikings introduced holding the door open for women to enter first. Know why? Norse doors were low, so you had to bend over to enter. That exposed your neck to someone inside with an axe at the ready. To counter that, the vikings would send their women in first. Vikings treated their women as possessions, valuable maybe, but possessions none the less. I highly advise against incorporating women into the paladin's code for Tyr (you won't like what it gets you).

As far as losing the 'trouser titan', Tyr is a god of sacrafice. So that might actually reward the PC somehow. In FR, Tyr is also blind (as in justice is blind, and an eye for an eye). I don't think he'll fall if he takes a similar action against the assault.

All I can say is, religiously speaking, a paladin had better lack respect for a female rogue, because he could fall for just associating with her.

crimson77
2007-09-09, 11:54 AM
Being unpaladin-like is precisely what makes paladins fall. If you, as a DM, haven't given him an explicit warning already, then you probably should. If he blatantly acts unchivalrously again, then make him trip and fall. Hard:smallamused: .

Another option that is less severe would be to say that his god is not pleased with his behavior and for this adventure/gaming session he has lost his paladin abilities. He will be able to gain them back if he acts more paladin like during this session. If not then he will loose his abilities.

This might give you some leeway in changing his behavior without pushing him over the edge and getting him angry at you.

Nerd-o-rama
2007-09-09, 11:58 AM
Yeah, the Paladin has, on repeated occasions acted un-Paladin-like, un-Good, and un-Lawful. Is there anything he does do that's heroic, chivalrous, or even basically polite? I'd like to get a fuller idea of his actions before saying "he falls", but if what you've stated is mostly representative of his actions as a whole...he's completely apart from every description of Paladin I've ever read. Even the stealthy-backstabbing-fanatic Prestige Classes based on Paladin would reject this guy.

Especially calling the rogue PC a whore. Why on Earth would someone do that unprovoked? (As an aside, I have had a character habitually refer to a fellow PC as a whore. The difference being, he was Neutral Evil, she actually was, and the player didn't mind. That's about what I'd call the requirements for that being acceptable.)


All I can say is, religiously speaking, a paladin had better lack respect for a female rogue, because he could fall for just associating with her.
What? Why? Is she Evil? Must have missed that...



On the other subject, I love your Hobgobataur. I fully support throwing in unusual monsters occasionally to throw off metagamers. I'm wondering if it was really necessary though, since apparently at least one of your players was inattentive enough to call a Harpy a Succubus. Possibly require appropriate Knowledge checks to identify monsters in the future. Unless you like them blatantly misidentifying things. For example, Knowledge (the Planes) DC 10: "That's not a Succubus". Knowledge (Nature or Local) DC 15: "Ah, it's a Harpy." DC 20: "Somehow, I know at least the interesting parts of a Harpy's stat block."

That's a large part of what Knowledge skills are there for. Of course, I'm guessing 80-90% of contemporary GMs ignore this and let players metagame as well or as poorly as they like when it comes to simple monsters. At least, in my experience.

Foeofthelance
2007-09-09, 12:09 PM
Could we get a little more info on the rogue before condeming the paladin outright? Granted, as it is his behavior is highly questionable, however, it might be justified based on her attitude. If she's a NE thief who is constantly looking for a swindle, then he has every right to disrespect her, at least characterwise. (If he behaves the same way out of game, then he needs a good lesson in manners.) If, on the other hand, she's a N+ skill monkey, who is more along for her ability to disable traps and find some hidden objects, then he should be treating her with, at the least, the respect one would offer a fellow adventurer who willingly enters danger to save your overly proud butt from a bunch of hungry spiders.

As for the Taurics, they looked fine, though I do have one question. Are you guys using some alternative hit point system? I don't recognize the PGS abbreviation, and their hitpoinst struck me as a little low. 39 for 6d8+18? *Shrugs* Maybe my brain just isn't working due to the heat.

kemmotar
2007-09-09, 12:10 PM
Mainly id say that he deserves to fall and get an easy atonement quest or have him donate a large sum of money to the poor. This should serve as a DM warning so that he knows next time he will have to fight for his class features:smallamused:

In general paladins are not the idiot to run into the fray just because the enemy is evil, but leaving another person unprotected against a direct threat is okay if the other is not only evil but has given the paladin a reason not to save him/her. If of course he does that to the person he was just saved by that's half way blackguard.

Finally, a paladin associating with a rogue female, presumably not so good in her ways, isnt automatic fall. He could, or maybe should be trying to bring her to the good side, not swear at her for(apparently) no reason...maybe the player just hasnt understood what a paladin really is supposed to do or you should set out the exact code for tyr which he will have to follow or take the price...womanizing isnt bad anyway:smallbiggrin: even for a paladin...admiring female beauty is a bonus to a paladins high charisma score:smallwink:

Foolosophy
2007-09-09, 12:16 PM
Note that the vikings introduced holding the door open for women to enter first. Know why? Norse doors were low, so you had to bend over to enter. That exposed your neck to someone inside with an axe at the ready. To counter that, the vikings would send their women in first.

that's an interesting claim, got any source?

Citizen Joe
2007-09-09, 12:17 PM
All I can say is, religiously speaking, a paladin had better lack respect for a female rogue, because he could fall for just associating with her.



What? Why? Is she Evil? Must have missed that...

Norse god basis = women as property
God of law = dislike rogues

Note that Tyr has (among others) these domains: Pride and retribution.

In effect, the paladin has been issuing a challenge to the rogue every time he used the term 'whore' and she's apparently backed down every time. It is unfortunate, but she must earn his respect somehow.

My suggestion... the Rogue comes up with a lie. Tell the paladin that she is married (or better yet, is a widow) and every time he uses that term, he disrespects her husband 'Moradin rest his soul'. Then go on about just remembering him is a painful loss like stabbing her in the soul a thousand times. Go on about how difficult things are since he used to protect her and now roguery is all she can do to scrape up a living... maybe something about how she sends back money so that her children in the orphanage can eat, etc. Enough of that, and you'll be able to play the paladin like a fiddle.

Citizen Joe
2007-09-09, 12:19 PM
that's an interesting claim, got any source?
History Channel. Check the web about origins of chivalry... I'll see what I can find.

Nerd-o-rama
2007-09-09, 12:21 PM
Norse god basis = women as property
God of law = dislike rogues
1) Nine times out of ten, D&D settings don't work like that. I'm pretty sure this is the Forgotten Realms version of Tyr, who does not have "He-Man Woman-Haters Club" anywhere in his portfolio. Elhann can correct me if I'm wrong.
2) I know of many Lawful rogue characters (spies for the kingdom and what-not) who would respectfully disagree with that association. Some of them are even LG, so they'd disagree with words rather than metal in your kidneys. I can see Tyr disdaining Evil or even Chaotic people, but why rogues in particular?

Of course, we're not talking about Tyr, we're talking about his Paladin, who has his own possibly flawed interpretation of the dogma. Maybe this is his justification...doesn't make it a good one.

Shas aia Toriia
2007-09-09, 12:28 PM
My suggestion... the Rogue comes up with a lie. Tell the paladin that she is married (or better yet, is a widow) and every time he uses that term, he disrespects her husband 'Moradin rest his soul'. Then go on about just remembering him is a painful loss like stabbing her in the soul a thousand times. Go on about how difficult things are since he used to protect her and now roguery is all she can do to scrape up a living... maybe something about how she sends back money so that her children in the orphanage can eat, etc. Enough of that, and you'll be able to play the paladin like a fiddle.

Pretty good idea. And the paladin (IC) might believe it, particualarly if the rogue has a high bluff modifier. Then the paladin might

A: Treat the rogue with respect

or

B: Continue disrespecting, but at least be a little more courteous.

Dullyanna
2007-09-09, 12:29 PM
You're all right. I was being a bit harsh without knowing all the facts. It was mostly the bit about him ungratefully calling the rogue a whore that bugged me. Kind of off topic, but being a rogue doesn't necessarily mean you're a thief. That's the case, more often than not, but fluff-wise, they could also be a diplomat, private-eye type detective, locksmith, or something like that. On second thought, the sneak attack ability messes up my argument. You could still say that being a rogue doesn't automatically make you a liar or a thief, although girl playing the rogue could be one those, I suppose. And I guess being a snarky a** isn't fall worthy, anyway.

Edit: Once again, I've managed to almost completely ignore the main topic and get off track! If the paladin had the proper amount of ranks in Knowledge (Religion), he would've recognized that the monster in question wasn't a succubus. If he had the ranks, that is.

Elhann
2007-09-09, 02:04 PM
Nerd-o-rama, thanks for the possitive feedback on the hobgobataur.

Foeofthelance, I think you're right. Must have thought they were d6s, or something. 4.5 * 6 = 27, +18 = 45 pg. I'll edit that.

So, do you (all) think it is ok for a CR4?

On the rogue vs paladin matter.

The rogue is a new player (guy), after the guy who was playing rogue left the group and his caracter died of clay golem fist to the face. As this now deceased rogue stole quite a lot of goods from known merchants, and the thieves guild heard about it (he wasn't too smart when trying to get rid of the loot), one of the thieves guild big-fishes is blackmailing the group to do some things they need done, such as getting rid of a poison dealer who is making business with a traitor -and probably getting rid of said traitor soon- and happened to be a banite slaver at his town.

I know it is a little railroading, but this particular group of players wouldn't look for a quest if it hit them on the face. And I'm not asking them to steal the queen's jewels and murdering innocent babies, but things they'd do if asked by respectable people.

Thus, here joins Kathi. She works for the thieving guild, and she is a TN rogue focusing on stealth and social skills. She has some ranks in UMD, search and lockpicking related abilities, but sleight of hand or physical stuff (such as clkimbing) are not her strong points.
They got to know her at an inn with not the best of reputations, but as far as they know (and as far as reality goes) she doesn't work there. It is just a good place to get juicy information for the guild, and she has joined them to watch how they fulfill the thieves instructions and help them whenever her skills are needed.

In short, she is NOT a whore. Not by far. They know she is a contact from the Thieves guild, they know she doesn't register in the evil'o'meter, and when asked if she was a whore by the 10 INT-WIS, 7 CHA dwarf fighter, she replied she was not. (If the inn they met her wasn't a brothel, it sure seemed so) The dwarf roleplays quite naļve usualy, and apologized immediately afterwards. She accepted his apologies, and so far, so good.

Nerd-o-rama is pretty on the spot. It is the Forgotten realms Tyr we are speaking about. As I don't really see him as a "women are property" defender, I think I'll go with the "remove some spells from his daily alotment until he changes" (explaining the player OOC the reason.) If he keeps treating other fellow humanoids as if they were objects, perhaps he will be able to hit on Miko when he arrives at Fallsville. And considering Ms. Miyazaki's current bisected state, I don't think that is a nice perspective.

Chronos
2007-09-09, 02:33 PM
Pursuing premarital or extramarital sex is not lawful. Referring to a party member as "whore" is not honorable, and neither is retreating from battle unneccessarily. All three are therefore against the paladin's code. Doing all three consistently and at every opportunity is an egregious violation of the paladin's code, and therefore a cause for falling.

As for the knowledge of creatures, well, the characters should be trying to figure out what they're up against. Since that's something the characters really would be doing, it's not metagaming. And if they get it wrong sometimes, that's as it should be, too: If anything, the bigger problem is when the players have the Monster Manual memorized, and pass that information on to their characters, even when the characters shouldn't know. It probably wouldn't hurt them too much to mistake a harpy (if that's what it was) for a succubus, since most things that'll work on a succubus will also work on a harpy. At worst, they'll waste some money buying silver or cold iron weapons.

MrNexx
2007-09-09, 02:44 PM
Pursuing premarital or extramarital sex is not lawful.

I think that would depend highly on the nature of the pursuit, and the nature of the marriage.

JackMage666
2007-09-09, 02:57 PM
Pursuing premarital or extramarital sex is not lawful.

That's a cultural thing. Not all cultures believe that sex is a bad thing, premarital, extrmarital, or not. Depending on the beliefs of the campain world, as well as he culture the paladin (IC, of course) grew up in, this could be perfectly lawful. Of course, that's a DM call.

As for the Metagaming Monster Manual issue, they're gonna do it anyway. Sure, their character might not be able to call it a Succubus, but they'll be thinking it. I'd let them make Knowledge checks, related to the monster type (look at the Knowledge skill in the PHB) - If they make, say a Knowledge (Religion) check for a Harpy, to identify it as a succubus, then the only information they get back is "It's not a succubus". They'd need a Knowledge (Nature) for the Harpy. For common or well known enemies this could be ignored, as well as if the fluff for the caracter was good enough to justify it - For example, a Paladin might know what a Succubus is, just because of his extenive training in evil outsiders when young. His mentor might have told him all about them. For more obscure, this isn't true, as I doubt any player would have leared about Destrichans when they were young.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-09-09, 03:08 PM
Note that the vikings introduced holding the door open for women to enter first. Know why? Norse doors were low, so you had to bend over to enter. That exposed your neck to someone inside with an axe at the ready. To counter that, the vikings would send their women in first.Again, a source would be nice here.
In FR, Tyr is also blind (as in justice is blind, and an eye for an eye).Also as in "I appreciate your bravely saving me from enemies, no matter who you are," as well.
All I can say is, religiously speaking, a paladin had better lack respect for a female rogue, because he could fall for just associating with her.There is absolutely nothing forcing a Rogue to be evil or even deceitful in the first place, and nothing so far suggests that -- the Rogue sounds more heroic than the Paladin does, to be honest.
God of law = dislike roguesExcept for the part where Rogues aren't inherently chaotic, and this one isn't either.

Lacking any better source (as I'm not a big fan of FR), Wikipedia's the best I can do for this specific instance of Tyr. Let's have a look-see.
Tyr holds great prominence in the Faerūnian pantheon due to his position as leader of the Triad, a trio of lawful good gods that are collectively devoted to the concepts of courage, justice, perseverance, relief of suffering, duty, obedience, honor, and to some extent righteous martyrdom.How many of those ideals does the Paladin represent? Courage is already out the window, justice is ridiculous -- casting slurs at a woman unprovoked certainly isn't just -- perseverance doesn't seem to fit, honor certainly doesn't, and this guy doesn't exactly sound like the martyr-ing type.

As far as I can tell, this supposed Paladin represents none of the primary ideals of the god he stands for. And that makes him rather unlikely to receive any blessings of said god.

Citizen Joe
2007-09-09, 03:22 PM
Pursuing premarital or extramarital sex is not lawful.

I deny that. I will accept that extramarital sex may constitute a violation of the marital oaths, but I don't know what those oaths were. Also, premarital sex doesn't would only be unlawful if it broke some other oath (usually a chastity oath to the church).



Referring to a party member as "whore" is not honorable, and neither is retreating from battle unneccessarily.

I deny both of those as well. It is impolite to use the term for sure. But the paladin, nor the rest of the group knows nothing of the rogue save she came from a house of ill repute. Prostitute or no, she is an unsavory character. As far as retreating from battle, it seems he abandoned someone of unsavory and unknown character to defend a known ally. Again, until I see the paladin's code of conduct, I won't condemn him.

My suggestion: visit him with a dream... a dream of a valkyrie that comes to condemn a man to death for various 'crimes'. A "lecherous cowardly man". If he aids the valkyrie without question, then he falls. Basically it means that he's admitting he broke the code. If he attacks the valkyrie without question, he falls, because he's defying the gods. If instead, he questions the ruling, and goes through the dream trial of the man, he may or may not incur some penalties depending on how the trial works out. At the end, reveal the man's face as the paladin and have him wake with a start.

Kaelik
2007-09-09, 05:32 PM
But the paladin, nor the rest of the group knows nothing of the rogue save she came from a house of ill repute. Prostitute or no, she is an unsavory character. As far as retreating from battle, it seems he abandoned someone of unsavory and unknown character to defend a known ally. Again, until I see the paladin's code of conduct, I won't condemn him.

Are you in this campaign? You seem to just be making information up that wasn't mentioned before. You also are the only person yet to say that he was a Paladin of Tyr. The OP never mentioned that either.

Citizen Joe
2007-09-09, 05:45 PM
The dwarven fighter has (both IC and OOC) complained about what he calls "the not-so-brave Joul, chicken of Tyr": When things look like they can win, he is the first to charge and smite. At the first little hint of a tougher encounter (or not, really) he is quite happy to run away and leave weaker members of the team exposed. Case in point: last sesion, Joul the paladin...





Thus, here joins Kathi. She works for the thieving guild, and she is a TN rogue focusing on stealth and social skills. She has some ranks in UMD, search and lockpicking related abilities, but sleight of hand or physical stuff (such as clkimbing) are not her strong points.
They got to know her at an inn with not the best of reputations, but as far as they know (and as far as reality goes) she doesn't work there. It is just a good place to get juicy information for the guild, and she has joined them to watch how they fulfill the thieves instructions and help them whenever her skills are needed.


The second part came later but shows that they found her in a not so good location. They also know next to nothing about her. If they did, they'd kill her as a spy.

Chronos
2007-09-09, 05:52 PM
That's a cultural thing. Not all cultures believe that sex is a bad thing, premarital, extrmarital, or not. Depending on the beliefs of the campain world, as well as he culture the paladin (IC, of course) grew up in, this could be perfectly lawful. Of course, that's a DM call.True, though most questions of lawful vs. chaotic depend on culture. But most human societies (including medieval Europe, on which D&D seems to mostly be based) have had some form of marriage, with an accompianing expectation that sex ought to be kept within marriage. Sleeping around isn't exactly the most chaotic act a person can perform, but still, a paladin is supposed to be an exemplar of law and goodness.

F.H. Zebedee
2007-09-09, 10:25 PM
Personally, the dream ordeal sounds about right on for trying the paladin. With the full look at him, he's certainly seeming to tread on thin ice. Meaning that a lot of DMs would have already dropped him like a rock, but you're a little more patient and sensible.

I'll join the choirs here as well. Give him a few warning signs, y'know, less spells per day, maybe have his powers fizzle on him once or twice. If he doesn't pick up on it then, hit him with the dream.

(Personally, I prefer a gradual fall. Just feels much more fair. Y'know, have a list of stuff to take away, and just tick it off every time he screws up. Deserts his comrades? Bye bye, mount! Steals without a good reason? Later, highest level spells! etc, etc.)

And also, try going to Homebrew and throwing some of Vorpal Tribble's, Fax Celestis's, and Gamebird's monsters at them. They all have great flavor and are usually well balanced. Nothing like a homebrew or two to stop the metagamers in their tracks.

Lemur
2007-09-09, 11:19 PM
I'd say that abandoning someone who helped him when in trouble is dishonorable behavior. Continuously trash-talking another character, and womanizing (especially failing horribly at womanizing) are not real problems in terms of the paladin code, although they certainly aren't ideal (however, constantly harassing another character for no reason is a bad thing for a player to do, regardless of class).

He may not be a paladin in the same style as Miko, but like Miko, it sounds like he's been dangerously treading the line. More to the point, this sounds like less of a "is this acceptable for a paladin" problem, and more of a "is it worth putting up with this player" issue. You may want to talk to him OOC about toning down the blatant metagaming and the way he treats the rest of the party. An in character penalty wouldn't be entirely amiss either.

Tallis
2007-09-10, 01:05 AM
True, though most questions of lawful vs. chaotic depend on culture. But most human societies (including medieval Europe, on which D&D seems to mostly be based) have had some form of marriage, with an accompianing expectation that sex ought to be kept within marriage. Sleeping around isn't exactly the most chaotic act a person can perform, but still, a paladin is supposed to be an exemplar of law and goodness.

Most Judeo-christian based societies consider extra-marital sex bad (including medievil Europe). There are plenty of other cultures that consider it normal. Ultimately it's up to the DM to decide what's right for his campaign.

The womanizing and rude behavior are not worthy of a fall unless they are specifically against his god's teachings. The cowardice and abandoning someone who just saved him seem to be clearly against the teachings of a courageous god (he gave up his hand to save others from a great danger). I agree that having him lose his powers a little at a time until he shapes up or falls completely is the way to go.
As for the metagaming question. I like to make slight alterations to monsters in my games partially so the players can't just look everything up in the books. I tell my players that not everything will be the same ahead of time, so they have no room to complain when the book is wrong. If they miidentify a creature I let them unless it is something they should clearly know. Tgough in that case I'd usually just tell them what it is. There are several creatures in my game that are identified by the names that the players made up for them, just because their characters have no reason to know their real names.

Mojo_Rat
2007-09-10, 01:36 AM
As far as the womanizing goes, you can likely judge it in how he deals with rejection without having to make any sudden announcements on how Tyr views marriage and chastity or other matters. An honourable good character would be accepting of their desire to not be involved with him one might even expect a charisma 18 character to have the social skills to be gracious about it.

I don't think however that in itself should cause a fall although it does seem indicative of the rest of his behavior.

As far as the calling her a 'whore' goes again One would expect a crature of Law and Good to respect the wishes of another, if the NPC rogue has made the request "Please stop calling me a whore." One would think a paladin would respect this. This doesn't mean He cant still /think/ she is but publicly calling her so it seems to be is belittling and mean.

Again how much of this is lack of social grace and inability to portray an 18 charisma even poorly?

Lastly the Cowardice is really the final bit to make it at least that it should all be looked at.

I would Say Present the Paladin with a dream Sequence that the player doesnt know is one. Go with the classic two choices scenario with a few possibilities.

1)An Ugly woman is quite probably in dire danger (perhaps risking death or grevious bodily harm) and Another Woman who is beautiful (maybe one of the barmaids who he wanted to get into his room?) who Might be at risk of the danger but can probably can save herself.

2)Above situation, perhaps the Rogue is the one about to be greviously hurt.

Im sure there are other such two choice scenarios But i think the above two examples would work best. It may be also important that the player of the paladin not realize it is a dream ooc.

dyslexicfaser
2007-09-10, 01:43 AM
My suggestion: visit him with a dream... a dream of a valkyrie that comes to condemn a man to death for various 'crimes'. A "lecherous cowardly man". If he aids the valkyrie without question, then he falls. Basically it means that he's admitting he broke the code. If he attacks the valkyrie without question, he falls, because he's defying the gods. If instead, he questions the ruling, and goes through the dream trial of the man, he may or may not incur some penalties depending on how the trial works out. At the end, reveal the man's face as the paladin and have him wake with a start.
I'm assuming a valkyrie is a servant of Tyr, here. If not, then my apologies, and obviously my response will be incorrect.

But he will immediately fall if he obeys his god's messenger? And instead gets to keep his status if he argues with her edict?

Foolosophy
2007-09-10, 02:43 AM
i think the idea there is that he will fall "in his dream", but not in reality of course. Just to "wake him up" a bit. (no pun intended)

Kurald Galain
2007-09-10, 04:36 AM
IMNSHO,


He "tries luck" with every single barmaiden, female bard, female merchant, every single woman who happens to be in the same inn, temple or plane of existence. And mind you, quite rudely.
Lust is a sin. Even if extramarital relations aren't problematic in this setting (as in most fantasy settings they don't seem to be), this is disrespectful to people - from your description, he appears to be asking people for sex without bothering to find out e.g. if those people are married, or engaged, have a vow of chastity or whatnot.


If he feels that his manliness (is that a real word?) is insulted, he is quick to threaten by voice,
Pride is a sin. Asking for a honorable duel over serious issues is one thing, being trigger-happy is quite another.


if they agree to assault the house of an evil sob (and having PLENTY of evidence that guy had a good smite coming), but the city guard can or will not do anything, he just follows the group, and doesn't attack,
This appears to be hypocritical. The paladin should, out of conviction, either cooperate with his party to bring down the evil sob, or stay out of the mission entirely and try to persuade the party not to do it. Not tag along half-heartedly.


At the first little hint of a tougher encounter (or not, really) he is quite happy to run away and leave weaker members of the team exposed.
This is extremely dishonorable, not to mention cowardly.


ussually addresses her as "whore",
This, again, is hypocritical. If the campaign world does not have a stigma against pre/extramarital relationships, then whatever he perceives about her isn't reason for insulting her. If the world does have such a stigma, then his womanizing behavior is not appropriate.


Reaction of the paladin? Leave little AC20 rogue alone with 2 huge spiders, and help the AC 27 (magic vestment and shield of faith help lots) priest.
Abandoning an ally who just saved you. Veeeeery paladin-like.

I'd say have him fall. Yesterday. He appears to be a selfish, hypocritical, and cowardly PITA. Any one of these would be interesting roleplaying for a paladin, but the combination of it all does not mesh at all with any kind of code of honor.

AtomicKitKat
2007-09-10, 05:12 AM
Think he's aiming for Blackguard or something?

I suspect "pg" is "pointes g-something", or similar, in whatever language the OP's books are printed. Basically, the same thing as "Hit Points" becoming "HP".

Reason the HP looks so low is because it's 6*(average of d8=0.5*{1+8}=4.5), for 27+18=45. Yeah, 39 is a little on the low end.

Edit: Hobgobotaur looks a little off. Gore shouldn't occur, since it loses the bull head(unless you houserule them to sprout horns like a minotaur). Should probably get a couple of hoof attacks as well, seeing as it can trample/stampede.

caden_varn
2007-09-10, 06:27 AM
On the Paladin front, another option would be to have the elders of the church castigate him, rather than divine retribution of any kind. From the sound of it, he has been fairly free with his insults to women, not just to the rogue. They are unlikely to be happy with a member of their church blackening their reputation in this way. Have the High Priest call him to the carpet, and spell out that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable, and assign him some form of penance to ensure that he changes.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-10, 06:38 AM
assign him some form of penance to ensure that he changes.

That, too. As I recall, there was a reason why Miko frequently got sent on long, far-away assignments that got her away from everybody else in the city.

Citizen Joe
2007-09-10, 07:48 AM
In almost every case where we debate a paladin falling there is some confusion over the paladin's code. The player playing the paladin, the other players and the DM have different ideas what that code is. A code is a deeply personal thing, and for the most part, the only person that can say if the code is broken is a person upholding the same code. Thus I suggest the paladin judging himself, in the form of a dream trial.


I'm assuming a valkyrie is a servant of Tyr, here. If not, then my apologies, and obviously my response will be incorrect.

But he will immediately fall if he obeys his god's messenger? And instead gets to keep his status if he argues with her edict?

Valkyries were winged servants of the Norse Gods (Tyr was one of them) that swooped down and carried fallen warriors to Valhalla. The Valkyrie in the dream represents one end of the spectrum. Strict adherence to the detect and smite philosophy. The accused is a faceless victim. The paladin has the opportunity to play three roles in his dream.

1) Siding with the man means that the paladin is denying the will of the gods. Fall.
2) Siding with the valkyrie means that the paladin agrees that his actions have been against the will of the gods. Fall.
3) If he mediates the dispute, and acts as judge, he can go through the trial and explain to the valkyrie and the man what was and what wasn't done that was wrong (explaining his code that way). The results of the trial, and the fate of the man (and himself) are thus left in the hands of the paladin.

Tyr is also the god of judges, If the paladin acts in a wise, just way in the dream trial, this may be his redemption. The point of the whole dream is to force the paladin to define his code, if he can't he doesn't deserve to be a paladin. But you cannot apply judeo-christian morality to a fantasy norse based god/paladin.

EDIT:
If you do use the dream therapy technique, make sure everyone gets a dream. Throw the paladin into the middle someplace so as to not arouse suspicion. If this is happening PnP, then make sure everyone has something to occupy their time while you take each person away individually to discuss the dream. A puzzle map or an encrypted message would be a good start. Try to make it something to do with in game situations. Maybe a secret communique between the mayor and the thieves' guild or something. This is really just a distraction to buy you time to do the dream stuff.

Crow
2007-09-10, 10:57 AM
The "Code" is a personal thing, but once you start letting the Paladin decide if he's been following it or not, you end up on the fast track to killing orc babies and what-not.

A far better idea, is to get with the player ooc, and decide upon a code and put it in writing. Figure out with the player what the Paladin's god would expect the Paladin to do and not to do. Then adhere by what's in writing. Be sure to ask him some questions like the orc baby dilemma and about smiting on sight as well. Make sure these things are covered in the code.

Driderman
2007-09-10, 11:16 AM
Well for the record I'm pretty sure Tyr doesn't actually have Valkyries as servants in his Faerunian incarnation. Nor does the Christian sins of Lust and Pride necessarily constitute sins in whatever setting this is being played in. I'm assuming Forgotten Realms since Tyr is involved, but I don't think it was mentioned anywhere.
Trashtalking an ally, while very much a lousy thing to do, is not enough to fall from grace, in my opinion at least. Neither is womanizing.
Cowardice on the other hand, is. Especially when you're a paladin of courageous and dutiful Tyr.
Womanizing might be frowned upon by the church, but unless the Paladin in question actually makes other people break vows, I doubt Tyr is going to care much about such slight failings as long as his servant is courageous, just and true.

All in all, this sounds more like a player-problem than a character-problem though, so you should probably have a long OOC-talk about how a paladin should act and more importantly, how he shouldn't

Citizen Joe
2007-09-10, 11:43 AM
Well for the record I'm pretty sure Tyr doesn't actually have Valkyries as servants in his Faerunian incarnation.
Psst... my suggestion was a dream... valkyries can exist in dreams. Actually you just describe her as a warrior woman with an aura mounted atop a dire wolf and I'm sure he'll deduce that it is something completely wrong.

OK, did a little more research on Tyr... he's got two 'vassals' Ilmater and Torm. Ilmater is more focused on healing and sacrafice, while Torm is the man for the whole courage thing. Tyr holds those mantles through his vassals but is more concerned with justice. If the paladin had worshiped Ilmater and then left the rogue to suffer in his place, or caused pain on others (like those insults) then fall. If he worshiped Torm and he showed cowardice, then fall. But he follows Tyr, so that stuff doesn't apply directly. However, the followers of the other gods may apply pressure on him. Tyr took it on the chin from Ao by questioning his judgment, to that end Tyr may accept some questioning (but not outright disobedience).

Garatolla
2007-09-10, 12:10 PM
Couldn't resist adding my two coppers on the paladin thing, so I'm going to >.>

Maybe have his church reel him in? A lot of people have talked about the paladin code from the cosmic point of view, and said paladins point of view, but what about the church? He is a representative of the best a devout person can be, and if he is womanising, acting like a coward and generally making a nuiscance of himself, people are going to start talking.

"Hey, you seen that paladin who's been around lately...?"

If the church get wind of this, they might give him summons to have a strong word with him - if I were a priest of Tyr and I found out there was someone out there representing my faith who happened to be doing everything but what he should, I'd be getting him out of the public view fast. At that point you can assign him a quest or something, and give him a serious telling off.

Rambled a bit there, sorry >.>

Shifty
2007-09-10, 03:38 PM
I have a suggestion for your paladin woes that might work very well, depending on your players' stances toward role-playing. Also, it hinges on at least a rudimentary understanding by the Paladin that he is expected to cleave to a code of conduct in exchange for his powers, and will lose said powers if he fails to do so.

At any rate, I like the dream sequence idea, as it's a subtle and traditional way for gods to communicate their displeasure. Why not try to make it a group activity. Talk to the other players, have each of them come up with a scenario that tests the Paladin's virtue. These can be very short -- even just simple, single interaction interludes where the Paladin is given a moral choice framed by another member of the party -- or could last several sessions, if the players are enjoying it.

If he fails in the test, have him wake up fatigued, unable to sleep soundly due to troubling dreams. If he makes a decision that should be morally repugnant, whether in a dream or reality, start stripping powers off. Don't tell him they've been taken from him, just make them fail when he tries. Once it's gone, it won't work again until his conduct is restored. I could give hard-and fast guidelines, but this should be a consistent judgment call. Making their failures somewhat dramatic can heighten tensions, with the Paladin unsure that a request from his god will even be answered.

The other players, for their part, should try to emphasize the virtues the dreams are meant to evoke, and should generally try to make the other player realize that he's strayed from the path. If you're Judaeo-Christian in temperament, try going for the seven deadly sins as a rough theme for each. If you're fairly specific about Tyr's temperament and desired conduct, have the dreams patterned on those instead.

If it works out, then everyone wins. The Paladin gets to keep his powers, and hopefully learns a bit about role playing. Everybody else gets their dignity, and hopefully a more consistent companion than the erratic cowardice apparently on display.

As a side note, try a disfiguring or uncomfortable disease to punish his serial philanderings. Make sure that it becomes common knowledge in the populace of the world. Nothing like the clap to scare off the ladies, and a dose of public shame and embarassment is always good for the soul.

Chronos
2007-09-10, 04:00 PM
As a side note, try a disfiguring or uncomfortable disease to punish his serial philanderings....which would itself be a sign of divine disfavor, since one of the paladin's special powers is immunity to all diseases.

In fact, if you can nail down exactly what his code is, it might be interesting to associate specific paladin abilities with specific aspects of the code. Sleep around, lose the disease immunity. Abandon comrades, lose the aura of courage. Slander party members, lose Detect Evil, etc.

Roderick_BR
2007-09-10, 04:16 PM
Hah. I had a friend that could quote the whole Monster Manual from 2nd edition, including page, special attacks, and which monsters were in the previous and next pages... For real! I saw he doing it :smalleek:

As for the paladin... If he draws his weapon against someone for something silly as "insulting his manliness", it's fall on his ass.
As for abandoning weaker friends to dangerous monsters, warn him that protecting weaker people IS part of his code. He'll probably say that it's not written in stone that he have to, so just point that he needs to help people, specially good intentioned (even if not good aligned) that needs help. If he doesn't, it's Fall season. If he argues, say that you are the DM, and that's the rules in your game. This is far from being an "unfair DM" power rulling a player.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-10, 04:27 PM
QUOTE=Kurald Galain;3170812]
Lust is a sin. Even if extramarital relations aren't problematic in this setting (as in most fantasy settings they don't seem to be), this is disrespectful to people - from your description, he appears to be asking people for sex without bothering to find out e.g. if those people are married, or engaged, have a vow of chastity or whatnot. [/quote]

Not quite sure what you mean by 'sin' here. Lust in D&D is not automatically evil. Take the goddess Sharess in the FR campagin setting. She has 'hedonism' as part of her portfolio and is CG.


...which would itself be a sign of divine disfavor, since one of the paladin's special powers is immunity to all diseases.

In fact, if you can nail down exactly what his code is, it might be interesting to associate specific paladin abilities with specific aspects of the code. Sleep around, lose the disease immunity. Abandon comrades, lose the aura of courage. Slander party members, lose Detect Evil, etc.

I really like this idea. I may use it as a variant in my own groups.

Citizen Joe
2007-09-10, 04:44 PM
As for abandoning weaker friends to dangerous monsters...

I need a clarification here. People have been referring to friends and allies. As best as I can ascertain, the female rogue is not an ally or a friend of the paladin. Given the term 'whore' she is little more than tolerated by the paladin.

0oo0
2007-09-10, 04:59 PM
I need a clarification here. People have been referring to friends and allies. As best as I can ascertain, the female rogue is not an ally or a friend of the paladin. Given the term 'whore' she is little more than tolerated by the paladin.

But she just saved him. I'm pretty sure blind justice supports helping out someone who just saved you. The character has a hight enough Int/Wis to tel that the rogue needed help more than the other character. I'm pretty sure nothing in Lawful, Good, Honor, or Justice supports his actions in that situation.

My other problem with the character was brought up by Kurald. He is constantly calling the rogue a whore, but he himself is constantly trying to sleep with anything alive and female (okay slight hyperbole, but you get they idea). These two ideas are a contradiction. Either it is okay to sleep around, and whoring is not a bad thing. However the OP make it obvious the paladin is using it as an insult, not a job title. The alternative is loose sex is bad, he is justified in calling her a whore, but not justified in his actions. You can't have it both ways.

Citizen Joe
2007-09-10, 05:20 PM
He is constantly calling the rogue a whore, but he himself is constantly trying to sleep with anything alive and female (okay slight hyperbole, but you get they idea). These two ideas are a contradiction. Either it is okay to sleep around, and whoring is not a bad thing.

Maybe it is not an insult. Maybe the paladin thinks whoring around is a virtue and thus he's been trying to compliment the rogue all this time.

Maybe the new player has been intentionally setting up an existing character to get him kicked out of the game for some reason.

The paladin is an existing member of the group. The rest of the party didn't really have a good reason for bringing in the rogue. If the paladin immediately threw out the 'whore' word, then the rogue should have simply walked away. Certainly not join up with him in some sort of weird masochistic joy. The fact that she did join should have thrown up all sorts of red flags. As much as the paladin is being a jerk, the rogue is still on probation. Just suggesting that the group attack and maim the another member of the group should be grounds for dismissal. I can only presume it was also this rogue that instigated the "paladin should fall" argument as well. This would rob the group of his abilities.

Let me ask this: If the paladin knew the rogue was a spy, but couldn't prove it to the others, would you all be getting on his case?

Renegade Paladin
2007-09-10, 05:31 PM
Lacking any better source (as I'm not a big fan of FR), Wikipedia's the best I can do for this specific instance of Tyr. Let's have a look-see.
Hehehe. I wrote that. :smallbiggrin:

(Yeah, that's right. You just quoted a random guy on the Internet as a source. Congratulations. :smallamused: Though it's easy to find other sources; candlekeep.com, for instance.)

tannish2
2007-09-10, 05:35 PM
1. you COULD have a womanizing paladin. some deitys might not allow it, but some might encourage it. and many wouldnt care.

2. his position on attacking is reverse, tyr is basically the god of detect'n'smite if i remember properly.

3. ya cowardly paladins... they get fear immunity for a reason. if they are cowards, then they should lose it. and for that specific deity i would say he loses a few spells per day as well. dont even need to tell him "i cast cure light wounds on myself" "ya, about that... your spell seems to have failed" but just from the actions i see there i see a fighter without bonus feats for a particularly strict DM.

0oo0
2007-09-10, 05:43 PM
Maybe it is not an insult. Maybe the paladin thinks whoring around is a virtue and thus he's been trying to compliment the rogue all this time.

Maybe the new player has been intentionally setting up an existing character to get him kicked out of the game for some reason.

The paladin is an existing member of the group. The rest of the party didn't really have a good reason for bringing in the rogue. If the paladin immediately threw out the 'whore' word, then the rogue should have simply walked away. Certainly not join up with him in some sort of weird masochistic joy. The fact that she did join should have thrown up all sorts of red flags. As much as the paladin is being a jerk, the rogue is still on probation. Just suggesting that the group attack and maim the another member of the group should be grounds for dismissal. I can only presume it was also this rogue that instigated the "paladin should fall" argument as well. This would rob the group of his abilities.

Let me ask this: If the paladin knew the rogue was a spy, but couldn't prove it to the others, would you all be getting on his case?

I like how you ended my quote just after my justification for calling it an insult. Also, the OP said that these players need railroading to get stuff done, so I'm not thinking they spend a lot of time justifying why they are all working together beyond what the DM set up (she is a necessary contact to the organization the DM is using to progress the adventure). Sort of in the same vein as the replacement character in "The Gamers" movie. They simply accept that they are a party because they are all playing a game together, and that is how the DM set it up. While not very flavorful, this approach works.

I have had parties where characters could have easily spent the whole time at each other's throats, but we decided that party unity was paramount, and that while the RPing differences were interesting, and could have been expanded in an interesting way, it was simply not the focus of that game. (this was a for fun game, and was not really set up to descend into interparty conflicts because of religious/personality issues that existed in the characters)

Citizen Joe
2007-09-10, 05:46 PM
2. his position on attacking is reverse, tyr is basically the god of detect'n'smite if i remember properly.

That's Torm. Tyr is actually one that needs to use good judgement.

Wayloss
2007-09-10, 05:54 PM
That's a large part of what Knowledge skills are there for. Of course, I'm guessing 80-90% of contemporary GMs ignore this and let players metagame as well or as poorly as they like when it comes to simple monsters. At least, in my experience.

Meta-gaming might have saved my monk, I deliberately did not meta-game on the snake haired woman with the unusual statues in the field when his Kshatyria was in trouble and tripped her....right up until he became a statue....

daggaz
2007-09-10, 06:04 PM
As you haven't dealt with this seriously enough IC (and here I would have given sufficient warnings and by now made him fall, due to his highly contradictory nature, all talk of 'modern western sins' aside..), I am going to have to forgo my vote for FALL, and vote instead for the very smart idea of 'give him a nasty disease AND remove his aura of courage/immunity to fear' as he has certaintly shown every reason to have these revoked, especially the latter.

Jannex
2007-09-10, 06:10 PM
Maybe it is not an insult. Maybe the paladin thinks whoring around is a virtue and thus he's been trying to compliment the rogue all this time.

*rolls eyes* And maybe when he abandoned her to face down those two giant spiders alone, he was really just trying to pay her a compliment on her martial prowess by implying that she could handle them alone. Come on. I have a hard time believing that you OR the paladin would really interpret "whore" as a compliment in this situation--especially after she's told him in no uncertain terms that she doesn't like it.


Maybe the new player has been intentionally setting up an existing character to get him kicked out of the game for some reason.

How, by having the character say she's NOT a whore, and by saving the paladin's bacon from the giant spiders? I think that's just a little bit paranoid, especially in the absence of any corroborating information.


The paladin is an existing member of the group. The rest of the party didn't really have a good reason for bringing in the rogue.

We don't know that's true. In fact, we know that they DID have a good reason for bringing her in--they'd just lost someone with her skill set, and needed a replacement.


If the paladin immediately threw out the 'whore' word, then the rogue should have simply walked away.

Because that's a good way for a player to bring in a new PC. As much as I dislike metagaming on general principle, sometimes you have to bend a little to make the DM's life easier. A good player will have his PC join up with the group despite one jerk character, rather than forcing the DM to run around in circles and find an alternate way to introduce the PC.


Certainly not join up with him in some sort of weird masochistic joy.

"Weird masochistic joy"? Bwuh? I'm curious as to why you seem so biased against the rogue's position. Besides, we have no evidence that the rogue didn't get along with the OTHER members of the party--it seems that she's on perfectly good terms with the dwarf, for instance. Maybe she wants to help them, despite their unpleasant associate.


The fact that she did join should have thrown up all sorts of red flags.

With the OOC reasons of cooperating with the DM, and the IC reasons of wanting to help the other PCs and (very probably) needing the money/job, I'm not sure why.


As much as the paladin is being a jerk, the rogue is still on probation. Just suggesting that the group attack and maim the another member of the group should be grounds for dismissal.

When did she "suggest that the group attack and maim another member of the group"? From what the OP said, the rogue said that SHE would castrate the paladin if he kept calling her a whore. I don't see how that's unreasonable or "grounds for dismissal."


I can only presume it was also this rogue that instigated the "paladin should fall" argument as well. This would rob the group of his abilities.

I'm not sure why that's the only thing you can presume. It looks to me as though the rest of the group is dissatisfied with the paladin's behavior as well--they call him "Joul, Chicken of Tyr"! He picks fights when personally insulted and acts like a coward when the group encounters a genuine threat. If he falls, it will be as a result of his own actions, and therefore the only one "robbing the group of his abilities" is the paladin himself.


Let me ask this: If the paladin knew the rogue was a spy, but couldn't prove it to the others, would you all be getting on his case?

Wait--"spy"? All the OP has told us is that she's a member of the Thieves' Guild, and one of the things she's doing is observing how the group is fulfilling its obligations while she helps them. We don't know that she's even doing so under false pretenses. For all we know at this point, she could be a legitimate liason. Even if she isn't, she's still contributing materially to the group's success with her skills, and is in no way endangering or compromising the group.

And yes, if the rogue was in fact concealing her Guild membership, and the paladin knew this but couldn't prove it, I'd still be "getting on his case" for acting like a jerk and calling her a whore and abandoning her after she saved his life.

Citizen Joe
2007-09-10, 07:50 PM
I just wanted to point out that I am posting on behalf of, and biased towards the paladin on the grounds that he is not here to defend himself and everyone else is against him. If roles were reversed, then I'd be supporting the rogue.

That being said...
The new MALE player brought in a FEMALE character KNOWING that the paladin was a womanizer. This was BOUND to cause unnecessary strife.

If you agree to ignore Roleplaying on the grounds of letting another PC in, then you must ignore all roleplaying between them at all. The rogue was FORCED on to the paladin without his consent. If the rogue doesn't like his roleplaying then she can leave.

The fact that your rogue died doesn't mean that you need another one. Just take missions that don't require one.

-----

I could go on all day denying and shooting down people's preconceived notions about this, but I actually blame the original poster for sneaking in paladin falls debate under the guise of a player/character knowledge debate. There's been like two posts about the thread title and the rest have been berating the paladin.

Dullyanna
2007-09-10, 08:29 PM
The problem is the player playing the paladin, really. IMO, the DM shouldn't make concessions to him and make the rogue's player suffer on account of him. While I agree that it's good to look at the situation from both sides, it's pretty clear that the paladin is unintentionally making an ass out of himself, without any regards to the other players.

Miles Invictus
2007-09-10, 09:39 PM
What do you do when one of the players usual reactions to descriptions of monsters is always relating them to a creature from the monster manual?



On a side note, I have a question about the paladin. He is not a Miko detect'nsmite kind, but he is certainly very un-paladinish.
He "tries luck" with every single barmaiden, female bard, female merchant, every single woman who happens to be in the same inn, temple or plane of existence. And mind you, quite rudely. Having a CHA of 18 doesn't mean that if you tell a girl "Do you want to come to my room?" as an introduction she will happily leave every thing she is doing and follow you.



The dwarven fighter has (both IC and OOC) complained about what he calls "the not-so-brave Joul, chicken of Tyr": When things look like they can win, he is the first to charge and smite. At the first little hint of a tougher encounter (or not, really) he is quite happy to run away and leave weaker members of the team exposed.


The group tells him he doesn't deserve his divine powers, and the PO'ed rogue has warned him that if he keeps calling her a whore, specially after leaving her and her not spectacular AC or fortitude save against posionous creatures, perhaps one day he will wake up without his trouser titan.



Thing is, do you think the trouser titan is the only thing he should lose? And no, don't tell me to speak to him, as he has already been warned about his attitude.

...why haven't you thrown this player out? He's causing trouble by pissing off the other players. Worse yet, he knows he's pissing everyone off, and refuses to change his behavior, even after being confronted about it.

Tallis
2007-09-10, 09:42 PM
...which would itself be a sign of divine disfavor, since one of the paladin's special powers is immunity to all diseases.

In fact, if you can nail down exactly what his code is, it might be interesting to associate specific paladin abilities with specific aspects of the code. Sleep around, lose the disease immunity. Abandon comrades, lose the aura of courage. Slander party members, lose Detect Evil, etc.


I like this idea a lot. I'll probably use it if the new paladin in my group doesn't do what he should.

Tallis
2007-09-10, 09:45 PM
The problem is the player playing the paladin, really. IMO, the DM shouldn't make concessions to him and make the rogue's player suffer on account of him. While I agree that it's good to look at the situation from both sides, it's pretty clear that the paladin is unintentionally making an ass out of himself, without any regards to the other players.

I see no evidence that it's unintentional. Sounds to me like he knows exactly how the other players feel about it.
There is nothing in the paladin's code that says he can't be a rude jerk, but if the player knows that it's bothering the other players then he needs to change.

Jannex
2007-09-10, 10:37 PM
I just wanted to point out that I am posting on behalf of, and biased towards the paladin on the grounds that he is not here to defend himself and everyone else is against him. If roles were reversed, then I'd be supporting the rogue.

Neither is the rogue's player here to defend himself against you. The fact that the paladin's player is absent doesn't mean he's right.


That being said...
The new MALE player brought in a FEMALE character KNOWING that the paladin was a womanizer. This was BOUND to cause unnecessary strife.

So... the player shouldn't be allowed to play a female character, because of a decision another player has made? That contradicts what you say further down about one character being "forced" (or, rather, "FORCED") on another. What if the player had been female? Should she have been compelled to play cross-gender, to accomodate the paladin?


If you agree to ignore Roleplaying on the grounds of letting another PC in, then you must ignore all roleplaying between them at all.

Really? You can't just bend a little, change a couple of choices so that the game can proceed, without completely throwing all roleplaying out the window? Because I did exactly that on Friday, in the campaign where I'm PCing. I let slide a moral dilemma that my character would have otherwise turned into a major issue, because the DM said out-of-game that he'd intended for us just to take the treasure. It would have made things less fun for everyone involved if my PC had objected, and would have created problems for the DM, so I just let it go and continued to roleplay. You can bend a little without destroying all roleplaying.


The rogue was FORCED on to the paladin without his consent. If the rogue doesn't like his roleplaying then she can leave.

How was the rogue "forced" on the paladin, any more than the paladin was "forced" on the rogue, or on any of the other players? If the new player was welcomed into the gaming group (and at this point we have no reason to believe that this is not the case), then how is anyone being forced? The new player doesn't seem to have made a character that is unreasonable for the group by any means--she's not evil, she has a skill-set that they're missing, she's willing to put herself at risk to help them. Are you really suggesting that the best solution to this situation is for the character to leave the party, which would either split the PC party or force the DM to find a way to introduce a new character to the party? Should the new player, perhaps, ask the paladin's player to personally approve his next character?


The fact that your rogue died doesn't mean that you need another one. Just take missions that don't require one.

Many PC groups like to have a character to cover each of the main roles or niches, one of which is the rogue/skillmonkey. It's a valid way to play the game.



I could go on all day denying and shooting down people's preconceived notions about this,

*blink blink* What about your preconceived notions about the rogue's motives--both in and out of character?


but I actually blame the original poster for sneaking in paladin falls debate under the guise of a player/character knowledge debate. There's been like two posts about the thread title and the rest have been berating the paladin.

The rest haven't been "berating the paladin"--they've been offering the DM advice about how to handle something that he considers a problem in his game. Yes, he started out with a question about metagaming, but then some other issues about his game occured to him, and he chose to include them in the same thread. Should he also have omitted his request for feedback on the tauroid hobgoblin? Perhaps a better thread title would have been "Looking for some advice on a few things in my campaign," but I would hardly consider that a grievous offense.

Zak3056
2007-09-10, 11:11 PM
He's "blinded by the glare of his own armor." Utterly vain. Thinks he is god(s) gift to women. Probably justifies retreating because he is too valuable a servant of his god to die in anything other than the "right" circumstances.

Personally, I'd let a paladin like that stay a paladin in my games... at least for a while. Unless he's annoying the hell out of the other players (the unpardonable sin, in my opinion, is making everyone else at the table hate you) I'd find this sort of thing a challenge to DM and, as a result, interesting.

I'd definitely be making some changes, though--not to encourage him to change (unless, as noted, he's annoying the hell out of the other players) but to make his character's mechanics better suit his character's personality. Sometimes, the tools of the gods are keen edged and shining--or everything a Paladin is supposed to be. Other times, only the dim and rusty castoffs are available... even a god has to work with the material he has at hand.

I'd probably end up rebuilding the Paladin class completely to fit him. Aura of Courage? Not a chance for you ,"tough" guy. Turn undead? Pah, they can smell the taint on him. A noble steed? Such a creature wouldn't have a thing to do with him. Divine spells? Not from that spell list, he needs a new one. Lay on hands? I know where those hands have been!

Divine health? Uh, yeah, I think he's gonna have to keep that one with all the beds he plans on crawling in and out of. Give him the bard's fascinate ability--people will fixate on him, either out of disgust (those that know him) or curiosity (those that don't.) No music required, he just has to preen. Since he's so good at running away, give him evasion. And so on.

In the end, he should end up at least a little weaker than the base class (using the material at hand is a far cry from making a huge investment in it, after all) and have the disadvantage of being hated (or at least ridiculed) by his own faith, and held up as an example of what a paladin ought not to be.

If he continues to walk the fine line he's on, then he keeps his abilities. If not, well, tools that fail to work and can't be repaired do get discarded in the end.

0oo0
2007-09-10, 11:20 PM
Zak3056, that is an awesome idea! Given the right group that could be amazingly fun

Citizen Joe
2007-09-10, 11:38 PM
So... the player shouldn't be allowed to play a female character, because of a decision another player has made? That contradicts what you say further down about one character being "forced" (or, rather, "FORCED") on another. What if the player had been female? Should she have been compelled to play cross-gender, to accomodate the paladin?

The MALE player did not need to play a female character. A male rep from the thieves' guild would have been just as suitable without causing interparty strife.

If it were a FEMALE player, I'd lay 10 to 1 odds that he'd stop his philandering ways and NEVER use the word 'whore' in her presence. In character or no, using that term in the presence of a woman WILL result in you getting slapped. The Paladin's Player only thinks he can get away with that because it's a bunch of guys playing the game.

It isn't a question about cross gender roleplaying. The paladin's player is roleplaying his character in a certain way and is probably willing to accept the results. If it were a female player, then he'd be insulting the player (as well as the character) and that is crossing the line.




[about relaxing roleplaying to allow another player in without question]
Really? You can't just bend a little, change a couple of choices so that the game can proceed, without completely throwing all roleplaying out the window?

Not just no, but H*LL no. I am a strong proponent of having a large stable of retainers, hirelings and contacts. These act as a trusted pool that your group can draw from in case of character loss. New party members need to be interviewed. If you're going to trust your life to someone, you better know something about them. Even if someone is just going to work for you, you need to interview them. This whole rogue/paladin issue is EXACTLY what I'm talking about to work through the compatibility issues.

I'm in a game right now where we had a drop out. Fortunately we have a designated leader in the game. We noticed a painful lack of healing, so when a spot opened up, my character went right to the local shrine looking for a priest. I expressed my deep philosophical concerns about some moral dilema in order to get a reading on him. He answered well, so I introduced him to the rest of the group and suggested to our leader that we allow him to join our group. So far, no problems... but then another person was going to join our group. We had no knowledge of him joining and the meeting was very tense... particularly due to the fact we were on a supposedly secret mission. We needed official orders from a reputable agency for us to accept him. I wouldn't exactly put him on the ally list, he's more of a consultant.

So far, we've all been pretty professional (if unorganized) so interparty conflict has not exceeded waking someone with water. Also, we don't have anyone that is horribly restricted by a code and there's no sexual tension either.

Jannex
2007-09-11, 01:57 AM
The MALE player did not need to play a female character. A male rep from the thieves' guild would have been just as suitable without causing interparty strife.

A MALE player doesn't need to play a MALE character, either. Sometimes a concept just works better as one gender than the other. And if, as you later suggest, trust is what's really at issue, the new PC's gender wouldn't matter; the paladin would still act like a jerk to the rogue, just in a different way. Let's be clear, here: the paladin is the one causing intraparty strife, not the rogue--the rogue has been quite willing to cooperate with the rest of the party, from what we've been told, up to and including saving the paladin's LIFE.


If it were a FEMALE player, I'd lay 10 to 1 odds that he'd stop his philandering ways and NEVER use the word 'whore' in her presence. In character or no, using that term in the presence of a woman WILL result in you getting slapped. The Paladin's Player only thinks he can get away with that because it's a bunch of guys playing the game.

Question: if the player of the rogue were female, would you be taking her side instead of the paladin's?

(And no, using the word "whore" in the presence of a woman will not automatically get you slapped. Calling a woman's character a whore, if she tells you out-of-game not to, might cause problems, but no more than being a jerk to anyone out-of-game usually would, in most cases.)


It isn't a question about cross gender roleplaying. The paladin's player is roleplaying his character in a certain way and is probably willing to accept the results.

Then, if he's willing to accept the results, he presumably won't mind too much if his character loses his paladin powers, or is castrated. These are possible (and likely) results of his roleplaying choices.


If it were a female player, then he'd be insulting the player (as well as the character) and that is crossing the line.

Um, IC =/= OOC. Sometimes the two overlap, but calling a female player's character a whore isn't the same as calling the female player a whore. This is a false statement. People are not their characters. Thus, I think there is much less difference between this situation and the hypothetical in which the rogue's player is female, than you seem to believe. In both, the paladin is personally insulting the rogue IC, and the paladin's player is being a jerk (deliberately or inadvertently remains to be seen, but I'm betting on the former) OOC. To put it another way, the paladin's behavior is just as unacceptable as it would be if the rogue's player were female.


Not just no, but H*LL no. I am a strong proponent of having a large stable of retainers, hirelings and contacts. These act as a trusted pool that your group can draw from in case of character loss.

Well that doesn't arbitrarily limit new players' options for character concepts, or anything. Because everyone enjoys playing other players' lackeys.


New party members need to be interviewed. If you're going to trust your life to someone, you better know something about them. Even if someone is just going to work for you, you need to interview them. This whole rogue/paladin issue is EXACTLY what I'm talking about to work through the compatibility issues.

The thing is, there don't seem to be any trust issues between the rogue and the other members of the party. The only other PC we've heard mentioned, the dwarf, seems to be on perfectly good terms with her. And as far as trusting someone with your life, the rogue SAVED the paladin's life, at considerable risk to her own. What was his reaction? He deserted her and left her to fend off the same two spiders she'd just rescued him from. Way to go, Mr. Honor And Chivalry. The only "compatibility issues" I'm seeing here are between the paladin PC and his honor code.


I'm in a game right now where we had a drop out. Fortunately we have a designated leader in the game. We noticed a painful lack of healing, so when a spot opened up, my character went right to the local shrine looking for a priest. I expressed my deep philosophical concerns about some moral dilema in order to get a reading on him. He answered well, so I introduced him to the rest of the group and suggested to our leader that we allow him to join our group. So far, no problems... but then another person was going to join our group. We had no knowledge of him joining and the meeting was very tense... particularly due to the fact we were on a supposedly secret mission. We needed official orders from a reputable agency for us to accept him. I wouldn't exactly put him on the ally list, he's more of a consultant.

So far, we've all been pretty professional (if unorganized) so interparty conflict has not exceeded waking someone with water. Also, we don't have anyone that is horribly restricted by a code and there's no sexual tension either.

If that works for your party, great. Not everyone wants to make new PCs jump through those kind of hoops, or sacrifice the cohesive party dynamic that many groups require for their games to work. Whether it's out of a desire not to scare off new players, or to make the DM's life harder than it already is, a lot of groups operate on a policy of giving new "obvious PC types" the benefit of the doubt. Though in this case, it seems like the new character did go the route of being a contact of someone with established connections to the party (i.e. the Thieves' Guild).

Ogh_the_Second
2007-09-11, 06:52 AM
The further I read this thread, the more I have the feeling that the paladin's player and the rogue's player have a problem with each other.

If that is indeed the case, it's really time to put the whole roleplaying thing aside and start a serious OoC chat. And - like it or not - it's sometime's the DM's task to attend to stuff like that.

Only if any personal conflict has been resolved, or at least set aside, can one begin with addressing IC problems.

Citizen Joe
2007-09-11, 07:09 AM
Um, IC =/= OOC. Sometimes the two overlap, but calling a female player's character a whore isn't the same as calling the female player a whore.

I didn't say that calling a female player's character a 'whore' would get you slapped. I said using the term at all in the presence of a lady would get a guy slapped. Some guys adopt a different etiquette when within an entirely male group. Personally, I think the player should have been booted a long time ago for his childish and incongruous portrayal of a paladin. It just makes the other players work harder to some how make their perceptions jive with his reality. And in this particular case, it has come to a violent end. Barring that, IC I would have talked to his character about his philandering ways and how his defense of his manhood is endangering the group as a whole. If he didn't shape up there would be one more ultimatum where I tell everyone in the group that I can't trust my life to the paladin and either he goes or I go. Usually, this means that my character goes.

Now you're gonna throw hypocrite at me, to which I respond, I'm complex. The point is that I would have taken care of all this stuff before it becomes a problem.
Paladin womanizes alot -> "Dude, you're like totally ****blocking every one else. You're like a total stud, Dude... just let the babes come to you."
Paladin challenges someone about his manhood -> "Dude, like he was totally talking about that chicken over there. Let's not get all testosteroni."
Paladin avoids combat (cowardice?) -> "DUDE! We're like totally getting are butts handed to us. The pointy end goes in the bad guy."
Female seeks to join group -> "Listen up, Babe. We got like this totally misogynistic jerk in our group. And I, like, know how its all like bad karma and such. But he's like our big project to, like, make the world a better place and all. I just don't think you two should be around each other. Like yin and yang crashing together in, like, the bad way. If you got a dude friend, we could TOTALLY use him instead."

And yes, I've played the half-elf ranger with that attitude... in Ravenloft no less. Don't think it fits? Given the setting, wouldn't you have mood enhancers to defend against the fear? See also Scooby Doo.

Jannex
2007-09-11, 10:18 AM
I didn't say that calling a female player's character a 'whore' would get you slapped. I said using the term at all in the presence of a lady would get a guy slapped.

Um, please to be looking further up in my post, where I said:


(And no, using the word "whore" in the presence of a woman will not automatically get you slapped. Calling a woman's character a whore, if she tells you out-of-game not to, might cause problems, but no more than being a jerk to anyone out-of-game usually would, in most cases.)

Women (at least the vast majority of women in my experience, counting myself) are not delicate little flowers who cannot countenance having unpleasant words spoken in their presence, and who respond with violence when someone says something so horrific. Crazy as it may sound, women are people too, and a lot of 'em don't react to "naughty words" the same way they do cockroaches (shriek-bash-splat).


Some guys adopt a different etiquette when within an entirely male group. Personally, I think the player should have been booted a long time ago for his childish and incongruous portrayal of a paladin. It just makes the other players work harder to some how make their perceptions jive with his reality. And in this particular case, it has come to a violent end. Barring that, IC I would have talked to his character about his philandering ways and how his defense of his manhood is endangering the group as a whole. If he didn't shape up there would be one more ultimatum where I tell everyone in the group that I can't trust my life to the paladin and either he goes or I go. Usually, this means that my character goes.

Now you're gonna throw hypocrite at me, to which I respond, I'm complex.

Usually when people try to predict how I'm going to respond to their statements, they guess incorrectly. I have no desire to call you a hypocrite. I do, however, think that one of us is confused. You've spent our entire discussion until this point defending the paladin and defaming the rogue, and now you seem to have done a 180-degree turn and are saying that the paladin's player is the one in the wrong. Either I'm confused, or you are. I'm honestly not sure which.


The point is that I would have taken care of all this stuff before it becomes a problem.

Well, given that the OP was looking for advice on how to deal with the situation now, I can't help but observe that this isn't going to be all that helpful.



Female seeks to join group -> "Listen up, Babe. We got like this totally misogynistic jerk in our group. And I, like, know how its all like bad karma and such. But he's like our big project to, like, make the world a better place and all. I just don't think you two should be around each other. Like yin and yang crashing together in, like, the bad way. If you got a dude friend, we could TOTALLY use him instead."

To which the "female" replies, "First of all, don't call me 'Babe.' Secondly, let me get this straight: you've got a guy who's a 'misogynistic jerk' in your group, and you'd rather keep him around and make him your 'pet project' than give me the chance to PC--but if I've got a male friend, it's okay for HIM to play. That's really great. Yeah."


And yes, I've played the half-elf ranger with that attitude... in Ravenloft no less. Don't think it fits? Given the setting, wouldn't you have mood enhancers to defend against the fear? See also Scooby Doo.

...Huh?

Kurald Galain
2007-09-11, 10:31 AM
To put it another way, the paladin's behavior is just as unacceptable as it would be if the rogue's player were female.

QFT.

It doesn't make sense to assume that the new character was female just for the sake of pissing off the paladin's player.

Elhann
2007-09-11, 10:37 AM
Please, there's no need to get angry about this, really.

I asked if you think my hobgobataur seemed an appropiate CR monster, and a small advice with my paladin player.

The hobgobataur seems to have a good welcome, or the paladin topic gives a huge bonus to its hide check.:smallwink: I will correct the hitpoint value, and consider removing the gore attack and giving it hooves. The bison doesn't have a hoof attack, though.

About the paladin, I'm talking to the player before the next session, and I'll most probably use the dreamed trial idea. I'll tell you how it goes.

Thank you very much. :smallsmile:

Citizen Joe
2007-09-11, 10:55 AM
I do, however, think that one of us is confused. You've spent our entire discussion until this point defending the paladin and defaming the rogue, and now you seem to have done a 180-degree turn and are saying that the paladin's player is the one in the wrong.

No confusion. Nobody was around to defend the paladin. I stepped up as a devil's advocate so that the debate doesn't turn into a lynch mob. I don't agree with the paladin's behaviour, but I also don't agree with castrating him for it. You want to judge him? Put him on trial. I even suggested the dream therapy thing.

There is a japanese philosophy about passing around blame. In a car crash, both parties are at fault. The 'victim' didn't HAVE to be there at the moment of impact, so it is partly his fault. In this case I blame the entire group, including the DM for letting this to go on as long as it has.



Well, given that the OP was looking for advice on how to deal with the situation now, I can't help but observe that this isn't going to be all that helpful.

Yea, I don't have much sympathy for the OP. Again, I say he snuck in a paladin falls debate which is always a hot button. He wants a solution? OK, Rocks Fall, everyone dies, get out of my house! It's clear that either the rogue goes or the paladin goes. There's no real good reason for them to be at each other's throats. That means it is an irrational reason. You cannot resolve irrational disputes. Kick them both out. Think that's harsh or rude? Well their shenanigans is clearly ruining the game for everyone else. That's pretty rude in itself. No DM should have to be a baby sitter.



[scenario about turning down the rogue deleted]
To which the "female" replies, "First of all, don't call me 'Babe.' Secondly, let me get this straight: you've got a guy who's a 'misogynistic jerk' in your group, and you'd rather keep him around and make him your 'pet project' than give me the chance to PC--but if I've got a male friend, it's okay for HIM to play. That's really great. Yeah."

"Aww, baby, don't be like that. I'm sure you've got a lot to offer. But he's a known quantity and we know how to handle him. I just don't want you to get hurt, Babe.":smalltongue:

Citizen Joe
2007-09-11, 11:03 AM
Please, there's no need to get angry about this, really.
...

About the paladin, I'm talking to the player before the next session, and I'll most probably use the dreamed trial idea. I'll tell you how it goes.

Thank you very much. :smallsmile:

I do want to apologize if I've offended you or if I seem harsh to your plight. But these alignment/paladin falls threads really stick in my craw and it really burns me up when they get snuck in under the radar.

I hope the dream trial works out. I'm sure it will resolve the paladin issue one way or the other. Given the player's apparent attentiveness, I suspect his character will fail the trial miserably. But part of the point is that you get the player to see that his character should fall. Otherwise, it just seems like the DM is picking on him. Good luck.

internerdj
2007-09-11, 11:14 AM
Womanising is why I added the burning loins disease to my game. It was irresistable, incurable, hideous to behold, and a penalty I think to the walk/run speed. I got tired of a player monopolizing all of everyone's precious playing time by hunting for chances to vicariously be a player through his character.

Jannex
2007-09-11, 06:39 PM
No confusion. Nobody was around to defend the paladin. I stepped up as a devil's advocate so that the debate doesn't turn into a lynch mob. I don't agree with the paladin's behaviour, but I also don't agree with castrating him for it. You want to judge him? Put him on trial. I even suggested the dream therapy thing.

I think "lynch mob" is rather overstating the case. Constitutional rights aside, I'm not convinced that the paladin needs a Public Defender here. This is an informal request for advice, not a trial. I just didn't agree with you coming down so hard on the rogue, when we had no reason to believe from the OP that the situation was in any way her fault.

Oh, and if the paladin doesn't want to be castrated, then he should stop pissing off the chick with Sneak Attack. In-character actions have in-character consequences.


There is a japanese philosophy about passing around blame. In a car crash, both parties are at fault. The 'victim' didn't HAVE to be there at the moment of impact, so it is partly his fault. In this case I blame the entire group, including the DM for letting this to go on as long as it has.

Huzzah for cultural differences, then, because I don't see it as reasonable at all to say that the rogue in any way deserves to be called a whore just for existing (i.e. it being partly her fault for being there). And whether the DM should have dealt with it before now or not, he's clearly trying to do something about it now, asking for advice on the situation.


Yea, I don't have much sympathy for the OP. Again, I say he snuck in a paladin falls debate which is always a hot button.

Yes, it was clearly a vast conspiracy orchestrated to make people argue about paladins, rather than an honest request for advice about a variety of matters related to his campaign.


He wants a solution? OK, Rocks Fall, everyone dies, get out of my house! It's clear that either the rogue goes or the paladin goes. There's no real good reason for them to be at each other's throats. That means it is an irrational reason. You cannot resolve irrational disputes.

Really? 'Cause I thought that's what talking to people and getting them to realize where they were in error was for. These are presumably not five-year-olds the OP is dealing with.


Kick them both out. Think that's harsh or rude? Well their shenanigans is clearly ruining the game for everyone else. That's pretty rude in itself. No DM should have to be a baby sitter.

Right, because clearly the rogue deserves to be kicked out of the game, for... not letting the paladin get eaten by the giant spiders when she had the chance?


"Aww, baby, don't be like that. I'm sure you've got a lot to offer. But he's a known quantity and we know how to handle him. I just don't want you to get hurt, Babe.":smalltongue:

To which she replies, "Stop patronizing me, and stop calling me 'Babe,' or the only one here who's going to get hurt is you."