Ok so Ill keep it short and sweet.
I have been running a campaign for 2 years now and the party has recently encountered their first "serious" evil aligned boss.
Now the summary.
The gung ho paladin smote the big bad whilst he (The boss) was begging for mercy - and his life.
Details.
- The "Boss" was a tool being used by "The real Big bad"
- He was a coward and actually took steps to prevent his own endgame from occurring months before he could have actually achieved it.
- The dialouge -
Villain: "W-wait! No! Please! Mercy! I Can help yo-"
(Interrupting)
Paladin: "FOUL BEAST - You will get no mercy from me - seek it instead from your gods!"
(Paladin then goes into detail about slicing him up for two rounds)
The Meta.
I have a problem with this player as he fails to grasp the "Social ramifications" I enforce in my plot. He steamrollers into situations despite the players trying to reign him in with in game/character logic.
He almost died twice by throwing himself into the fray (once literally RIGHT after agreeing to the CHILD WARPRIEST's insistence that they stick together and not run ahead.
He actually died by solo assaulting a fort of 100+ large creatures. (This was HEAVILY reinforced, along with associated deaths of hundreds of NPCS)
After this session I declared that his divine bond was perturbed by his bloodlust, the warpriest (Bless her) was mortified on her own initiative and he failed to see what he did wrong as "It was evil and has killed others"
Worse yet, his own backstory was heavy with a ruthless self justified homicidal murdering father figure. (Hellknight) Ironic.
SO BASICALLY
Do I just smite him with a solid falling and play the "Atonement spells dont work until YOU GENUINELY UNDERSTAND WHY AND WISH TO REPENT" (RAW)
Or give him a semi fall by taking away the driving force for his BS (Smite and Litany of Righteousness) until he figures out the irony?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You should do neither of those things and talk to him OOC instead about you feeling his character's actions are disruptive to the kind of game you want to run.
Paladins don't have to accept surrender and if this man was truly evil he was perfectly within his right to not give him mercy even if he begged. As for the NPC deaths resulting from his actions, I can't comment on that without knowing the specifics, but if he didn't fall back then for it, he shouldn't suddenly do it now.
He hasn't broken his code, and it sounds like you're about to start down the broken road of punishing people in game for OOC issues. Talking like adults is always preferable to that.
Who's his god ? Not all of them believe in redemption, and a few might subscribe to the idea of "if it's evil, kill it, no hesitation".
And did the paladin know the dude was a reluctant cowardly tool at best ? If not, can't fault him for that (killing a prisoner after his surrender is bad enough anyway).
Gratuitous cruelty, as you imply, should never be okay for a paladin though. For that a warning should probably happen - not an outright fall if it's a first, 9'd say, but again : who's his boss ?
But mostly, this seems more like a player/table problem, so make sure you're on the same wavelength. If you are, he might enjoy the idea of his character being challenged and having to grow and learn. Always thought that could a fun character arc, if very tricky to handle.
Otherwise you need to make clear the kind of game you want to run, as in "not a murderhobo fiesta". Not everyone is looking for the same kind of game, and that's fine.
And if that's not enough either, or if he's being distuptive for the giggles, you're probably headed for drama either way, fall or not, so I'll leave that to you : you know him, you know the situation.
Also, this probably shouldn't be in the Starfinder section.
Talk to him out of character first. Talk to all of your players actually. Make sure you and your players are on the same page about the type of campaign that youre running and talk about what you expect roleplay wise.
|
|
For the sanity of your game, I would advise that if he acts like a psycho again, you make this guy fall until he repents (IC if not OOC). That said, be prepared for a lot of arguments and hostility over the next few sessions, if he doesn't just get fed up and leave.
Or he could try talking to him like an adult first. Just because it didn't work in your case doesn't mean it won't work with his player. Also a paladin is in no way beholden to accept surrender and that doesn't make his character a "psycho". Nor does attacking that fort if it truly was full of evil doers, though a warning from his deity that he shouldn't charge in head on like that may be appropriate.
But the details on the fort bit are pretty lacking, so I think we should focus on what the GM saw as the breaking point, not giving an evil dude mercy when he got scared he would die. Which is absolutely not against the code.
I have spoken with the player.
In most instances he has been reasonable but recently when I tried to discuss it he got quite aggressive on my judgement of deeming excess violence and a "Kill first no questions" situation.
He is furious that he is being judged as bad for his decision and refuses to actually take on board the players and my perceptions on this.
Details
The Boss was a Stone Giant seer who had holed up in a mountainside leading Hill giants and lesser ogres as a task force to build up weapons of war for a third party (The one orchestrated by the Big bad)
The issue was the certainty in which he slew the giant without wanting to speak or make some sense of what had gone on. He was out for blood and made violently sure that the creature was wrecked "as a message" to those who would try this again.
With such a bloodlust, lack of self control and no foresight on the task they actually had (tasked with finding out WHY not WHO) he acted like a barbarian would have not a chosen champion of Iomedae.
Though I appreciate she is a more gungho god than most when confronted with evil. I cant see how a complete lack of liability is suitable for a paragon of honour, valor and justice.
Sounds like you and the player are playing very different games.
Iomedea is a strange god really, LG, but very aggressive. The inner sea gods calls out that 'Of all the good churches on Golarion, Iomedae's is
the most aggressive in seeking out and fighting evil.' Part of her paladin code is 'I will never refuse a challenge from an equal. I will give honor to worthy enemies and contempt to the rest.'
They are the first ones into battle and the last ones to leave. It also lists in the text: The Paladin of Iomedae are just and strong, crusaders who live for the joy of righteous battle. Their mission is to right wrongs and eliminate evil at its root. They serve as examples to others, and their code demands they protect the weak and innocent by eliminating sources of oppression, rather than merely the symptoms.
Iomedea tries to be all encompassing... but Saranrae is really the 'mercy' god. Iomedea is more about the smiting evil before it can do more evil...
Paladin/fall/morality threads always boil down to 'figure it out in your own group with your own players...' but honestly, he may be a bit more enthusiastic than you like, but i'm not seeing anything out right WRONG!! My paladin (of Saranrae) was all about talking and peaceful resolution... but once battle was joined, he brought the Hammer down fast and hard and woe to the wicked who faced him!
phantom1592
-Paladin/fall/morality threads always boil down to 'figure it out in your own group with your own players...' but honestly, he may be a bit more enthusiastic than you like, but i'm not seeing anything out right WRONG!! My paladin (of Saranrae) was all about talking and peaceful resolution... but once battle was joined, he brought the Hammer down fast and hard and woe to the wicked who faced him!-
I agree with what you say. The trouble is the edicts.
A lot of people find the ambiguous ones but forget the Iomedae edict of
"I will be temperate in my actions and moderate in my behavior"
"I will suffer death before dishonor"
"I will learn the weight of my sword. Without my heart to guide it, it is worthless-my strength is not in my sword, but in my heart. If I lose my sword, I have lost a tool. If I betray my heart, I have died"
etc etc
Ambiguously chaining but again thats the cost of a Paladin's powers. I have spoken with him about temperance in and out of games before. Along with a very clear outline intro session with each of them expressing how I run games with a solid emphasis on fluff and logical sensibilities.
I dont expect them to develop a masterplan for attacking the bandit fort. But I DONT expect the paladin to try and solo it because "His god will protect him" the same goes for Khorne slaughter and subsequent dismissal of allys advice.
Iomedae is also concerned with redemption. But beyond granting the subdomain, her Paladin code also states "I will be temperate in my actions and moderate in my behavior." and "I will not tarnish her glory through base actions."
Ah, ninja'd.
Though for a softer fall, there's a Vindictive Bastard or Gray Paladin
I have settled for a "sub falling" of losing his two main aspects of his class that keeps him doing this.
"Smite" and "Detect evil" mostly because he over relies on the two and should try to address the encounters I plan for the whole party being resolved or more often worsened by the above.
I agree its not worth a full falling from grace. But I cant let slide a slaughter action whilst envoking the name of a deity of valor justice and honour on a fallen, helpless AND earnestly pleading foe.
Even a sense motive would have at least shown he cared that his actions might have consequences.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, just to make sure I have a good understanding about this. You're angry that, when confronted with what you say is the first BBEG in your 2 year campaign, a man who is willing to have the inbred rapists known as ogres work under him and ensures the death of countless more people by supplying weapons to someone worse, the paladin decided to kill the bastard? And what's more, you're telling him he's going to fall for doing so?
I can understand why your player is mad at you. I'd be mad too if I was told I was falling for that. I understand that what he's doing is short-sighted and stupid, but stupidity is not evil.
@Advice Forum Paladin #626
I never said he falls - but that he is having limitations and will be having references to his own backstory (his father was a genocidal maniac who was utterly convinced he was in the right)
By limiting the two things he overuses and in doing so hinders his goals.
I am not angry, I find it hard to understand his reasoning of extending the mutilation of a fallen and pleading foe. No valor in that.
Also for the purposes of these Ogres the Boss actively subjugated these ogres confining them to the refineries - no rape. That was a fluff assumption on your behalf.
I also never said he was evil.
I feel he is dangerously close to having to atone because he is breaking his own edicts of temperance, level headedness and repeatedly disregarding and endangering his allies in doing so. All things he is expressly exempt from doing.
Ambiguously chaining but again thats the cost of a Paladin's powers. I have spoken with him about temperance in and out of games before. Along with a very clear outline intro session with each of them expressing how I run games with a solid emphasis on fluff and logical sensibilities.
I dont expect them to develop a masterplan for attacking the bandit fort. But I DONT expect the paladin to try and solo it because "His god will protect him" the same goes for Khorne slaughter and subsequent dismissal of allys advice.
yeah, that's the problem though. Ambiguous and vague is where the conflicts come in. What is 'moderate?' What is Temerance? What brings 'dishonor'? It's obvious you two have different opinions.
If the character truly believes that the battle is necessary and the opponents are evil (and seriously, Ogres are some of the most despicable creatures on Golarion)... then yeah, Kill them fast and kill them hard may BE the moderate and tempered response... compared to what a lot of those chaotic Neutral/Evil characters may come up with.
A paladin at his core is still a holy warrior whose (typical) place is with his giant sword and hardest armor getting right up into combat as quickly as possible. Drawing the enemy's fire with his great saves and swift action healing himself to keep the fight going.
This isnt' the typical 'my paladin killed a pickpocket or didn't save the orc orphans' type scenario... This seems a legitimate combat against legitimate opponenets. There may have been information you wanted to pass on... but 'in-character' is there a reason that Paladin's god would have disagreed with the battle?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have been running a campaign for 2 years now and the party has recently encountered their first "serious" evil aligned boss.
Yes, you did say he was evil. Also, my description of ogres is not an assumption: At base in the bestiary, ogres are horrible, horrible monsters. If they don't have something smaller to target, they target each other. I understand your frustrations, but this isn't a falling offense.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
More like a headslap across the back of the head, right #626? ;)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look man, I get you're upset he didn't play things how you wanted him to. But before you just start taking away powers you should really just talk to him out of game like an adult about how you feel he's being disruptive to the type of campaign you're trying to run.
He didn't violate the paladin code by running in and killing evil giants and the evil BBEG. Nothing in the situation you described has been against the Paladin code.
Don't use game mechanic to solve an OOC issue.
s someone who plays a lot of paladins, the mutilation is something I would think is more likely to trigger a fall, and I'm seeing that part being glossed over in some of the replies here. Torture is usually considered to cross a hard line into "evil action." If he wants to make a harsh example, lop off a head and mount it prominantly on a stake.
No one has mentioned torture except you so far actually. OP mentioned mutilation of bodies at one point, but that's not torture as they're already dead. You could certainly say that mutilating bodies as having broke the paladin code, but we don't know exactly what the OP meant when he said "mutilated". Plus he should've fallen immediately when he messed with the bodies if it truly was a breach of the code. Doing it retroactively doesn't sit well with me personally, but we can't even say if he should unless the OP gives more details.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure why this is in the Starfinder forum, buuut...
Striking down an evil warmongering villain who has enslaved and caused the deaths of others is not an evil act, or even a neutral act, especially for a paladin of an aggressive god like Iomedae.
Causing a fall because you would have preferred they find out information about a "bigger bad" the party probably doesn't know about is uncalled for and bad DMing. You can bring that information in via other means.
Causing a fall "retroactively" for something that was done in the past and not addressed is uncalled for and bad DMing.
Causing a fall or partial fall immediately for anything less than an outright evil act is uncalled for. If the character has been walking the tightrope with morally gray actions, they should receive visions from servants of their deity /in character/ first as warnings, not loss of class abilities.
Even if the paladin destroyed the villain's body after they were dead, that isn't even necessarily a grey act depending on how it's portrayed - "continuing to lash out reactively in adrenaline until the world comes back in focus and you realize you won" is a different thing than "chopping off the limbs as trophies or to mount on pikes."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Executing the boss is arguably warranted. As someone who plays a lot of paladins, the mutilation is something I would think is more likely to trigger a fall, and I'm seeing that part being glossed over in some of the replies here. Torture is usually considered to cross a hard line into "evil action." If he wants to make a harsh example, lop off a head and mount it prominantly on a stake.
I can certainly understand the mutilation being a problem, and is the closest to stepping over the line. However, I believe I'm going to have to do the distinctly unpaladin thing here and be an Asmodean advocate, so to speak. As the person was already dead, mutilating them isn't really torture, as they can't feel anything at that point. And while I can see how dismembering a corpse would be considered bad, I would like to remind everyone that this is a world where undead exist, as does resurrection magic. A body that is in pieces is marginally harder to use both spells on, thus making it a potential point of convenience. If you're really worried about that being a problem, cast gentle repose on the body first, as this is the closest we get to burial rites. This even comes with the added benefit of stopping the body from coming back as some sort of undead, which is a superb bonus for treating your enemies bodies with a modicum of both respect and practicality. Lastly, you can't just put someone's head on a pike: You need that for speak with dead. Be reasonable and pike their heart instead.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This doesn't seem like a 'paladin falling' issue at all.
It sounds like a DM/player conflict, with a good dose of 'badwrongfun.'
I have a problem with this player as he fails to grasp the "Social ramifications" I enforce in my plot.
If there are social ramifications, they need to play out. The divine hammer of falling or pseudo-falling isn't a social ramifications.
But the social ramifications needs to play out for the character, not the player, which seems to be what the problem really revolves around- the dm/player relationship.
In character the paladin probably hasn't done anything against the paladin code. They aren't required to give mercy (depending on deity). Look at the whole "Good is not Nice" trope and "Good is not Soft" trope.
That being said, it does sound like you have a problems with the player and their general actions which have nothing to do with being a paladin or not, and mostly him not following along with how the party would generally like to behave/proceed.
This is a problem on its own, but not a paladin problem. Talk to him out of game and try to resolve it. But trying to strip of his paladin problems to solve the problem is a bit like trying to put out a fire with a pair of scissors. You have a tool, but it's not the right tool for the problem at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is Iomedae's Code:
- I will learn the weight of my sword. Without my heart to guide it, it is worthless—my strength is not in my sword, but in my heart. If I lose my sword, I have lost a tool. If I betray my heart, I have died.
- I will have faith in the Inheritor. I will channel her strength through my body. I will shine in her legion, and I will not tarnish her glory through base actions.
- I am the first into battle, and the last to leave it.
- I will not be taken prisoner by my free will. I will not surrender those under my command.
- I will never abandon a companion, though I will honor sacrifice freely given.
- I will guard the honor of my fellows, both in thought and deed, and I will have faith in them.
- When in doubt, I may force my enemies to surrender, but I am responsible for their lives.
- I will never refuse a challenge from an equal. I will give honor to worthy enemies, and contempt to the rest.
- I will suffer death before dishonor.
- I will be temperate in my actions and moderate in my behavior. I will strive to emulate Iomedae’s perfection.
Your player's paladin has fairly convincingly violated the following tenets of Iomedae's Code:
- When in doubt, I may force my enemies to surrender, but I am responsible for their lives.
- I will never refuse a challenge from an equal. I will give honor to worthy enemies, and contempt to the rest.
- I will be temperate in my actions and moderate in my behavior. I will strive to emulate Iomedae’s perfection.
I'm not saying that this is a "paladin falls" situation, but it's definitely one where a servitor of Iomedae would come a-callin' to say, "Hey, you're not really representing Iomedae in the best light here. If you don't change your ways, you're going to lose her favor."
Ok so Ill keep it short and sweet.
I have been running a campaign for 2 years now and the party has recently encountered their first "serious" evil aligned boss.
Now the summary.
The gung ho paladin smote the big bad whilst he (The boss) was begging for mercy - and his life.
Details.
- The "Boss" was a tool being used by "The real Big bad"
- He was a coward and actually took steps to prevent his own endgame from occurring months before he could have actually achieved it.
- The dialouge -Villain: "W-wait! No! Please! Mercy! I Can help yo-"
(Interrupting)
Paladin: "FOUL BEAST - You will get no mercy from me - seek it instead from your gods!"
(Paladin then goes into detail about slicing him up for two rounds)The Meta.
I have a problem with this player as he fails to grasp the "Social ramifications" I enforce in my plot. He steamrollers into situations despite the players trying to reign him in with in game/character logic.
He almost died twice by throwing himself into the fray (once literally RIGHT after agreeing to the CHILD WARPRIEST's insistence that they stick together and not run ahead.
He actually died by solo assaulting a fort of 100+ large creatures. (This was HEAVILY reinforced, along with associated deaths of hundreds of NPCS)
After this session I declared that his divine bond was perturbed by his bloodlust, the warpriest (Bless her) was mortified on her own initiative and he failed to see what he did wrong as "It was evil and has killed others"
Worse yet, his own backstory was heavy with a ruthless self justified homicidal murdering father figure. (Hellknight) Ironic.
SO BASICALLY
Do I just smite him with a solid falling and play the "Atonement spells dont work until YOU GENUINELY UNDERSTAND WHY AND WISH TO REPENT" (RAW)
Or give him a semi fall by taking away the driving force for his BS (Smite and Litany of Righteousness) until he figures out the irony?
I would say yes and no.
I do not think his class should be in any way affected. He is in some twisted way doing his job in containing evil and protecting his allies.
I would think his deity or somebody should come to him and express grave disappointment, and send him a warning that continued acts in bloodlust will cause his power to become forfeit...or something among those lines. If you want to do an in game penalty, I would say maybe make him unable to gain any further levels in paladin until he performs a service or a small quest to show his conviction and apologies.
My 2 cents on the idea...
Hey bud, maybe i can help.
I want you to know beforehand that, even if i disagree with the majority here, their ideas are not bad for me. Some people here gave you prety good advice, and you would not be wrong if you decide to take that paths.
In the other hand, here's my point of view.
Talking with players is overrated in this cases. This is, of course, my opinion. Your player has a code to stick to, and also you have that same code. Iomedae is explained in a lot of books, you can also find her in detail in the inner sea gods book, wich will give you some tips to know what to do.
As i see the situation, you dont really need to make a lesser fall, or a "pre-fall", for me, such things dont even exist for paladins. Great power comes with great responsibilitys and, even if the power-players or the optimizers will tell you that the paladin dont need a nerf such the code can be, you should not listen to that kind of argument, because they will plot a perfect build to show you how balanced the paladin is...but truth be told, the paladin is a normal class wich dont really need to optimize to be awsome.
That said, if you, as the director of the game think that your player has commited an act oposite to Iomedae's believes, then you should make a shining ray of light appear in the sky, breaking the clouds and smiting the paladin, making him feel how he looses ALL his powers.
Too rough? try to see it through the eyes of the godess. Will you want such man to have your mighty powers on him? would you like him to speak in your name? or are you afraid of the path he's taken and you dont want to support him anymore until he shows you he's worthy?
There are a few here who has show he didnt follow the code, now he has to pay the rent.
In the other hand, you can make his redemption easier, and also improve your campaign setting with it. Maybe you can make him protect an evildoer until he's put under the law's hands, maybe the puppet he killed has some crucial information and now he has to find the way to revive him, maybe that evildoer was helping a family that now's danger because he's dead...tons of things
However, what you say about that player dont sound very nice. He will probably rage hard and quit the character. Again, in my opinion that's not a problem, its his choice to do that, as it is your duty to stick to the code of the paladin, because if you dont, you are not beign fair to the rest of the party who are under their limitations. would you let the wizard take spells without resting? would you let the cleric heal without his simbol? would you let the warrior use a shield without having it in his hand? Then, why are you letting the paladin use his powers without acting how he should?
Also, if the other players are agree with you and he's the only one raging and beign agressive i think the answer is clear. He's probably the one with the problem.
I will be temperate in my actions and moderate in my behavior. I will strive to emulate Iomedae’s perfection.
Issue is she isn't as perfect as she pretends.
No apology mind you if she kills you. Though she does raise you.
Think about that before you think her perfect. Heck, the real Iomedae would praise the Op's player.
I don’t think that the problem is the paladin’s actions; the real problem is between the GM and the player. My suggestion to the OP is to really think if you want this player in your group. If he is not a good fit then the best solution may be to remove him from the group. Don’t be hasty about it really give it some though. This needs to be resolved before anything else.
As to whether the paladin should fall, did his smite evil work? Did the boss engage, or order his minions to perform evil acts. Was it clear that the creature the paladin killed was actually the Boss? Did the Boss beg from mercy before combat, or after he was nearly defeated? All these should be taken into account when considering if the paladin falls.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Welcome to being a GM. If you want the PCs to always do what you want so that your story plays out perfectly the way you've mentally prepared, you should look into creative writing and write a fantasy novel.
The character's actions seem entirely justified. Have you ever seen The Hills Have Eyes? That's what we're talking about when ogres enter the conversation.
Fuzzypaws said it best:
Striking down an evil warmongering villain who has enslaved and caused the deaths of others is not an evil act, or even a neutral act, especially for a paladin of an aggressive god like Iomedae.
Causing a fall because you would have preferred they find out information about a "bigger bad" the party probably doesn't know about is uncalled for and bad DMing. You can bring that information in via other means.
Causing a fall "retroactively" for something that was done in the past and not addressed is uncalled for and bad DMing.
Causing a fall or partial fall immediately for anything less than an outright evil act is uncalled for. If the character has been walking the tightrope with morally gray actions, they should receive visions from servants of their deity /in character/ first as warnings, not loss of class abilities.
Even if the paladin destroyed the villain's body after they were dead, that isn't even necessarily a grey act depending on how it's portrayed.
As has been mentioned, this is a world of magic, where the forces of evil have the nasty habit of becoming undead. In this case, chopping up the corpse is prudent and done in the name of trying to prevent further evil from rising.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The ogre chief slaughter thing comes after a notable list of other ... debatable choices. From endangering everyone to being merely suicidal, and always short-sighted.
Really, this paladin seems to be played as the very caricature of why some people hate paladins to begin with (undeservedly so). Lawful-stupid and all that.
And yes, that's entirely a table problem, between him, the other players, and you the GM.
We here can't even really agree on what we make of your posts, so we're not going to magically solve this anytime soon, sadly.
You know him, you know the other players, talk to them, see what they think.
And by the way, what do they think of all this ?
Do they dread every action of the paladin ? Are they annoyed and tired of his bs ? Are they amused by his antics, keeping him round as a weirdly aggressive mascot ? Do they just hope for his glorious demise ? (and if so, why bring him back ?) Maybe they fon't actually have much of a problem with it ?
Or are they just resigned to suffer through the experience, because they know the player and want to avoid the drama, at the cost of their enjoyment of the game if need be ?
That to me, would be the most important part of all of this, and the one thing you need to find out.
Either way, if there's common ground to be found, work with them. If not, tough decisions might have to be made. Up to the lot of you.
Also, have there ever been real consequences to the paladin (and others) messing up ?
And I don't mean taking damage, dying or losing money, since all of those end up being merely annoying setbacks after a point.
I mean story progression hurdles, allies lost, information never obtained, the bad guys actually winning and gaining a position of strength - maybe the very thing/artifact/ally the PCs were hoping for, etc.
That kind of stuff sometimes is a better teaching tool than an outright fall, which can easily be interpreted as punishment for the player, rather than the character - and THAT never goes well.