I'm the DM of a party of 6 characters plus one cohort and at this time they are in AOW (Spire of Long Shadows). The party consists of:CG Pschic Warrior (Duergar)
NG Wizard (Forest Gnome)Cohort of the Psychic
Warrior
CG Rogue (Human)
LG Wizard,Psion,Cerebramancer (Elan)
LG Cleric (Aasimar)
CG Barbarian, Fighter, Frenzied Berzerker (Half-
orc)
LG Fighter, Paladin (Human)
The battle in question went like this. The Paladin, Pschic Warrior, and Frenzied Berzerker were in melee with three Eviscerator bettles in the enrance way of room 3 in the Ziggurat(coming from room 1) while the rest of the group were in behind doing what they do best for support. While after roughly 3 rounds of fighting the bettles, 2 of the 3 were killed leaving one left( there are 3 not 2 bettles due to the size of the party). At that point Nezzarin, Kyuss Knight walk out mocking the party, in particular the Paladin. The evil Knight put a challenge out to the Paladin for a one on one fight to the death.The Paladin excepted but only if he was allowed to be healed to full as Nezzarin was full hit points himself.At that Nezzarin walked to the middle of the room to within 10 feet of the hole(wanting to get the advantage of the enchantment giving good characters -2 to hit, save & skill checks). The Knight waited in this spot for the Paladin but at that point the gnome mage let go some magic missles. Well the Frenzied berzerker was in a frenzy at the time and tried to pull out of it but failed his save and so rushed in to attack the Knight. He charged in and hit the Knight and at that time the Knight mocked the party for being scared to let their fearless Paladin fight him one on one. The Knight attacked the Berzerker hitting him at that time. Well the Celebrancer then let loose some energy missles at the Knight hitting him nicely.
The battle went on for another round at which point the Paladin finally came in hitting the Knight for the final blow which ended up destroying the Knight.
I told the party that the Paladin had agreed to this mono on mono challenge and the party made him look dishonerable for not letting him take on the Knight himself.The party came back saying my Knight attacked the berzerker and so that freed them up to attack the Knight. With that said I explained the Gnome and berzerker attacked first and he was only defending himself because the party was not honerable.
I know it was not the Paladins fault and so I woulden't think he would lose his abilities but would he stay with the party after they made him look dishonerable. If so how would anyone else handle this situation or am I reading to much into the Paladins code.
The paladin shouldn't sweat it too much. He doesn't make his friend's decisions - He might reprimand them a bit, but it's not something to leave a party because of. After all, they did this in order to take down a source of evil.
The only association stipulation in the paladin's code is that they cannot associate with evil (as addendum, I would add "except while attempting to convert the evildoer"). Though paladins must be lawful, there's nothing that says they can't associate with chaotic creatures. Indeed, in such situations, the paladin can often be the "eye of the storm."
Rez I except your proper identification of the english language and how it was abused in my thread, but with that said you did get the just of the situation that I was putting before all to query.
Now the only reason I did question the party's moral compass when it came to the code of the Paladin was some of what I read in "The Book of Exalted Deeds" such as under "the ends and means" and "Mercy".
My other concern is when a character such as a frenzied beserker (complete warrior) is brought into a party (prestige class) in which a Paladin is also envolved in. This beserker will atttack a member of its own party if there are no other enemies in the area and it fails its savings throw to leave its beserker state.Now I am very liberal when it comes to the party and its ability to choose its own characters, but I just wanted to make sure that the code of the paladin was not an issue that I was overlooking due to the importance of it within the framework of the character itself.
Thanks for the critiquing
Guy, if you are playing an "exalted" campaign with numerous exalted characters, it's fine to hold that up as the measuring stick for your paladin, but if not, you shouldn't hold him to the higher standards (even for a paladin) presented there. The PHB representation of the paladin's Code of Conduct gives a simple formula that can be tailored by you the DM to your player's paladin PC.
I agree with the previous responses to your OP. Don't give your paladin player a hard time over this. He should berate his companions for not letting him square off with the villain and warn them that in the future he will not tolerate it, but that's about it for now.
|
Bah, fogettabowdit. That was just an example of a paladin getting stuck in the middle of an over-eager party with higher initiative scores. No "code" was broken since the duel did not formally begin. The paladin may be a bit miffed, but no harm was done to his honour. What, like he's gonna take guff and namecalling from an UNDEAD spawn of evil more seriously than the opinion of his own GOOD aligned party members?
If you do sit down with the player and work out his "Official Code of Conduct-tm", do take into account the region, religion and culture the character comes from.
A paladin of Kossuth from Thay or paladin of Horus-Re from Mulhorand is going to have a very different Code than a Purple Dragon Knight of Cormyr. In his world view slavery might be considered moral and sanctioned by the LG Theocracy (Horus-re) or his diety might also have evil followers (Kossuth). How are these LG cursaders to deal with these differences from the standard LG mindset? How does mercy and honourable combat apply to the enemy, especially when they're evil? Do undead or fiends deserve mercy or honourable combat, or are they just puppets of evil to be swatted aside with no more regard than squishing a bug?
Just some food for thought.
That said, this does constitute a chaotic action on the part of the NG gnome. He had the opportunity to (a) not attack the knight and (b) presumably keep the berserker from interfering as well.
Instead he said, "screw the deal my party member just made, let's do this." Hopefully the paladin recognizes this and will act accordingly. The paladin, though, isn't responsible for circumstances beyond his control and situations like this don't fall on his shoulders unless they become a pattern and he doesn't move to stop it.
EDIT: I don't think the "Yeah, but what's his code." thing really applies here. -IF- the paladin were responsible for what happened, it would have been a clear-cut case of deception, which cannot be allowed under any Lawful Good code.
EDIT: I don't think the "Yeah, but what's his code." thing really applies here. -IF- the paladin were responsible for what happened, it would have been a clear-cut case of deception, which cannot be allowed under any Lawful Good code.
I'm not so sure I even buy into the idea that deception in this case would be a hit to the Paladins honour. Its a friggen Spawn of Kyuss. It personifies evil. Really if a Paladin tricks a Demon into a room so he can kill it I see that as all to the greater Good. Its a Demon and beyond any hope of redemption. Its destruction furthers the cause of Good.
I'm not so sure I even buy into the idea that deception in this case would be a hit to the Paladins honour. Its a friggen Spawn of Kyuss. It personifies evil. Really if a Paladin tricks a Demon into a room so he can kill it I see that as all to the greater Good. Its a Demon and beyond any hope of redemption. Its destruction furthers the cause of Good.
EDIT: I don't think the "Yeah, but what's his code." thing really applies here. -IF- the paladin were responsible for what happened, it would have been a clear-cut case of deception, which cannot be allowed under any Lawful Good code.
I had the same thought... and really, why would the Paladin accept the Kyuss Knight's challenge at face value, and not think it was a trap? By the time he was that far along into the AoW AP, I'd assume that regardless of wisdom score, personal experience would probably make him think:
A) It is a trap
B) Why would the Kyuss Knight honor the challenge? Its not like they are paragons of honor themselves, right?
I also don´t think that the actions by the other party members constitute a breach of the paladins code, as he had no control over them. They have acted chaotic, so this might become a problem with the group in the long run, depending on the details of his faith an his organisation. I would let the players roleplay it. It surely does not sit well with him, as his code forbids cheating and lying, and surely he has problems with others doing so. He surely is embarassed, but not more.
The other topic: If a Paladin agrees to a duel proposed by a monstrous evil, he is in my eyes honour-bound on his word, as long as his opponent honors the agreement as well. If it is wise to agree to such a proposal, especially if the paladin has the suspicion that he walks into a trap, is another thing entirely.
If it is an obvious trap, then the Paladin would be _required_ to deny the request, as the goal of his opponents will probably be to disable him from furthering the cause of good. There is nothing to indicate that a Paladin must accept duels in the class description, no matter what. (That might have been the case in the old Cavalier class description back in 1e and in the 2e kit, I can´t check that right now.)
Stefan
|
I'm not so sure I even buy into the idea that deception in this case would be a hit to the Paladins honour. Its a friggen Spawn of Kyuss. It personifies evil. Really if a Paladin tricks a Demon into a room so he can kill it I see that as all to the greater Good. Its a Demon and beyond any hope of redemption. Its destruction furthers the cause of Good.
EDIT: I don't think the "Yeah, but what's his code." thing really applies here. -IF- the paladin were responsible for what happened, it would have been a clear-cut case of deception, which cannot be allowed under any Lawful Good code.
That is a good point, and tricking a demon in order to more easily kill it would definitely benefit the greater good, but, especially if they're using the Book of Exalted Deeds, it would be against the paladin's code to commit an immoral act, even for the greater good. A paladin is not Jack Bauer, though Jack will get the job done sooner. Where Jack would torture a badguy (or a puppy, for that matter) to get the location of a nuclear bomb, the paladin would have to let the bomb go off.
In this case I don't think that happened, though, given that the paladin wasn't trying to trick the demon.
What EXACTLY does that have to do with the paladin's code? Nothing. So I think there's no reason to do anything to the paladin anyways
What EXACTLY does that have to do with the paladin's code? Nothing. So I think there's no reason to do anything to the paladin anyways
I think everyone's in agreement about the OP's situation, in that the paladin wasn't responsible. The conversation's sort of moved onto what qualifies as lawful.
While there's certainly plenty of room for moral relativity in real life and in other alignments, Lawful Good is a universalist alignment. Those who hold it (generally, and unless specified otherwise by the DM running the game) believe in a single, cohesive moral code that can be applied to every situation. The ends don't generally justify the means and while he certainly doesn't have to agree to fight a spawn of evil one-on-one, he does have to be honest. You don't get to wriggle out of promises you make based on who you're making them to.
Moreover, regardless of who your enemy is, you have to act honorably. It's one of the major things that separates paladins from other classes. A lot of people are talking about exalted or non-exalted, but when it comes to paladin's code, unless something otherwise is explicitly stated by the DM, the Book of Exalted Deeds just defines something that was already true: that paladins have to be both lawful and good no matter who they're dealing with.
EDIT: I'd like to reiterate that while LN and LE can choose WHAT code they choose to adhere to, LG and Paladins in particular have a much narrower, more intuitive vision of what constitutes law. Namely, the legal code of the nearest neutral or good civilization and a standard, uniform moral law that is agreeable to most civilized lifeforms.
Moreover, regardless of who your enemy is, you have to act honorably. It's one of the major things that separates paladins from other classes.
EDIT: I'd like to reiterate that while LN and LE can choose WHAT code they choose to adhere to, LG and Paladins in particular have a much narrower, more intuitive vision of what constitutes law. Namely, the legal code of the nearest neutral or good civilization and a standard, uniform moral law that is agreeable to most civilized lifeforms.
I simply don't agree. First off there might well be several lawful or neutral states nearby - does the Paladins Code morph depending on which one is currently physically closest? If my Paladin visits Kuratur does his moral compass shift?
I think Lawful Good can cover a lot of ground and remain Lawful Good. In fact I'd go so far as to say that the main criteria is not that it is specifically universal but that it does not vary within the Paladins of an Order (or nation or whatever organization one is adhering too). So one is not invariably required to give a sporting chance to the denizens of the Lower Planes but that the moral code - once it is decided what exactly the Moral Code is remains constant.
Hence in Greyhawk a Paladin from the Plains of Paynim has a notably different outlook then one from Keoland but both those outlooks must be lawful and good.
When I asked about the Code in my original thread I was doing it as much about character balance as I was about interpretation.
Just as the 2nd edition ranger had a D10 for hit points and they changed it to D8 in the 3rd edition,was this not due to balance. This I thought was so the ranger would not be stronger than the other characters within the game for that loss of hit points is tangable and therefore felt throughout the characters play . So to was my thinking when the paladin has his code that he has to follow, for if his code is used for only cetain extremes as some above are saying, does that not throw of the balance of the paladin as a PC, making him stronger than the other characters.
P.S. Rez I'm sorry for throwing holy water in your face, I hope it didn't leave a scar.
So to was my thinking when the paladin has his code that he has to follow, for if his code is used for only cetain extremes as some above are saying, does that not throw of the balance of the paladin as a PC, making him stronger than the other characters.
Its possible that this was the intention but I doubt it really works out even just using the core books. I'm absolutely certain that the more books you add the more powerful the Fighter becomes relative to the Paladin. Paladins get almost no feats and front line combatants (and archers) really benefit an extraordinary amount from having lots of feats. Furthermore the Paladin is forced to split his ability cores among all sorts of stats as Charisma and Wisdom are both needed for a Paladin along with the usual suspect of Strength, Constitution and Dexterity. Not sure how much impact this has with a rolled characters (where your likely to get a lot of more average stats) but its a big deal in point buy where there is usually no need to try and get the fighters Charisma and Wisdom up to 14 along with having good physical stats.
Bottom line is I'm sceptical that the Paladin is better then the Fighter using just the core material and I'm certain that a fighter is better then a Paladin using lots of non-core material. Not that I think Paladin is about to go the way of the Doodoo however. My feeling is players play Paladins because they like Paladins and the whole role it encompasses.
I feel that at worst the paladin should lecture his comrades on the importance of honoring challenges. The actions of his allies were against a known evil target, and in truth the frenzied berserker had no choice. This was merely fate turning on the evil knight. Though I would have the knight argue with the gnome. The FB has an excuse. The gnome doesn't.
Thankyou all for the input I believe I'll jut let the Paladin sit down with the party and explain his situation though he'll have to be a little more harsh with some of the members.
I do foresee some problems between the Paladin and the Berzerker though. If he goes in a rage in a public area due to some type of trap set up by the enemy, and kills an innocent, it could cause major havoc within the party. At this point the code would most definitely come into play
Reminds me of playing "Chains of Blackmaw." Crane escaped his cell; the paladin PC recognized him ("I used to look up to that guy!") and demanded to fight him one-on-one ("to prove his paltry 'powers' aren't worth the mockery he made of his life!"). Well, the paladin was losing, and the eldritch knight--his good friend but slightly more pragmatic--blasted Crane in the back. The paladin was furious. "The whole point was to show the world that his evil powers weren't all they were cracked up to be! You just accomplished the exact opposite! Idiot! Every guard here will turn to evil now! Gaaaa!" Nobody's mentioning to him the bounty that the rogue character put on Jarrett's head.
Whatever his 'code' is, it ought to be fun to play -- not just for the paladin's player, but for the whole party. If the game's not fun, modify it.