We are currently running Skinsaw Murders using the PathfinderRPG rules, and I'd like to just get someone elses thought on something.
One of the characters in our group is a half-orc paladin of Iomedae. I've really regretted that the church took in this paladin. His intelligence score is really low, and he is played in a very non-paladin sort of way.
In the latest adventure:
The group reaches the room with Iesha in it. They only see that it is a female form, and move into the room around her. I've had some fun with this module, as one of our other characters is Varisian, was an orphan, dresses in scarves, and description closely matches that of Iesha. So I'm going with them being related and looking very much alike. Iesha sees this other character, approaches her, touching her face, eyes are drawn to the scarf, she yells out for Aldern and tells the character to move. Our paladin's action on his initiative is to use 'detect evil' as a free action and start hacking at the revenent without it doing anything at all offensive. The 'sister' character, and everyone else moves out of the way, so Iesha screams (getting most of the party to draw back) and leaves the room. The Paladin who is unaffected by the scream takes an attack of opportunity as she leaves. He then on his turn follows Iesha out and continues to attack her. Iesha finally starts attacking back, doing a ton of damage. The 'sister' uses her bladed scarf to trip the Paladin and the revenent heads away to the basement to deal with her real target.
Second instance in this game: one of the other characters fails their save against the haunt that forces her to go upstairs and protect her children. The Paladin happens to be between her and the door, and she thinks he is Voral. The paladin's response is to grapple and tie up this cleric of Pharasma. In the process of doing this, there were quite a few vulgar jokes about what he was doing while grappling this character. He then proceeds to carry the tied up character down into the caverns, with the character sobbing and terrified the entire time. He even spent a round trying to further terrify the character to see if that would somehow make things better.
Anyway, I'm debating at what point this character looses their Paladin abilities. This character has been singing the 'I'm a Paladin, and I'm ok' song for quite some time now, but I've seen little in the way of worship to his deity. Reading the recent large writeup on Iomedae, I don't see Her as putting up well with a lot of the ongoing behavior (the last two items being just recent examples).
I'm a much more experienced player then DM, I've never had to worry about taking away a characters abilities. I hate to do it, but I just don't see a way around it. I've recently had the Paladin notice that their sword was starting to look really tarnished, but I think the player just assumed that this was due to some affect in the house. The player is an experienced player and DM. I'm amazed she is playing this character the way she is.
What do you think? Should Iomedae give him a chance to redeem himself in the pit of evil he is currently in, or cut him off?
Thanks for your thoughts on this.
Jonathan
The one thing I'd be sure to do is to remind the player that her character is acting in a way that runs counter to both the teachings of Iomedae and her vows as a paladin. If she is purposefully trying to put her character in a compromising situation that way, that's fine. But if she's unaware that what she's doing with her character will eventually have some severe consequences, it would be kind of lame to suddenly drop those consequences on her (and might result in a rather upset player, which is rarely - if ever - a good thing).
One thing i'd check: make sure that the stuff the player talks about doing is the stuff the character actualy does.
I've had the "But I was just kiding about that!" before and it isn't easy to deal with after you make a ruling.
Also, make sure that the player understand that empathy and compassion are not covered (or canceled) by the (low) intelligence score, wisdom is probably closer but I personnaly feel it's outside the scores.
And do the other players have their characters do or say anything about it or are they handling it in a more "But she was just kiding about that!" way?
The one thing I'd be sure to do is to remind the player that her character is acting in a way that runs counter to both the teachings of Iomedae and her vows as a paladin. If she is purposefully trying to put her character in a compromising situation that way, that's fine. But if she's unaware that what she's doing with her character will eventually have some severe consequences, it would be kind of lame to suddenly drop those consequences on her (and might result in a rather upset player, which is rarely - if ever - a good thing).
I really don't want to alienate the player from the group. So far things have been borderline, but the last couple of games have been a bit overboard.
It just seems there is this lack of any type of common sense with this character (or player). Decisions are being made by 'detect evil' instead of any situational logic. Most of the other players seem pretty thrown off by this characters actions.
It'd be nice to get her to realize that things are going too far in game instead of out. But hinting just doesn't seem to do it...
Jonathan
Have Iomedae send him a dream in which she tells him that he's straying from the path and that she has temporarily stripped his paladin status from him. When he realizes what he's done wrong and begins to act like one of her true champions, his powers will be restored.
Of course, that's the kid gloves method. In my game, he'd have already fallen irrevocably from the sounds of it. I have no tolerance for Lawful Stupid (it's one of three forbidden alignments in my games; the other two are Chaotic Stupid and True Stupid), especially Lawful Stupid paladins.
Frankly, those two examples don't sound that bad to me.
Without knowing more details on what he did to "terrorize" the other PC, it's hard to know if it's worth punishing him over.
Frankly, those two examples don't sound that bad to me.
** spoiler omitted **
The first example is at least understandable. I think the second was pushing it. None of the stuff this character does is 'evil'. It has just been not that honorable.
In the old rules, I probably wouldn't make that big of a deal about it - as Paladins were just slightly glorified fighters. With all the powers they now get from their Deity, one should try to make a little more effort to uphold the ideals of their deity. The second example really does conflict with:
"Her church is a haven for women seeking freedom from oppression by men, whether slavemasters, pimps, or cruel husbands, and many of these have gone on to prove themselves warriors in their own rights or earn positions of influence in her church."
I'm torn on the issue, which is of course why I posted the question :)
Jonathan
The second example really does conflict with:
"Her church is a haven for women seeking freedom from oppression by men, whether slavemasters, pimps, or cruel husbands, and many of these have gone on to prove themselves warriors in their own rights or earn positions of influence in her church."
I'm torn on the issue, which is of course why I posted the question :)
Jonathan
It must be a "you had to be there" kind of thing; tying up a party member that's possessed or under an enchantment seems like the correct thing to do, but presumably the derogatory remarks and "terrorizing" were the problematic bits.
It must be a "you had to be there" kind of thing; tying up a party member that's possessed or under an enchantment seems like the correct thing to do, but presumably the derogatory remarks and "terrorizing" were the problematic bits.
Yeah, the groping and comments about what he was doing during the grapple were a big part of that. Then leaving her hurt and tied up by herself on the stairs going down probably didn't help matters either.
Again, not any one individual incident as much as a continuing string of behavior.
*shrug*
Jonathan
Honestly, in my opinion, dropping hints at the gaming table is a lot like dropping hints in a relationship. It can work, it really can, if you've known eachother FOREVER and are almost always on the same page. Otherwise, it causes confusion, mixed signals, frustration, and eventually outright conflict.
If you don't think this character is acting particularly paladinish, talk to the player. If she's actually an experienced DM/player, she'll understand, and might be able to shed some light on what's going on. Try not to sound accusitory...start things off with "I wanted to talk to you about the game. There's been a couple instances where I didn't quite understand why your character did what s/he did, and wanted to get with you to figure things out. Last session when you _____ I was a little confused that your character, being a priestess of ______ would really do that. So how about you explain to me what was going on so I'll understand?"
Maybe she wound up playing something she didn't really wanna play (sounded good at the time...thought the party needed it). Perhaps she doesn't want to ask about making a different character. Perhaps she hasn't fully realized she's not happy in the first place.
If you don't outright talk to her though, things will very likely get worse, and very unlikely get better. If your not comfortable talking to a player about an issue that's come up in the game...you're probably not comfortable gaming with this person to begin with.
|
I really don't want to alienate the player from the group. So far things have been borderline, but the last couple of games have been a bit overboard.
It just seems there is this lack of any type of common sense with this character (or player). Decisions are being made by 'detect evil' instead of any situational logic. Most of the other players seem pretty thrown off by this characters actions.
It'd be nice to get her to realize that things are going too far in game instead of out. But hinting just doesn't seem to do it...
Jonathan
give her a call from ehr goddess heral, telling her howfar she is stretching Iomedae's teachings... and as a TEST of FAITH rake away DETECT EVIL...
you force the character to act by intelligence and not script, try if that serves... if she still goes down the path... well you send a previous advice... and take away everything until she... damn... ahh yes Atone for her crimes...
if the player shows she has learned to behave, gave back Detect Evil
besides they are heading into town... if she uses Detect Evil everywhere make sure to show the evil nun, the evil child, the evil farmer... let see if she becomes hacking... and then LET the Hellknights fall on her fro cmmiting such crimes... Magnimar's church of Iomedae of course would not approve of this behavious and might decide just to expel her from the order... that if you want to be harsh|
I'd print out the article on Iomedae and give a copy to the player. Then I'd tell her that her chosen religion isn't really consistent with the way she's been playing it, and tell her that I'd rather not impose repercussions and so could she please either switch faiths (with an accompanying in-character story) or play more in line with the teachings of her goddess.
|
|
I'd print out the article on Iomedae and give a copy to the player. Then I'd tell her that her chosen religion isn't really consistent with the way she's been playing it, and tell her that I'd rather not impose repercussions and so could she please either switch faiths (with an accompanying in-character story) or play more in line with the teachings of her goddess.
good point... she sounds more like a cleric of Abadar or... Eri.. I always forget the Hunter's true name...
|
I'd print out the article on Iomedae and give a copy to the player. Then I'd tell her that her chosen religion isn't really consistent with the way she's been playing it, and tell her that I'd rather not impose repercussions and so could she please either switch faiths (with an accompanying in-character story) or play more in line with the teachings of her goddess.good point... she sounds more like a cleric of Abadar or... Eri.. I always forget the Hunter's true name...
Erastil.
Interesting...
I too am GM for a half-orc Paladin of Iomedae in the Skinsaw murders at this time. That player is also a "man of action" as it were. The character has acted almost exactly as you have described: straightforward, stubborn, and incapable of parsing nuanced morality like the threat posed by the Iesha encounter. And yet, I enjoy his character's behavior, because that's how his "stubborn, gullible, well-meaning crusader" was defined when we began play.
After considering your plight for a time, I think this is probably an inter-personal issue between you and the player. The character's actions absent the context of the player's behavior might not actually bother you.
Avoid the temptation to use the Paladin's code of honor as a stick to punish players. The code is really best applied as a roleplaying opportunity - you put the character in a situation where he really has to choose between his code and getting results, and then it is interesting whether or not he violates the code. If the Paladin player is ever going to lose his powers, he should have a warning from the GM that his behavior violates his deity's will, and he should get a chance to do the right thing. Be certain not to use warnings to railroad the player - in fact, if you are doing it "right", you may occasionally put the player in a situation where he MUST violate the code or face dire consequences. That's what atonement is there for.
None of the other classes have a "good behavior" rule, and I don't think the code of honor should be used as one. Try to solve your issues with the player as you would if he was playing any other class out of character, and save the code for intentional character-building scenes later in the campaign (and there are some great ones in this AP).
Talk to the player about your expectations, listen to his rationale, and explain what you want. If he is a confrontational person and this approach is impossible, consider asking him to leave the game. Be prepared to revise your own expectations as well - crusaders are not known for their nuance, and that's the type of character he's chosen to play. He has a right to have fun - even if the means causing strife in the party - so long as the other players and GM are having fun. It is likely you both need to discuss a compromise in order to keep this game fun.
But keep in mind, this probably has more to do with the personal dynamic between you and him. Best to leave the game mechanics out of it and settle the real issue away from the table between games.
One question I have is how are the rest of the players dealing with it?
If it's disrupting the game, or annoying the other players, then it should be dealt with.
I would tell the player when their character is acting in an un-Paladinlike manner.
Roleplaying is more than just maximizing your character's abilites, its about playing a character. And Paladins are expected to be Lawful Good not Lawful Stupid. They should, most of the time, exemplify what it is to be a hero. That includes working with the party.
If the Revenant was an obviously dangerous and evil monster, then the zeal to kill her should be encouraged. But if another player is trying to reason with the Revenant, and the Paladin continues to act like an obnoxious jerk, then it nedds to be addressed.
I have a player in my campaign that is new to roleplaying. In the first adventure (Into the Haunted Woods) he tried to pick the pockets of all of the Black Banner company, despite everyone else telling him to stop. For the rest of the adventure, he just tried to do what he wanted, getting the party into more trouble. I finally stopped the game and explained that part of being in a RPG is working together and that he was acting both in an adversarial manner and in a clueless, stupid manner. Everyone agreed.
He is still the micheivous character, but now hes learning to work wih the party.
Same sort of thing.
One thing to keep in mind is that the character is a paladin of Iomedae, but is also a stupid half-orc.
The character's behavior should be based on the race as well as the class and should take into consideration all of the character's ability scores.
If he is not acting overtly evil or chaotic, he is not in violation of the paladin codes. If his INT score is below average and he comes from a somewhat uncouth race, he should be doing stupid or rude things occaisionally; if he does not, then he is metagaming his actions and not properly roleplaying. Paladin codes are about being lawful good, not respectful or polite.
But if the character's behavior is disrupting the group, then it must stop. If it isn't disrupting, then I would have no worries about it.
You really think that stupid paladins get a free pass on doing things that should cause them to fall, just because they chose to make Intelligence a dump stat? Iomedae, the champion of oppressed women, gives the male half-orc paladin a free pass on oppressing women just because he's too stupid to know better?
Forget paladin status for a second.
If a PC is intimidating an ally and demeaning their gender I would question their place in the 'good' alignment range.
How many bigoted bad friends get to claim a good alignment?
I really think we should forget paladin status altogether.
It seems to me that the PC's class has nothing to do with this at all, this is a problem with a player (and possibly - but not certainly - GM expectations).
It should be treated that way. I think that the paladin's "good behavior" rule has caused a great deal of trouble over the years because of situations like this. Power loss and atonement can be great fun if it is not used as a punitive measure, but it just leads to hurt feelings and no fun if you try to use the Character's moral code to correct the behavior of the Player.
Best treated as a social dispute, and leave game mechanics as far out of it as possible. If the social dispute can't be reconciled because the player is a jerk, he should leave the game, but that situation is thankfully rare under the care of a diplomatic GM.
You really think that stupid paladins get a free pass on doing things that should cause them to fall, just because they chose to make Intelligence a dump stat? Iomedae, the champion of oppressed women, gives the male half-orc paladin a free pass on oppressing women just because he's too stupid to know better?
Do you really think he was oppressing the woman? He was actively trying to help her without injuring her in the process.
You really think that stupid paladins get a free pass on doing things that should cause them to fall, just because they chose to make Intelligence a dump stat? Iomedae, the champion of oppressed women, gives the male half-orc paladin a free pass on oppressing women just because he's too stupid to know better?Do you really think he was oppressing the woman? He was actively trying to help her without injuring her in the process.
We must read "... In the process of doing this, there were quite a few vulgar jokes about what he was doing while grappling this character. ... He even spent a round trying to further terrify the character" differently.
A paladin of the champion of oppressed women shouldn't be making jokes about what he's going to do to a woman he's tying up, nor should he try to terrify them intentionally, even if it is in some "I'm a moron" attempt to fix whatever's wrong with her.
Note that this is completely separate from the question of whether his actions even register on any particular alignment scale.
Stupidity isn't protection against a paladin's oaths. The path to Hell is paved in good intentions and mortared with fallen paladins' tears.
Okay, I've waited several days to weigh in so that I don't overreact. But my opinion (And everyone knows how opinions are...) is that you should warn the player, the next time something happens, make a oblique reference to their code, "That's not exactly acting with honor...", and if they followed through, make them lose their powers. If a person wants to play a paladin, they have the responsibility to read, remember, and follow their code. But again, my opinion.
You really think that stupid paladins get a free pass on doing things that should cause them to fall, just because they chose to make Intelligence a dump stat? Iomedae, the champion of oppressed women, gives the male half-orc paladin a free pass on oppressing women just because he's too stupid to know better?
I never suggested that he should get a “free pass” to break the paladin code because he is stupid. I suggested that since the character is stupid, he would behave in a manner that would cause him to break the code. Any consequences of that behavior should still apply.
Perhaps being a stupid half-orc, he would be prefer being a fallen paladin. Or perhaps a road to redemption is the player’s goal with character development. Without knowing the player or the group, I wouldn’t judge.
I think that judging the character as oppressing women based on an incident that happened once, and may have just been a joke, is kind of oppressive in itself. I haven’t read anything in any post about what the player said of his intentions.
As a DM, I let the players play their characters as they see fit. Any consequences of that are up to me. As a player, I wouldn’t play long in a group that told me how to play my character without hearing out my justification for that character’s actions. Would you?
I never suggested that he should get a “free pass” to break the paladin code because he is stupid. I suggested that since the character is stupid, he would behave in a manner that would cause him to break the code. Any consequences of that behavior should still apply.
Ah. Fair enough then, and I apologize for misreading your statements.
|
|
One of my player in Burnt Offerings is a Paladin who killed every single NPC who was evil. Even the goblin babies & mothers who were (very lightly for the babies) evil.
I think he will lose on a temporary basis his powers. Until he finds a goblin or another (monster) baby to save and care for.
I think that's going to be fun trying to find a nanny and raise him as a "good" goblin. He will have to care for him as long as he's not in a dungeon crawl or something.
I just can't wait... :D
You really think that stupid paladins get a free pass on doing things that should cause them to fall, just because they chose to make Intelligence a dump stat? Iomedae, the champion of oppressed women, gives the male half-orc paladin a free pass on oppressing women just because he's too stupid to know better?Do you really think he was oppressing the woman? He was actively trying to help her without injuring her in the process.We must read "... In the process of doing this, there were quite a few vulgar jokes about what he was doing while grappling this character. ... He even spent a round trying to further terrify the character" differently.
Clearly we do. Do we know that the vulgar jokes reflected an in game action? It seems harsh to penalize a character for a player's alignment, and the way it was explained by the OP it sounds to me like the player was making out of game jokes about the in game actions. If the OP confirms that the paladin actually performed the vulgar activity in the game, then I would have a problem with the action, but making jokes about in game activity is part of the fun of playing rpgs. For me, at least.
The round spent further terrifying the frightened woman was clearly an attempt to help her. The OP even states that in his description. The PC did not continue it when it became obvious that it was not helping. Would you have a paladin fall from grace for slapping an hysterical person? It is the same concept.
Neither of these incidents seem to be reasons to fail a paladin. From the tone of the OP's post, he is having a personality conflict with the player and that conflict is affecting his perception of the player's actions.
I never suggested that he should get a “free pass” to break the paladin code because he is stupid. I suggested that since the character is stupid, he would behave in a manner that would cause him to break the code. Any consequences of that behavior should still apply.Ah. Fair enough then, and I apologize for misreading your statements.
You usualy don't need intelligence to feel that something your doing isn't "right" (good), it's from the guts. The healer/giant in The green Mile is a good exemple.
Complex political/cultural/religious/greater-good stuff might imply intelligence but groping and shaking-down an ally (unless all else failed or info. indicated possible results) are no brainers. IMO.
I would talk to the player and explain the issue(s) that you are having with their role playing of the paladin class. As well as hand them a copy of the print out of Iomedae.
I would also remind them that Detect Evil is not a license to kill any creature that registers as evil. That is not lawful, nor good. And remind them that Paladins may work with evil, to defeat a greater evil.
If the other players are having issues with the way the paladin is being played, you (or they) may wish to remind the Paladin's player that there is no rule forcing their characters to adventure with the Paladin, so they might just leave the Paladin behind for the rest of the AP.
If playing a Paladin is not what they expected it to be, I would offer a "reality shimmer", that is allow them to change their character and to retcon the story so that they were always the new version of the character.
Many posters are advising the OP based on the idea that the problem is the player's failure to play a Paladin correctly.
I think the problem is a communication/cooperation failure between player and GM. The paladin code is sort of a distraction from the real problem, and it rarely provides a solution, just a source of more contention.
Yes, the book does give the GM that recourse to "correct" the behavior of the paladin. All that does is escalate something that should be handled diplomatically, out-of-character, as many other posters advise.
The best thing to do is ignore paladin status and deal with this like you would deal with any dispute with a player.
One of my player in Burnt Offerings is a Paladin who killed every single NPC who was evil. Even the goblin babies & mothers who were (very lightly for the babies) evil.
I think he will lose on a temporary basis his powers. Until he finds a goblin or another (monster) baby to save and care for.
I think that's going to be fun trying to find a nanny and raise him as a "good" goblin. He will have to care for him as long as he's not in a dungeon crawl or something.I just can't wait... :D
I've always thought that children were inherently chaotic evil until the age of 6 or 7. Then they become more neutral evil...
Ever been around a 5 year old without his parents or guardians...goblin babies are tame by comparison.
|
One of my player in Burnt Offerings is a Paladin who killed every single NPC who was evil. Even the goblin babies & mothers who were (very lightly for the babies) evil.
I think he will lose on a temporary basis his powers. Until he finds a goblin or another (monster) baby to save and care for.
I think that's going to be fun trying to find a nanny and raise him as a "good" goblin. He will have to care for him as long as he's not in a dungeon crawl or something.I just can't wait... :D
I've always thought that children were inherently chaotic evil until the age of 6 or 7. Then they become more neutral evil...
Ever been around a 5 year old without his parents or guardians...goblin babies are tame by comparison.
children are Chaotic evil until the age of 12 actually, occasionally branching off to chaotic neutral or neutral evil at 13. only a select few go through other alignments. most are chaotic evil for life. i myself am lawful evil. i just procrastinate.