|
Too many players have a sunshine and flowers veiw of good and think anything less than a goodie-goodie must be evil. Good characters might do bad things if they must but the majority they do good. nuetral can do a fair amount of bad things but with good intent, evil will do it for fun.
Torture or kill on orders CAN easily be N if he has a samurai like sense of duty, if he is having fun doing it he is evil. But then agian who and why this is happening to can mater a lot too.
|
Too many players have a sunshine and flowers veiw of good and think anything less than a goodie-goodie must be evil. Good characters might do bad things if they must but the majority they do good. nuetral can do a fair amount of bad things but with good intent, evil will do it for fun.
Torture or kill on orders CAN easily be N if he has a samurai like sense of duty, if he is having fun doing it he is evil. But then agian who and why this is happening to can mater a lot too.
Then again, Ancient Japanese honor demanded suicide if you are defeated or somehow disgraced your house or family or self.
|
I think the scenario itself is causing the OP some problems that he didn't necessarily need. It just doesn't ring true that the assassins would try to kill everyone in their sleep without informing the pc's that they were there to help and working in their best interests. It's not exactly a great way to introduce yourselves by murdering everyone in the pc's group, most of whom are not military types other than one guard. As written, I don't think there's any question the acts were evil.
If the OP wanted to set up a scenario where the assassins are actually the good guys, he should have had them position themselves to subdue the caravan people or the guard at least, and then explain the situation to the pcs.
I mean, in real life if you were travelling with a group of people and someone walked up and calmly pulled a gun out and blasted everyone else with you and then told you they were the good guys trying to save you, would you buy that?
|
|
I think the scenario itself is causing the OP some problems that he didn't necessarily need. It just doesn't ring true that the assassins would try to kill everyone in their sleep without informing the pc's that they were there to help and working in their best interests. It's not exactly a great way to introduce yourselves by murdering everyone in the pc's group, most of whom are not military types other than one guard. As written, I don't think there's any question the acts were evil.
If the OP wanted to set up a scenario where the assassins are actually the good guys, he should have had them position themselves to subdue the caravan people or the guard at least, and then explain the situation to the pcs.
I mean, in real life if you were travelling with a group of people and someone walked up and calmly pulled a gun out and blasted everyone else with you and then told you they were the good guys trying to save you, would you buy that?
Did I like any of them?
I mean, in real life if you were travelling with a group of people and someone walked up and calmly pulled a gun out and blasted everyone else with you and then told you they were the good guys trying to save you, would you buy that?
Ya know that's a common trope in movies."Come with me if ya want to live" and all that. I think the paladin got upset because the GM told him they where not evil and he had a knee jerk reaction{ Prob been screwed over as a paladin player before}
someone above said it too, but LN is a dangerous alignment, because this person will do something they are told with out question. It is as I tell my players the alignment of the perfect soldier!Wrong. It is still evil to knowingly kill an innocent person.
Lawful Evil is dangerous because they will follow any order at all.
Except, technically, orders requiring them to perform 'good' acts.
A Lawful Neutral person would, by game definition, "have compunctions against killing innocent people".
Someone who doesn't care about killing innocent people is the very definition of Evil.
.
However, if they were going by wrong information that told them their targets weren't innocent...
|
Lawful Evil is dangerous because they will follow any order at all.Except, technically, orders requiring them to perform 'good' acts.
Not really.
A smart evil servant of the evil state will still take care of the poor if ordered because it keeps the populace satisfied and it's good public relations.
A smart lawful evil knight will do his damnedest to help those paladins of Sarenrae rout those Rovagug cultists like he was told, because they're a threat to everyone.
A lawful evil cleric of Zon-Kuthon will save an entire village from the depredations of daemons at the order of his clergy, because making sure their souls are safe and on this side of the mortal coil keeps suffering possible.
I think the scenario itself is causing the OP some problems that he didn't necessarily need. It just doesn't ring true that the assassins would try to kill everyone in their sleep without informing the pc's that they were there to help and working in their best interests. It's not exactly a great way to introduce yourselves by murdering everyone in the pc's group, most of whom are not military types other than one guard. As written, I don't think there's any question the acts were evil.
If the OP wanted to set up a scenario where the assassins are actually the good guys, he should have had them position themselves to subdue the caravan people or the guard at least, and then explain the situation to the pcs.
I mean, in real life if you were travelling with a group of people and someone walked up and calmly pulled a gun out and blasted everyone else with you and then told you they were the good guys trying to save you, would you buy that?
This entire scenario was set up specifically to be morally ambiguous and force the party to take pause and assess who they should trust. It was not my intention to force or even sway the party in any particular direction.
This entire scenario was set up specifically to be morally ambiguous and force the party to take pause and assess who they should trust. It was not my intention to force or even sway the party in any particular direction.
Yes - but one player decided not to question his preconceptions but question the DM instead. I don't hold that the 'assassins' could not have been neutral, I think it's quite possible. What mattered were the PC's reactions. Would they search the bodies and find things were not as they seemed (finding all those 'innocent' merchants were carrying concealed weapons, vials of poison, spell components etc.), would they go after the 'assassins' or still try and fulfil their mission?
Not throw up their hands and shout: "That's bogus!"
Have to admit, that I would find the 'assassins' Lawful Neutral. If the NPCs they murdered were not actually a threat, however ... I can fully see the PCs watching however many well-trained soldiers turning around and going postal at their commander for the inept intelligence work.
PCs could hopefully encounter said soldiers later, attempting to find a way to achieve restitution for the 'murders'. Their commander, on the other hand, is probably at the very best, Lawful Neutral with Very Strong Evil Leanings, at worst Lawful Evil and Loving It. Most Soldiers hate what they do, and would prefer to not have to kill, but those that take up the sword in the name of their country must be prepared to sacrifice anything, be it limb, life and possibly soul in some cases.
Pity. The Paladin passed up a brilliant chance to help those men seek redemption for their actions, a truly Good action, and to take their commander and the source of their bad intel to a War-Trial, a Lawful action.
Here is a question for the GM, if the paladin had decided to kill all of the assassins even if they begged for mercy, would he have fallen?
Based on that I would argue that the majority of adventuring parties are evil.I would agree that many adventuring parties would likely slide towards evil unless they watch their actions. After all, when you kill enough orcs and then you start to see humans do things you disagree with you might just start wondering, "why don't I just kill this guy to solve another problem, it isn't that different than killing an orc."
Happy gaming.
Barator
Well just ask the main characters of the goblins web comic what alignment adventurers are :P.
And yet those post industrial views of moral ambiguity are what have shaped high fantasy alignment, and what have led to some of the best roleplaying scenarios in the history of PNP RPGS.(…)
Post-industrial discussions of moral ambiguity give the game a surprising amount of depth, and help make it a better game.
A soldier when he returns from home and has to deal with what has gone on at that point has the chance to change and try to return to somewhat the person that he was before. I do not think that following orders like those that have been given in some previous posters examples makes a person IRREDEEMABLY evil. Alignment changes as your life progresses, and just because you swing one way doesn't mean you can't return to prior beliefs.
Truer words could not have been spoken.
Let me tell you a story. It's about my preferred character, a Rogue 'Punisher-style' which I played for almost 10 years before the coming of 3rd edition (we played an heavily house-ruled BECMI D&D set on Mystara, back then).After all this years, it's still not very easy for me to tell what his alignment really was on each stage of his career (please note, although we played in BECMI, we already introduced the 'double-axis' alignment of AD&D). For ease of use, I think his overall alignment was CG, but I am definitely sure that most people would find my definition not accurate, and would not agree with me.
Please note, this is EXTREMELY long…
Origins and Concept – this was the only part which was never actually played in game
Fergus McAllister was born on a lowly family of peasants in the Republic of Darokin. His life came to a dramatic change when his parents were brutally killed before his very eyes by a group of murderous brigands who stormed the little farm where he lived. His life was spared merely because his mother hid him in a trapdoor under the bed before the reavers came into the house and tried to rape her, leading to a slaughter of both his parents.
Alone and hopeless, he slowly crawled from under the trapdoor and buried the mangled rests of his parents on his own. Trying to find a reason to go on, he decided to live the rest of his life with the only purpose to put an end to the lives of people like those who destroyed his life - becoming basically an avenger.
Obviously, he was still a child, so he had to survive as best as he could; his early years were harsh, he basically was an orphan who traveled from village to village and stole food to live, until he reached Darokin City and was noticed by the local Thieves Guild. Seeing them as a means to his end, he joined the Guild for survival and learned the tricks of the trade.
Years later (at 1st level), he decided to finally leave the Guild and never come back - although he was sure that they would have come to make him pay for his betrayal. 'Who cares, if they want to stop me, let them try.' I believe that his alignment, at this point of his life, was CN or CG border-line.
Early levels and screwed sense of justice
He started his journey with a varied group of adventurers, and among them he knew those who became some of his closest friends, one of his bitter enemies, and one of his love interest. Starting with common missions and then dragged unwittingly in an epic quest to stop the rise of a Draconic War towards the lands of Darokin, Karameikos, Alfheim and Thyatis, they slowly forged a bond of friendship during the following years he never knew nor imaged he could possibly feel. However, his past experiences had already left a huge stain on his personality – at this point of his life, he simply wanted to kill as much 'villains' as he could, without remorse and compassion. He would not have harmed voluntarily other people in order to do that - but if an hostage would have been held at a stake, he would not have flinched, either. On his eyes 'If I stop now, the hostage would surely die later - and for nothing. If I kill the kidnapper, and he in retaliation succeeds in killing the hostage, at least he would have been the last to die by his hands.' Now, I already can hear people telling me 'Nooo, this is LAWFUL EVIL, etc. etc.', however he NEVER respected or payed homage to local authority (when he was a host in the Monk Monastery of the 5th Sun where one of his fellow companions, rival in love, and one of his best friends lived, he thought that those Monks were a bunch of crazied fanatics, and he openly showed his disrespect for some of their rigid traditions even towards the High Master - in fact, the only Monk with a command role he sympathized with was a slightly eccentric one with a more careless attitude), nor he wanted to willingly harm other innocent people. He hated forms of respect given only due to social status, or knowledge, or power, or money. He had his antipathies, like all people, but he was ready to admit being wrong if people he would not held in high esteem proved him they were right.
(Not wanting to say that he was definitely CG at his point of his life – although later on, due to his experiences, he probably became, one of the defining traits of CG on the SRD says:
“He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.”
So, this is what being Chaotic means to me – other may disagree, of course :D – you can still have a personal code, but this code must be self-determined, not imposed by others.)
The most important thing you have to consider about Fergus, however, was this: he was a broken man inside, and somehow he knew it.
He felt that it was not right that he survived while his parents had died, and he had a self-destructive pulse inside him that unconsciously tried to ‘correct that mistake’; on the other side, he somehow felt remorse for all the acts he had to make in order to survive or to ‘punish the guilty’, and that plagued him for years. On top of that, the memory of the slaughter of his parents never went away (although he always played the ‘Who cares, the dead are dead now’ façade) – every time he slept in an Inn, for example, he felt the urge to barricade himself into his room, with an unease sleep (a combination of guilt and paranoia), ready to awake at the slightest noise. We could easily say that his personality was almost bipolar – he felt desperately the need to be loved and appreciated, yet he somehow felt that he didn’t deserved it and so he acted and behaved in a way to effectively ‘deserve’ the hate of other people. In a way, he even admired the way of life of some of his companions – the Monk Gustav (LN) and Plunia, female Cleric of Gaea (NG) for whom he slowly started to feel MORE than friendship – but he admitted to himself that he could have never be able to live in such a way. More than once, he had heated debates with Plunia, for which he created the expression ‘I am the Scythe that Reaps. You are the Hand that Seeds. You are not capable of doing destructive things, while I am not able not to behave in that way. Without me, the field would overcrawl with crops, and you would not be able to seed it again. Without you, there would only be a barren field left behind. Both our jobs are necessary.”
The more their adventures brought them around the country, the more both ways of life started to mingle together, however – Fergus started not to be simply a ‘killing machine’ towards evildoers, and Gustav and Plunia started to understand – if not accept – his skewed vision of the world. After all, they had their fair share of pain, as well. Plunia lived in a village who was pillaged by a (different from Fergus’ one) band of brigands when she was a pre-teen. The only survivor, she stumbled across the burned village only to find another young boy who was seriously hurt to his head – Gustav. However, he was not known at Gustav at that time; he was merely one of the leftovers of the band of brigands, who had even young boys among them, who was seriously injured and left behind. The trauma to the head made him suffer from amnesia – yet this would have been the last of his problems, since his wounds were so serious that he would have died without some aid. And Plunia, despite knowing that he should have been one of her attackers (he was not a boy of the village), tended to his wounds. Later on, Ior (Great Master of the Monastery of the 5th Sun) found them in the ruined village and brought them to his Monastery (which had even a small cloister of Gaea), raising them as sons or nephews. Gustav learned this only years later – while Fergus, sneaking in the Monastery, eavesdropped the conversation between Ior and him, and learned his past as well. And then, despite knowing that in his past life Gustav was a marauder like those he swore to kill without remorse, he told him: ‘You know, somehow I’m glad I didn’t find you earlier. Probably I would have tried to kill you, and one or both of us would have died for nothing. Because you are not a ‘marauder’ anymore, since the ‘Old Gustav’ died on that day in Plunia’s village. Now you are one of my few true friends. I’m happy that you are indeed the living proof that THERE IS another way apart from mine to settle things right. Too bad I would never be able to succeed in that other way, though.”
Mid-levels: the betrayal
The First Draconic War would have been a tragedy on the land if not for their intervention – without entering in too details, there was an evil Artifact responsible for the creation of what seemed at first sight a poisonous gas who made people sick and comatose in the matter of minutes, only being WORSE yet. The ‘poisonous gas’ were effectively magical spores with a three-stage process: infection and coma, berserkering rage, mutation. The final stage basically transformed the poor victims in Draconic Thralls (physically similar to Dragonlance Setting Draconians). There was basically no known cure – even magical cure could not save the victims; the only method was destroying the Artifact before the transformation had occurred. Draconic troops had a simpleway to increase their numbers and spread havoc on the land: ‘bombing’ villages with orbs filled with the Plague, and then retreat. Thralls, once mutated, were unquestioningly loyal and attracted to the source of their creation, ready to be instructed, armed, and sent away to spread havoc too.
Even the Monastery of the 5th Sun was attacked, and this led to a harsh conflict between Fergus and Great Master Ior; the latter stated that, even if infected, the Monks would not have been put out of their misery until mutation had been completed, while Fergus protested that this was stupid, careless and sick – that it would have been way more merciful to put them out of their misery killing them before they would become basically mindless monsters and started to kill their former friends.
Entering Yann de’Belcadiz.
This Elven Warrior-Mage from the Principalities of Glantri (a northern region ruled by a Magocracy of Arcane nobles – where the non-arcane had NO rights at all) was part of the group for a while. He wanted to STUDY this disease and the research that those ‘Draconic Cultists’ who started this War had made, not simply STOP IT AND DESTROY SUCH AN INCREDIBLE WORK. Yet he tag along the team – until they effectively stop the threat. At that moment, he felt that his time had been wasted – that his ‘tagging along this ragtag band’ was useless – and decided to left the group in search of more power. Since the land was saved, the group basically disbanded, with Plunia and Gustav staying at the Monastery and Fergus, Yann and other fellow companions leaving for good. At that time, Fergus finally declared himself to Plunia – of course, he knew that it would have been pointless (in fact, it was – Plunia already loved another one, WHICH HOWEVER WAS NOT GUSTAV !!! but that would have been known only years later) – and tag along with Yann (metagaming speaking, because the player was still there – however, Fergus’ reasons were ‘in order to keep an eye on him’). The time spent with him on Glantri started the fire of hate against Arcane users and their disregard for all those ‘inferior to them, not capable of wielding such grandiose powers’ (of course, this was in fact due to THE LAND where he lived for a while – where non-arcane people were basically treated like dirt…); he already was suspicious of people able to wield great power (the higher you rise, the deeper you fall…), and this land of pompous nobles with magical powers simply sickened him to the core. Worse yet, at some point Yann’s player decided to screw the group for a perceived disregard – and due to inexperience of some players, apathy of some other players, and a combination of devil’s luck, he succeeded in slaughtering all of them – including Fergus.
Since, at this point, the player felt that MAYBE he SLIGHTLY overreacted, after a solo Role-playing session (and a confrontation with a mentor figure of the group, Old Leanor, an apparently crazied old man who lived in the village of Rennydale making cookies and speaking with his LIVING ROCKIN-CHAIR – actually, the Avatar of a God of Freedom, Wit, Counsel and Joy who was formerly a mortal who lived in those lands), he decided that he could at least bring Fergus (the only one with which he actually felt remorse for the killing) to a Church and revive him.
Of course, Fergus was not happy.
However, I, as the player, could not simply say to the player ‘thank you for having changed your mind at least a little – now, as a reward, let my character rightfully slaughter you for your misdeeds, while the Clerics – who have already noticed that you are lying and I am not – hold you still…’ (well, I could have, but I would have felt a moron), so basically I had to compromise.
Fergus decided that, since Yann had felt remorse, he could TRY to behave like Gustav and Plunia would have, and give him another chance. Of course, not without swallowing his own bile and trying desperately not to choke him to death. Somehow however, he knew deep inside him that he was making a horrible mistake…
The two separate after that – Yann basically left Fergus half-naked and alone on the road, almost a week from the Monastery of the 5th Sun. Decidedly NOT a good start, in Fergus’ eyes…
And then the player left the group, too.
His best friend, Second Draconic War, and settling the scores
So the original group, somehow, started to reform. And among them, what would have lately become Fergus’ best friend (basically, another lunatic crazied :D ), despite being AN ARCANE HIMSELF (since we were playing in BECMI, he was defined as a Magic User too, but basically he was a Sorcerer – all flashy and glamour and goth-metal and screams and ‘yo baby, want to join me in my bedroom ? You want be disappointed ;D …’ – and let’s be honest, he told Fergus he was a kind of teacher in a commune – but maybe he never opened a book in his entire life…). The hate for the Principalities of Glantri (his master was an Arcane from Glantri who felt that their life was unfair with other people, and left in disgust the land) and a self-destructive pulse were the factors that drew them together at first. After saving the village of Rennydale from some Evil Cultists, the ‘main group’ (Fergus, Plunia, Gustav, and Randon the Sorcerer) started to live there and formed temporary alliances with other adventurers, until…
The Draconic War erupted again.
The artifact they believed to have destroyed was merely heavily damaged, but was reforming itself. They needed a higher power to stop it for good. Not counting the fact that the land was still under heavy influence of the Draconic Army (who was stopped but not wiped away), there were rumors that a strangely familiar person (judging from the descriptions) was seen among the Draconic Thralls – a black-haired, lavishly dressed Elven Warrior with powerful Arcane magic at his hands…
Fergus went berserk.
He felt responsible for not having killed Yann back then – he KNEW that he was not meant to behave like other sane, normal people do, forgiving Yann and giving him a second chance. He KNEW that sooner or later the lust for power and knowledge would have led him to darker powers – and yet, he somehow had hoped that he was wrong, and Yann was truly worthy of redemption.
Now his horrible error should have to be corrected. Yann should die. By his own hand.
At this moment (I believe), his hard-won CG alignment started to slip to CN again. Until Yann would not have been put out of misery, not able to harm other people (for his own misjudgment), he would not be at ease with himself. ALL his life would have meant nothing. His monomania had sparked anew.
And the Second Draconic War plagued the land, and various hard adventures where held – bonds were forged, alliances were found, and a powerful artifact was discovered (among other-to-be allies). And among all this ordalia, Yann was found – and Fergus finally put an end to his own most horrible mistake (on his eyes) and ended his life.
But the spark of hate was already ignited, and was hard to quench – even after the end of the Second Draconic War, Fergus was still in a frenzy for all the time he ‘wasted’ not pursuing his ‘mission’. He knew he would not be able to right every wrong in the world; he even knew that his own way of ‘righting wrongs’ would only lead to other sufferings, somehow; however, there WAS a place where he had been who deserved only to be burned to the ground.
Glantri.
The falldown and the rise
He entered the Arcane nation for the second time – this time not as a guest of a noble, however. This time he wanted to bring havoc. And this time, for a while, his alignment was decidedly CE (at least, I believe so).
Gossips were heard of a bloody killer who was rampant in the beautiful palaces of Glantri City, where the nobles held masked balls; a shadow who seemed to actively search for parties, balls, and in general all those places where the nobles held their mundane affairs. This ‘shadow’ was only active in the rich part of the city, where the Arcane lived; no sightings of him or suspicious activities were noticed in the slums where the non-arcane lived. Most assuredly, it was one of those scums who decided not to stay on his rightful place – under the bottom of the feed chain - , but how such a powerful individual could have risen from such poor, derelict quarters without making his presence known before of this time, nobody knew.
And yet, he dind’t reveled in his job. He knew that nobody would have thanked him. At best, he would have been found him and killed in the most atrocious way. At worst, who knows ? He was never meant to stay with such good people. He shouldn’t have dared to declare his love to a woman who at best had pity of him. He shouldn’t have tried to live in the way they lived – the only time he tried was misguided, and this error led to the death of other innocent people. No, he deserved to be hated. His life should have been forfeit FROM THAT VERY MOMENT UNDER THE TRAPDOOR. This is merely a dragging off the feet, trying to correct as many mistakes as possible, waiting to disappear. Who would care if I die, after all ?…
Well, they cared.
They tried to find him. They saw his way of life. They felt the anguish of the broken, people who were not living – merely surviving – in the slums of a city who thought they were less than nothing. And they somehow understood that, even if horribly wrong, he did what he did in his screwed way of righting wrongs. (Actually, Randon was COMPLETELY on his side on this – why didn’t he bring him along !?! They would have been WAY MORE EFFICIENT… Ah, by the way, he even discovered his legacy while in Glantri – the son of a Wizard who sold his soul to become a powerful fiend, and a result this explained the ‘tiefling’ look of Randon himself). And they brought him away from this.
Less interesting develops, Mid to High levels
Subsequent adventures merely reinforced those almost lost bonds, slowing banishing all the rage he had back then. And surely, destiny (and various GMs) has a strong sense of irony.
Because at some point of his life – when his ‘sicko rage’ was not on stage anymore, more a ‘lone wolf’ attitude – during a mission with a female Ambassador from Thyatis, a WIZARD – Fergus started to feel more than simple physical attraction for Alakren. Oh, sure, they made love after he saved her from drowning. But it was not only that. Several world-saving adventures later, the join of one of the most interesting characters I ever knew – savage Druid Umaka Toruq - and the loss (permanent death) of several friends (Heimdall’s Cleric Sigin, Plunia’s husband Powakan – another Monk of the Monastery of the 5th Sun – and worse than all, Gustav), he discovered that Alakren was pregnant. Suddenly he felt that his life had a different meaning than that he believed all this time, after all. Overjoyed by the news, he married Alakren and retired to Threshold (after the end of the last mission) to become a farmer. Ah, and a huge war between Gods and their mortal servants, while the heroes were busy on the southern lands, made the reactor of the FSS Beagle buried under Glantri City (the responsible for the high presence of magic in the area) explode, nuking the Pricipalities of Glantri for good. Well, that was definitely good for Fergus and Randon, btw.
3.0 Reunion
After a while playing with 3.0, we decided to use for a last time our characters, just to ‘close the circle’. As much as their adventures were over, they were characters too much interesting to simply ‘let them rot away’, and some ‘Deus Ex Machina’ in order to have them indefinitely around as NPCs were good. Basically, this was more like a small sequence of ‘Buffy episodes’ than a real adventure – and a final test to see how such characters would have felt in 3rd edition sauce.
First of all, Randon – now finally a powerful Sorcerer under the tutelage of Old Leanor on his personal quest for becoming his proxy and an Archlich (on Faerun Archliches are basically good Liches who decided to become Undead to protect their land and their loved ones, so we stole that concept and applied on Mystara, too) – decided to sever the bonds on his family's fiendish past and with the help of his fellow companions conjured his father, now a full-fledged Glabrezu named Zhor’Ka Mai, in order to kill him permanently. After a grandious battle, the Demon was slain and his legacy of misery destroyed (…and Randon cackled like a mad).
Later on, instructed by the God of Murder and Death Thanatos (whose plans to destroy the whole world merely were restricted to Glantri), a powerful Night Hag tried to kidnap Fergus’ son in order to hold him at bay. For the first time after several years, the (in)famous ‘kidnapped at stake’ situation showed again, and this time Fergus was not the amoral bastard of the past – the fact that this was his son would not have stopped him years earlier, but now he waited for an opening (made by Randon) before making a retaliation. Now, the retaliation was EFFECTIVELY gruesome, but can you blame him ;D ?…
Finally, Thanatos himself showed up and after a REAL railroaded Deus Ex Machina situation involved (including an Artifact Fergus had in his possession for years without knowing its ereal powers – although they were hinted throughout various adventures), a plan machined by Nyx (Goddess of Night, who started to have a crush on Fergus years earlier, believing him to be the reincarnation of her Vampire Master who unmade her as an Undead, eons before she ascended to true Godhood) to overthrow Thanatos and give his powers to Fergus himself realized… all right, this was sickly childish (I told you, it was more like a Buffy episode !), but we really wanted to have such characters as possible NPCs in the future. Oh, well, if you despise this part of he story, simply consider that one above as the ‘true’ end.
Now, after said all this, the real question is ‘Is it Fergus like Batman ? All Alignments depending on the situation ?’
Or the truth is that Alignment is a fluid thing, not set into stone, and only repeatedly acts of a set Alignment in fact change the Alignment of the person involved?
Can a Lawful Good person (not Paladin, we are not speaking of loss of power - which is the real problem with Paladins) kill his wife's murderers in a gruesome way, defiling their bodies and howling to the moon (a clearly CE act) JUST ONCE and keep being LG (with a lot of remorse) for the rest of his life, being that his only CE act?
I truly believe so.
|
|
Here are my two coppers. If the agents of the neighboring kingdom were of a good alignment, they would have first tried to alert the party members and inform them of the danger they were in and try to convince them to leave the caravan.
There are many simple non-magical methods to attempt this. A tossed note might of accomplished it. A rogue or ranger sneaking into the camp cold have either planted a note, or if they were tailing the caravan, try to talk to one of the characters while they were off in the woods doing some private business.
The group of agents didn’t do this. Perhaps their orders didn’t permit this. Maybe their superiors gave them bad Intel or deliberately misleading information. I would guess their alignment is probably Lawful Evil at worst at best Lawful neutral.
Killing the unconscious guard under the feet of the PC paladin seals it.
Good and evil, are something objectively measurable in the D%D world. Hence the detect alignment spells.
I suppose most of this comes down to a simple question: Do the ends justify the means?
If your answer is yes, then your character can do a great many things in the name of a “greater good”. If you don’t believe that the ends justify the means, then it makes thins much simpler.
The only thing that morally justifies a band of adventurers going into a cave system and cleaning it out of a Kobold infestation, by killing every kobold in there is that the creatures are evil. They are Lawful Evil in alignment. Now admittedly there may be other reasons, for driving the kobolds out of their caves and killing all of them, such as control of arable land and the protection of herd animals. Perhaps there could also be the “time-honored” tradition of kicking someone off of land because there is a resource you want, such as gold.
But I digress.
I think that the agents were either Lawful neutral or Lawful Evil.
I understand in the real world things are not so black and white. There is no detectable alignment system for the real world.
So, the question: Were the assassins or those who hired them evil?
Given the circumstances, parameters, and events, my opinion is: Yes, definitely evil.
Think you're killing despicably evil people to prevent a massive disaster? Okay, that could be reasonably non-evil... "Leave no witnesses"? Yeah... evil.
I also agree with your player's lack of trust in your alignment judgement (since it is personal for everyone). In such situations, you need to be very clear with him and always give him a second (or third!) chance when it comes to alignment, since you clearly do have differing views.
(Note that all this is IMO only - it will be different for different people.)
Hint: murder first, ask questions later = Evil.Based on that I would argue that the majority of adventuring parties are evil.
Correct. . . assuming they can ask questions q: Most newer players are quick to kill without figuring out what's going on.
So, the question: Were the assassins or those who hired them evil?Given the circumstances, parameters, and events, my opinion is: Yes, definitely evil.
What? The actions or their alignment?
Think you're killing despicably evil people to prevent a massive disaster? Okay, that could be reasonably non-evil... "Leave no witnesses"? Yeah... evil.
So, let's say it's a politically charged climate and if there were witnesses who were able to identify the attackers and place blame on the neighboring province for it, it caused a war...then we're looking at thousands of people who could die versus just a few.
I also agree with your player's lack of trust in your alignment judgement (since it is personal for everyone). In such situations, you need to be very clear with him and always give him a second (or third!) chance when it comes to alignment, since you clearly do have differing views.
(Note that all this is IMO only - it will be different for different people.)
It's not a matter of me giving the player additional chances, he only gave me one and then quit the game.
What? The actions or their alignment?
Uh... both? Either one? I don't know what you're asking here. I guess I'll go with "actions" (which may, or may not, be committed by those with an evil alignment - I don't know what else the assassins have done or what their mindset is, so I can't say that they are specifically evil with just one set of - IMO definite - evil actions). [Which, as a player, would lead me to conclude that they are most likely evil-aligned, and would require significant evidence that they were not evil if I were to interact with them in any way, shape, or form again.]
So, let's say it's a politically charged climate and if there were witnesses who were able to identify the attackers and place blame on the neighboring province for it, it caused a war...then we're looking at thousands of people who could die versus just a few.
Is there a question I'm supposed to answer here?
It's not a matter of me giving the player additional chances, he only gave me one and then quit the game.
*shrug* That's his perogative. Not something I would do, but people are people and do wacky things...
So, let's say it's a politically charged climate and if there were witnesses who were able to identify the attackers and place blame on the neighboring province for it, it caused a war...then we're looking at thousands of people who could die versus just a few.
This is why politics is so morally ambiguous, and often a choice of which is the lesser evil rather than a clear decision about what is right or wrong.
So, let's say it's a politically charged climate and if there were witnesses who were able to identify the attackers and place blame on the neighboring province for it, it caused a war...then we're looking at thousands of people who could die versus just a few.
If it is so delicate of a situation, then I would say it is dumb to send people from your own land. Instead you should hire mercenaries through a couple of different people (so it is harder to track back to you) to do the job. If they fail, they can't really tell who actually hired them, and so your country is safe.
In the given situation, if all those civilians were actually bad-ass, then this group of assassins might have failed and some would have been captured or killed and the country involved would be known. Especially if it was so obvious that they couldn't leave an unconscious guard behind. Which brings up an issue, did they destroy the bodies of the dead so that speak with dead could not be cast? Of course there are other divination spells that could be cast and it might be pretty hard to ultimately hide the involvement of the other country, especially if the PCs are that important to the evil king.
Let me tell you a story. It's about my preferred character, a Rogue 'Punisher-style' which I played for almost 10 years before the coming of 3rd edition (we played an heavily house-ruled BECMI D&D set on Mystara, back then).
Great story The Wraith. I enjoyed reading it and thinking about the situations. I think that I would probably place your character as CN for most of his career, but trying to do things for the 'right' reasons. Later on when you were in the mage nation for the 2nd time I would completely agree with you that CE would seem to be an appropriate alignment. Of course, my opinion of what you were isn't the important one, but your groups. Once again, great story, thanks for taking the time to write it out.
Happy gaming.
Barator
I gotta vote Lawful Neutral.
I see alignment as a bell curve, rather than an even distribution. Say, 70% of the world is Neutral, while 15% is good, and 15% is evil. To me, good acts are clearly good. Evil acts are clearly evil. They are good or evil in both intent and action. Anything in the "gray area", which I believe this is, is Neutral.
To put a modern spin on this, is torture of a terrorist evil if it will reveal the location of a neuclear bomb set to detonate? Again, I say it's a gray area, and therefore neutral.
Now, after said all this, the real question is ‘Is it Fergus like Batman ? All Alignments depending on the situation ?’
Or the truth is that Alignment is a fluid thing, not set into stone, and only repeatedly acts of a set Alignment in fact change the Alignment of the person involved?
Can a Lawful Good person (not Paladin, we are not speaking of loss of power - which is the real problem with Paladins) kill his wife's murderers in a gruesome way, defiling their bodies and howling to the moon (a clearly CE act) JUST ONCE and keep being LG (with a lot of remorse) for the rest of his life, being that his only CE act?
I truly believe so.
Wow great story...
Surely CE in Glantri...
Then CN or CG? I think that's about why were you doing things: basically to bring good per se or to bring good as a reaction to some other stimuli (satisfying yourself, even if nihilistic ones)? ;)
|
People seem to be taking two differing points of view here, both of which are rather extreme:
either
1) The assassins committed an evil act, and thus must be evil,
or
2) The assassins behaved in much the same way that PCs would have, and thus what they did can't be evil.
Firstly, the assassins did commit an evil act. I'm not sure how this can be interpreted any other way. Sure, they were likely deceived and lead to believe something other than the truth, but that doesn't make the consequences of their behavior any less evil.
Secondly, committing an evil act does not automatically make them evil. They did a bad thing, but mistakes happen - both guilt and forgiveness are a big part of the whole "good" concept. Once learning the truth, the assassins are (or appear to be) suitably horrified, ashamed, and angry, which leads me to believe they are probably not evil.
To add my 2cp I think thegreatpablo made a few mistakes.
One important thing to keep in mind is that being Good is HARD. The easy way leads to Evil.
So the situation as I understand it is this. The king of a neighboring country learns of a threat from the king that the PCs are working for. That king is Evil (capital E) and is using the party as unwitting pawns to further his own Evil goals. So the Good King sends a Strike Force to convince or capture the PCs and prevent the Evil King from succeeding in his Evil plan. This is all good so far.
As I also understand it, the Strike Force knew that there were innocent civilians traveling with the bad guys, but they couldn't be sure who was innocent and who wasn't.
First mistake: He orders the Strike Force to "Leave no witnesses". Now, it is not a mistake that the Good King doesn't want the Evil King to find out what is happening. The mistake is the way the order is framed. "Do what needs to be done to prevent the Evil King from learning what we are up to" has the same effect, but is subtlety different. I grant that this is a minor quibble, but it would put things more firmly in the Neutral category instead of Evil. Killing all witnesses is the Easy way (Evil), going through extra effort to minimize the deaths of potential innocents is harder (Good).
Second Mistake: This has been pointed out before. The Strike Force (we won't call them assassins, since it doesn't seem that they were actually sent to kill someone) made no attempt to contact the PCs or warn them of the danger they were in.
Third Mistake: The Strike Force found the "caravan" and formulated a plan to "free" the PCs. This plan was to sneak into the camp in the middle of the night and slaughter everyone but the PCs. This was the easiest thing for them to do (Evil). I don't know what resources they had, but they could have tried to subdue everyone instead of killing them (Sleep spells, tie them up or even just non-lethal damage), this would have been harder, but again, Good is HARD.
The Forth and worse Mistake: The Strike Force killed the guard that was being actively protected by the PCs. This was a mistake because it hinders their efforts to convince the PCs that they are actually the Good Guys. But even worse, as a GM you declared that the PCs were powerless to determine or even effect the events around them.
The players thought they were with basically Good people. They awoke to find them all killed in their sleep except for one that was fighting for his life. With the failure to protect everyone else with them, saving the one remaining guard became extremely important, especially to the Paladin. Finally the guard was knocked unconscious and a PC (presumably the Paladin) stood over him to protect him, willing to give his own life to protect the defenseless man.
Then despite the PC's declaration of protection, and instead of trying to explain or reason with the PC's, the so-called "Good Guys" darted in and killed the helpless man right under the PC's nose. His protection meant nothing. His declaration of defense was worthless. His character was effectively useless for defending a presumed innocent, which is the entire point of being a Paladin. That one action would be rage inducing. Why even play if no matter what you do the people you are out to protect are just going to be killed by the GM regardless?
Now I understand that that was probably not your intention, but I can see why the player got so upset. After he calmed down he obviously realized that you didn't mean to make him mad. You mentioned that you two have since made up, which I am glad to hear.
I understand what you were trying to do, but it is not an easy thing to pull off and I think there were a couple of missteps along the way.
To add my 2cp I think thegreatpablo made a few mistakes.
Well, you seem to be making the same assumption that the player who got upset made...that I had intended for the players to see the Strike Force as good, trustworthy, or both. That wasn't my intention. I had storyline planned out for either scenario, whether the party decided to go with the Strike Force or not.
People seem to be taking two differing points of view here, both of which are rather extreme:
either
1) The assassins committed an evil act, and thus must be evil,
or
2) The assassins behaved in much the same way that PCs would have, and thus what they did can't be evil.Firstly, the assassins did commit an evil act. I'm not sure how this can be interpreted any other way. Sure, they were likely deceived and lead to believe something other than the truth, but that doesn't make the consequences of their behavior any less evil.
Secondly, committing an evil act does not automatically make them evil. They did a bad thing, but mistakes happen - both guilt and forgiveness are a big part of the whole "good" concept. Once learning the truth, the assassins are (or appear to be) suitably horrified, ashamed, and angry, which leads me to believe they are probably not evil.
This sums it up pretty well.
Lord Twig, you are also making assumptions about what the Strike Force were told to do or decided to do, again without all the information. I think more may yet emerge. Without knowing all the facts (and like the PC's, we don't know everything) we can only say that the Strike Force acted very questionably, although not from evil motives.
To add my 2cp I think thegreatpablo made a few mistakes.Well, you seem to be making the same assumption that the player who got upset made...that I had intended for the players to see the Strike Force as good, trustworthy, or both. That wasn't my intention. I had storyline planned out for either scenario, whether the party decided to go with the Strike Force or not.
In that case I may be wrong about everything except the last point. Making a character feel useless is always a mistake IMHO.
But then, what was the point of sending the Strike Force? What was their objective? Was just killing everyone around the PCs enough to prevent the Evil King from carrying out his Evil Plan? How? If the Strike Force's (or I guess now Assassins) only goal was to kill everyone with the PCs, but then let the PCs continue on to help out the Evil King, what was accomplished?
I have to ask how the defended NPC was killed the PC defending would have gotten an AoO against any opponent that tried to come in....
I am not sure how this happened (maybe some dm fiat?) maybe that was the proverbial "straw" that broke the paladins back as it were.....
I still think alot of information is missing from how it went down.
It's actually pretty easy. The defender did get an AoO, but they missed. The attacker killed the guard in one hit.
Really, when I posted this, I didn't have all of the information. I wasn't entirely certain why he was angry. He made it clear when he said that he thought it was foolish of me to expect that the party follow the assassins after what they had just done (As a matter of fact, here's an excerpt from the followup e-mail: "What were you expecting us to do when your NPC murdered someone at my feet, just to say OK we will go with you now. No experienced GM or half way competent one would expect that to happen."). And as I explained before, I had prepared for the party to swing either direction with storyline, dialogue, and major plot points set up depending on what they decided.
In that case I may be wrong about everything except the last point. Making a character feel useless is always a mistake IMHO.
I agree, and while that wasn't my intent, it did exacerbate the situation, so that was my bad.
But then, what was the point of sending the Strike Force? What was their objective? Was just killing everyone around the PCs enough to prevent the Evil King from carrying out his Evil Plan? How? If the Strike Force's (or I guess now Assassins) only goal was to kill everyone with the PCs, but then let the PCs continue on to help out the Evil King, what was accomplished?
To be honest, I hadn't given much thought to the backstory of the assassins, what their exact orders were, why, etc. I can easily fill that in now and make it fit into the story. However, the general idea was that their objective was exactly what they told the party. To rescue them and dispatch anyone who could identify them.
As far as the Evil King, it was that the party had information that could be used to aid the Evil King and the neighboring province needed to ensure that the information did not get to the King.
They were in no position to force the party to go along with them, nor would they have wanted to. They were not aware, however, that the party wasn't being held against their will. And by the time they had encountered the party (when they woke up and fought along side the guard) they were forced to kill the guard to ensure that he didn't report what happened and who was involved. They didn't realize that the party wasn't being held prisoner until it was too late.
I think the PCs expectations are getting in the way of his happiness...
Expectations the one reason I talk to my DM b/4 I ever even think about playing a paladin...........
Yeah, he expressed regret for not having done that. He lives in a world where morality is black and white, which is fine for him...however it doesn't really work in the world I had created and he was upset when things weren't black and white.
So what happened next? What did the party do?
As the Paladin I would demand that the NPC surrender and take them in to face justice. If they refused I would attack. All evidence indicates that they just murdered a whole lot of people in cold blood. Whether they register as Evil or not with Detect Evil is irrelevant.
Another point about the "Leave no witnesses" isn't leaving the party behind leaving witnesses behind?
So what happened next? What did the party do?
As the Paladin I would demand that the NPC surrender and take them in to face justice. If they refused I would attack. All evidence indicates that they just murdered a whole lot of people in cold blood. Whether they register as Evil or not with Detect Evil is irrelevant.
Another point about the "Leave no witnesses" isn't leaving the party behind leaving witnesses behind?
Well, the party was not to be harmed. The party decided NOT to follow the assassins, aside from one member of the party who was from the province that the assassins were from and they told him that he would have to come along with them.
The paladin did attempt to arrest the assassins however since the paladin was not in his home province (which they knew) and the assassins were from another province as well, they told him that he simply didn't have jurisdiction. He decided not to attack since he knew that they had a relatively high AC and would be hard to subdue without the possibility of one of his party members dying.
The rest of the party went to the castle where they were confronted by the king and they gave him some information and he sent them on a mission to go retrieve a container for the artifact (little do they know, he is in fact manipulating them still) and the party member who went back to his home province was asked to rejoin the party and keep a close eye on them and the king and at the first opportunity, try to recruit the party to their side.
Let me outline the scenario. The party was working with one kingdom and was summoned by the king to discuss an important matter. They were travelling with a caravan to the kingdom with a group of civilians and a single guard. During the night (they didn't bother to set up any watches) a small band of assassins (in name only, not the prestige class) entered the camp and killed all of the civilians in the caravan and attacked the guard. They were not able to kill the guard without alerting the party and a battle ensued. The assassins only did non-lethal damage to the party and only when they had no other choice and were focused on killing the guard. The lead assassin shouted to the party "This battle does not concern you, stand down" and the party responded by telling the assassins that they would not stand down and that the guard was part of their party. Eventually the assassin's knocked the guard unconscious and one of the party members stood over his body, to protect it. The assassin's moved in and killed the guard while he was unconscious.
Now, a little bit of backstory regarding the assassins. They were employed by a neighboring kingdom. They were told and were led to believe through a lot of behind the scenes discussion (which I revealed to the players afterward through a discussion with the assassins) that the party was in grave danger. They were told that they were either being held against their will by the guard and the caravan or that they were being escorted back to the King who would execute them. The assassins were also told that the King had planned to use information that the party had to obtain an incredibly powerful artifact that could be used to destroy hundreds of thousands of lives and put him in power as the supreme ruler of the land.
So they believed that they were saving the party. So they went all that way, killed all those people, and then just let the party go on to their (they believed) certain doom.
They also believed that the party had information that that would allow the King "to obtain an incredibly powerful artifact that could be used to destroy hundreds of thousands of lives and put him in power as the supreme ruler of the land". But, after killing everyone else there, they just let the party take that information right to the Evil King anyway.
I assume that there is some very good reason why the party is important enough not to kill. So important that they are risking the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people by not killing them to prevent the King from getting the deadly information. But if they were that important, then why let them head back to the King that they believed was going to execute them? Shouldn't they have at least tried to capture the party and drag them back "for their own good"?
They believed that the party was being held against their will. But the fact that there was only one armed guard, and the party was (presumably) well armed and out numbered the guard many-to-one, might have given them a clue that all was not as they were told.
Let me outline the scenario. The party was working with one kingdom and was summoned by the king to discuss an important matter. They were travelling with a caravan to the kingdom with a group of civilians and a single guard. During the night (they didn't bother to set up any watches) a small band of assassins (in name only, not the prestige class) entered the camp and killed all of the civilians in the caravan and attacked the guard. They were not able to kill the guard without alerting the party and a battle ensued. The assassins only did non-lethal damage to the party and only when they had no other choice and were focused on killing the guard. The lead assassin shouted to the party "This battle does not concern you, stand down" and the party responded by telling the assassins that they would not stand down and that the guard was part of their party. Eventually the assassin's knocked the guard unconscious and one of the party members stood over his body, to protect it. The assassin's moved in and killed the guard while he was unconscious.
Now, a little bit of backstory regarding the assassins. They were employed by a neighboring kingdom. They were told and were led to believe through a lot of behind the scenes discussion (which I revealed to the players afterward through a discussion with the assassins) that the party was in grave danger. They were told that they were either being held against their will by the guard and the caravan or that they were being escorted back to the King who would execute them. The assassins were also told that the King had planned to use information that the party had to obtain an incredibly powerful artifact that could be used to destroy hundreds of thousands of lives and put him in power as the supreme ruler of the land.
So they believed that they were saving the party. So they went all that way, killed all those people, and then just let the party go on to their (they believed) certain doom.
They also believed that the party...
I won't lie. I hadn't really thought all of the details through.
I guess I got a little distracted from the primary point of your original post, but I was honestly confused about what was going on. Now that you see the flaws you can try to fix some of that before your next game.
To get back to the Neutral/Evil part. The fact that there were civilians present means that the act itself was Evil.
If the assassins knew there would be innocent civilians there and did nothing to try to minimize the collateral damage then they knowingly committed an Evil act and their alignment should shift towards Evil, if it is not already there.
If they honestly believed that all of their victims were Evil and then later found out that they were innocent then there are a couple possibilities. If they don't care, what they did was Evil pure and simple. If they are genuinely remorseful then it was still and Evil act, but they acted in a manner that could fit Neutral or even a Good alignment. A paladin would have to atone, but those with lesser standards can get away with just trying to make sure it never happened again.
My opinion of course.
|
Try looking at it this way:
Orders can be good, neutral, or evil.
So, if the orders were evil, that's still only half of the equasion. Maybe not even that much.
Once the soldiers have the orders, they go travel for however long, reach the caravan, and decide how best to fulfill those orders.
So ask yourselves if the way they fulfilled those orders seems to you like the most likely way to succeed.
In a pathfinder setting, there are plenty of ways to alter appearance, conceal ones nature, cloak alignment, and even change race.
Does the most likely to succeed option seem like "Lets sneak into the group of people, whom we all believe are evil enemy agents, and slowly go through people one by one killing them and hoping that NO ONE hears us and wakes up?
Sneak one person in to poison their food and give everyone the runs first. People don't fight well when their limbs are shaking so hard they can't stand up.
Infiltrate the group *maybe*.
Cast a spell and send telepathic messages.
*cough* Detect Thoughts *cough*
lots of other, safer methods to use.
The particular method they used was actually really, really risky since one out of 20 people in an average round will get a 20 on their perception rolls, and chances are good that a few of the soldiers-would-be-assassins would have poor stealth skills. After all, it's not like they had rogue levels or the dex to buff them :p
|
|
I gotta vote Lawful Neutral.
I see alignment as a bell curve, rather than an even distribution. Say, 70% of the world is Neutral,
I don't think it's an even bell curve. Chaotic alignments are very self-oriented frequently with a lack of empathy towards other sentients. So I'd peg the majority of chaotics as evil, some good and a narrow band that defines the chaotic neutral alignment.
I wouldn't quite say that.
I'd wager the quantity of empathy amongst the alignments(if such a thing can be quantified) goes from greater to lesser along the lines of good-evil rather than law-chaos.
Chaotics can easily be empathetic towards beings they think should follow their own path just as they do, just as lawfuls can be apathetic within the comfortable constraints of rigid, ordered life.
I don't really like pegging chaotics down as self-oriented across the board. They can easily believe in freedom for all, or that rigid thinking breeds stagnation, or simply be fatalistic "what-happens-happens" types, or any number of other possibilities. And I can think of CG, CN, and CE characters that adhere to each of the above beliefs.
|
|
And another thing, Jack Bauer aside, it's far from clear that torture will yield accurate or truthful information.
Yep. It's been proven time and time again that torture isn't a dependable way of getting accurate information.
"You don't even get good information that way. Eventually they'll just say anything to get the pain to stop."
I won't lie. I hadn't really thought all of the details through.
Well, you know what to do next time!
To be honest I do not see what he did wrong. All he did was have LN guys kill folks and in place of asking why they were not evil, the paladin quite because they were not evil.
If I where the paladin and they did not detect evil I would want to know why? Was it magic? Where they control in some fashion? Why did they kill everyone? Where they lied to?
I think they paladin jumped the gun when he did not get his Evil is black, good is white there is no gray , game he wanted and quite
He knew the GM ran games with shades of grey, the GM said he knew that. So this is a case of a player not getting his way and walking out, not of a GM messing up.
To be honest I do not see what he did wrong. All he did was have LN guys kill folks and in place of asking why they were not evil, the paladin quite because they were not evil.
If I where the paladin and they did not detect evil I would want to know why? Was it magic? Where they control in some fashion? Why did they kill everyone? Where they lied to?
I think they paladin jumped the gun when he did not get his Evil is black, good is white there is no gray , game he wanted and quite
He knew the GM ran games with shades of grey, the GM said he knew that. So this is a case of a player not getting his way and walking out, not of a GM messing up.
I have to agree here.
Mmm. Paladin is a powerful class simply because it is so easy to lose that power unless you are acting under the assumption that you must think every action through. Impulsive Paladins soon become Warriors.
Personally, most Paladins I know would have been furious at the encounter, but not at the DM, and would have directed that rage at the campaign, taking out their frustration of the NPCs by finding out which side was truly 'Evil', and making damn sure their side didn't slip into 'whatever works' mode.
So what happened next? What did the party do?
As the Paladin I would demand that the NPC surrender and take them in to face justice. If they refused I would attack. All evidence indicates that they just murdered a whole lot of people in cold blood. Whether they register as Evil or not with Detect Evil is irrelevant.
Another point about the "Leave no witnesses" isn't leaving the party behind leaving witnesses behind?
Well, the party was not to be harmed. The party decided NOT to follow the assassins, aside from one member of the party who was from the province that the assassins were from and they told him that he would have to come along with them.
The paladin did attempt to arrest the assassins however since the paladin was not in his home province (which they knew) and the assassins were from another province as well, they told him that he simply didn't have jurisdiction. He decided not to attack since he knew that they had a relatively high AC and would be hard to subdue without the possibility of one of his party members dying.
The rest of the party went to the castle where they were confronted by the king and they gave him some information and he sent them on a mission to go retrieve a container for the artifact (little do they know, he is in fact manipulating them still) and the party member who went back to his home province was asked to rejoin the party and keep a close eye on them and the king and at the first opportunity, try to recruit the party to their side.
From what info we have here, I think I see the unstated (probably even unconscious) problem for the paladin's player. Given what ended up occurring, the paladin should have fallen.
The paladin did attempt to arrest the assassins however since the paladin was not in his home province (which they knew) and the assassins were from another province as well, they told him that he simply didn't have jurisdiction.I laughed my a$$ off reading this part.....
Jurisdiction.....What a great bluff! I have to remember that one! Does that work?
They are most certainly operating in the Paladins jurisdiction!
Let me see if I get this....
The "assassins" in name only not evil, just mis-informed killers. Killed everyone in camp. Flaunted the old "diplomatic immunity" card (bluff) at the paladin and then went on their merry way........Someone please explain how this could possibly work! I mean I would order them to surrender or fight and then take them to their beloved "home" province.....
At the very least, I would make sure I knew who gave them the orders so that I could go challenge him and smite him. If they refuse, obviously they are in line with this evil man who would order innocents killed and should be punished. The Paladin is his own judge, jury, and exocutioner. He doesn't need jurisdiction.