They call it negligent homicide or manslaughter. Under color of authority you might say for a Paladin :) Once you cuff them they're your responsibility.
Not too big a chance of having a panic attack in a room. Really. That could happen in a jail cell too. Anybody tied up and screaming for help in a dungeon with monsters would be classed as a "suicide" or an "idiot". Not the paladin's fault (assuming they left them in as secure a situation as possible). If she dies due to someone elses actions (a fireball while with the party), again, not the Paladin's issue. He didn't throw the fireball. As well you know. If we're talking a dungeon with monsters, coming along with the party is all the safety anyone could reasonably provide.
It is negligent if they die cause you gagged them, but not if they die because they got incinerated by a fireball that they couldn't avoid cause you had them tied up?
To me, that doesn't add up.
1) Just how often do you think air sickness happens?
I took a few flights recently and of all the people on the planes, not one person appeared to have been sick. Some of these flights were on smaller planes in turbulence and no one was sick on these flights, not the young kids, not the senior citizens, not even the pregnant women.
Apparently often enough for you to know of the possibility. What did you think those airsickness bags were there for? And yes, I've seen people vomit on planes. In ships. And in cars. Haven't you? It's all motion sickness.
2) This NPC is some kind of assassin, who apparent knows the place, and likely has used fly spells or magic items in the past. This means that she likely would not be panicking in the falling place, as she would know that you never hit anything, that you are relatively safe as long as you do get taken out so that you don't die of a lack of water.
As I pointed out above, big difference between short flights / falls when you're in control and uncontrolled free falls lasting hours in which you have no control. It isn't necessarily panic that causes the vomiting (in this case). It's constant tumbling motion. Hours of it. With a gag in your mouth in (if it approximates skydiving / falling) windy conditions that interfere with breathing anyway. That's what makes vomit potentially lethal, otherwise she'd just puke it out and be miserable.
3) Trying to resurrect someone who you "tortured" to death will likely not work because the spirit will not want to return in a place where they are under your control.
The Paladin doesn't actually do the resurection. Some Cleric will have to, with the Paladin ponying up the expences. And if your choice was resurection into an iffy situation vs. the places where evil souls go, what would you do? That might reform her right then :)
4) You seem to be saying that the Paladin will be responsible for the NPC for the rest of their lives. This is a huge burden and would likely mean that the PCs would never taken any prisoners.
I considered it as a RP possibility, not a neccesity. Some fairly comedic as well as dramatic possibilities there. If the PCs never take any prisoners again, they're evil b@stards and the Paladin is scheduled for "Fighterhood" anyway.
5) Then how should the Paladin have secured the prisoner?
Taken her with them? How is it that the Paladin is fine if she is killed by a fireball that she couldn't evade to bonds that he put on her, but is responsible if she dies of fright because of those same bonds?
I already stated my opinion on that. Tie her hands, gag her, leash her and tow her along. The paladin would be "fine" if she died of a fireball (although he should regret it) because he wasn't the agent of her death (he didn't cast it) and he did his best to safeguard her. If her hands are tied she can still run like H3ll and get a Reflex save vs. the fireball. It's not her feet that are tied. As I said, she would die of being gagged and of illness due to motion sickness (the Paladins action and negligence), not fright per say (although that might certainly add to the motion sickness). You don't get punished for failure while doing the right thing. Just for not trying to or consciously doing the wrong thing.
You seem to be saying no matter what happens, the Paladin is responsible. IF the Paladin helps fight off some bandit so that the merchant is safe, and the merchant goes on to poison the well of the town and kill hundreds, the Paladin should lose their paladinhood. If the Paladin sees an adult strike a child, then they should "do" something, otherwise they lose their powers if the child is killed or if the child kills the adult. At least, that is how I am reading what you are saying. Am I correct?
No. He took responsibility when he accepted her surrender, cut a deal with her and left her in harms way. His actions. His negligence. His responsibility. His consequences. The example you give is of actions that could not be forseen. If the Paladin knew the merchant was going to poison the well, he'd have to stop him, wouldn't he? If he did not, I suspect he would be tracking him down and bringing him back (dead or alive) to see justice done. The child thing is really not a Paladins turf, unless the adult is trying to kill the child. Spanking probably isn't in the no-no list for Paladins. Neither is washing their mouths out with soap or grounding them. A lot would depend on culture and circumstances. Without a visual it's hard to judge.
*edited* For clarity.
It is negligent if they die cause you gagged them, but not if they die because they got incinerated by a fireball that they couldn't avoid cause you had them tied up?
To me, that doesn't add up.
See the post above this.
I would be very cautious about introducing any kind of reaction that doesn't have its basis either in the rules or in the adventure as presented.
The general rules do not have any provisions for throwing up when you fall too far.
The adventure, as written, does not mention characters throwing up if they fall into the "endless" pit.
I'm not saying a GM can't add details to help tell a story, but in this case, you are introducing story elements that don't have a basis in the rules in order to use a rule against a PC.
If you think this is borderline behavior, but you still have some questions as to whether the paladin should loose their ability, just remember that they have pushed the limit this time. It usually makes more sense to have a character fall after they push the limits, and then push farther, than to try and snag them on a "technicality."
In fact, I'd ask any GM to consider this . . . if the rules do not provide for a character choking on their own vomit, or for random monsters coming to eat a character in the pit, or for random debris hitting them and killing them, then why add them, when they are specifically elements that will take away your paladin's abilities, or at least they will under your interpretation.
Do you insert anti-magic areas into an adventure that doesn't have them to take away a wizard's power because they aren't doing what you expect them to do with their spells? Do you come up with situations where clerics will be violating their deities principles just so they have to prove their faith by doing less than optimal things? Other than what would normally be expected of them?
There are plenty of ways a paladin can be morally challenged. I am honestly asking two things, because I realize not everyone may see this the way I do.
1. Is this really a concern over the paladin's code of conduct, or have the player's done something unexpected, and thus pushed the limits of how much the GM wants them to have control over the story?
2. Is it obvious, from the player's side of the screen, exactly how you see this situation? If the PCs manipulated the pit and found out its properties, do you make them feel as if it was a torturous situation, or is this something that occurred to you later, after they used it as a means of controlling their side of the story?
I'm only saying this because you have to be really careful not to just pull things out of your hat to do to your players.
If the PCs fought against some bandits, and one of them was fat, even if you described him as sweating and red faced and panting during the fight, would you take away the paladin's powers if they tied this man up and he had a heart attack and died? The signs were there, after all.
Its just a few things to think about.
I already stated my opinion on that. Tie her hands, gag her, leash her and tow her along. The paladin would be "fine" if she died of a fireball (although he should regret it) because he wasn't the agent of her death (he didn't cast it) and he did his best to safeguard her. If her hands are tied she can still run like H3ll and get a Reflex save vs. the fireball. It's not her feet that are tied. As I said, she would die of being gagged and of illness due to motion sickness (the Paladins action and negligence), not fright per say (although that might certainly add to the motion sickness). You don't get punished for failure while doing the right thing. Just for not trying to or consciously doing the wrong thing.
How could she run like hell is she was leashed?
Wouldn't the Paladin be negligent if she ran away because she wasn't leashed?Apparently often enough for you to know of the possibility. What did you think those airsickness bags were there for? And yes, I've seen people vomit on planes. In ships. And in cars. Haven't you? It's all motion sickness.
Oh, I know of it, but I rarely see it. I did ask how often it happens? Not often as far as I know and have seen.
Why are you assuming that the NPC will automatically be tumbling? That they will automatically vomit? As mentioned above, astronauts "fall" for days and don't seem to have a problem with the falling feeling.
Raised some good points
I agree.
I did not take any damage from that place when I played through it, that might be why I missed the 2d6. Does the adventure actually say that or is the OP adding things just to mess with the pally?If the paladin at the very least doesn't realize this experimental skydiving of the prisoner 'might' be dangerous he is too bloody stupid to be a paladin.I dont think skydiving is a medieval concept, but at that point his deity(DM) can let him know. I don't think a deity with any common sense drops a pally for not having scientific knowledge which is what it boils down too. Dropping a pally for committing an act he knows is evil is a different thing altogether.
that is kinda my point, the paladin DOESN'T KNOW what might happen if she is left in there for a good while, it MIGHT very well be dangerous, and the paladin doesn't really care, despite that he made a promise to release her.
Catching her in a whirlwind that deals 2d6 points of damage is equal to dumping her in a 20' deep pit, will that do for physical harm ?
sorry it is 1d8+4, equal to the damage a slam attack will do from the air elemental the party summoned to catch her.
Can we say that despite we differ on opinion wether or not this was cruel or inappropriate behaviour it is a better option to talk to the player, since obviously we are pretty much divided on the issue.
It is your game and rules and your job to make it fun for everyone if possible, that does include you though (as DM) so if you disagree strongly talk it over and move on.
However I see it I do not think the player conciously was acting cruel, maybe caught up a bit in some sort of payback on the fictional NPC, all in good fun it is a game and we do not have to win the RP award of the year.
I would be very cautious about introducing any kind of reaction that doesn't have its basis either in the rules or in the adventure as presented.
The general rules do not have any provisions for throwing up when you fall too far.
The adventure, as written, does not mention characters throwing up if they fall into the "endless" pit.
I'm not saying a GM can't add details to help tell a story, but in this case, you are introducing story elements that don't have a basis in the rules in order to use a rule against a PC.
1. I'm not introducing anything except common knowledge / sense.
2. The general rules don't have any provisions for throwing up but I'm sure it happens. They also don't specifically mention falling forever while tied up, gagged and (probably?) in the dark.
3. And it doesn't cover tying someone up and throwing them into the endless pit either. Correct? The endlessly falling thing is new, so is the whole tying / gagging / throwing someone in. I'd say it calls for the DM to interpret a bit.
4. I'm not using a rule against a PC. I'm interpreting the results of their actions which can't be wholly anticipated in the adventure as written or in the rules. The rules don't specifically mention a lot of things. I suspect this is where the DM comes in. Rule 0.
If you think this is borderline behavior, but you still have some questions as to whether the paladin should loose their ability, just remember that they have pushed the limit this time. It usually makes more sense to have a character fall after they push the limits, and then push farther, than to try and snag them on a "technicality."
They should only "fall" if they fail to live up to the code. I've suggested attonement if they accidentally scr3w up.
In fact, I'd ask any GM to consider this . . . if the rules do not provide for a character choking on their own vomit, or for random monsters coming to eat a character in the pit, or for random debris hitting them and killing them, then why add them, when they are specifically elements that will take away your paladin's abilities, or at least they will under your interpretation.
I didn't bring random monsters into the mix. Haven't mentioned falling debris either. Just *possible* ramifications of what the Paladin *did* do.
Do you insert anti-magic areas into an adventure that doesn't have them to take away a wizard's power because they aren't doing what you expect them to do with their spells? Do you come up with situations where clerics will be violating their deities principles just so they have to prove their faith by doing less than optimal things? Other than what would normally be expected of them?
I don't use published adventures. I don't magically stick in stuff to screw with players either. I let them handle their actions. I handle the consequences (forseen or unforseen) of their actions.
There are plenty of ways a paladin can be morally challenged. I am honestly asking two things, because I realize not everyone may see this the way I do.
I agree, their are plenty of ways. I just think this is one of them.
1. Is this really a concern over the paladin's code of conduct, or have the player's done something unexpected, and thus pushed the limits of how much the GM wants them to have control over the story?
It has to do with the code. Expected / unexpected has nothing to do with it. Fortunately I don't insult too easily. I'm not the kind of DM who punishes players for innovation. My players have taken me in all kinds of unexpected directions. It's one of the things that makes DMing fun.
2. Is it obvious, from the player's side of the screen, exactly how you see this situation? If the PCs manipulated the pit and found out its properties, do you make them feel as if it was a torturous situation, or is this something that occurred to you later, after they used it as a means of controlling their side of the story?
I'm not the OP. I would have made it plain. Again, it has nothing to do with "controlling the story", of which outside of what has been presented here, I know nothing.
I'm only saying this because you have to be really careful not to just pull things out of your hat to do to your players.If the PCs fought against some bandits, and one of them was fat, even if you described him as sweating and red faced and panting during the fight, would you take away the paladin's powers if they tied this man up and he had a heart attack and died? The signs were there, after all.
Its just a few things to think about.
Of course. It isn't about "pulling things out of a hat" to "do to your players". It's about the possible consequences of what they have done. Nothing more. If they left a broken oil lamp (and small fire) in a building with tied up prisoners on another floor and it all burned down while they were gone their would be unforseen consequences too. And believe me they would have been "hinted" and pestered about it. Again, a lot of people here would be more than a little irate about this, but you don't know me and haven't seen me DM.
No, I would not -- that is not within the players prediction. Lots of people are overweight, sweaty and red. They don't routinely have heart attacks.
I haven't said I would take the Paladin's powers away. That would be up to his actions (in this adventure and afterwards). Thinking about actions in game is always good. I encourage my players to do so as well.
How could she run like hell is she was leashed?
Wouldn't the Paladin be negligent if she ran away because she wasn't leashed?
I said leashed, not hobbled. have you ever walked a dog? They can run if you let them. easy if you are too. If the Paladin (or anyone else) can't keep track of a tied and leashed prisoner then "negligent" is certainly an appropriate description, unless their is some reason (combat etc.) for his lack of attention.
Oh, I know of it, but I rarely see it. I did ask how often it happens? Not often as far as I know and have seen.
I didn't say it was a given. I said it was possible and hinted at a mechanic (hourly checks) to see if it did. The situation is a tad unusual and requires a bit of "out of the box" thinking.
Why are you assuming that the NPC will automatically be tumbling? That they will automatically vomit? As mentioned above, astronauts "fall" for days and don't seem to have a problem with the falling feeling.
They tied her up and threw her in. She's going to be moving. She has no control over that movement. Tumbling seems like a fair possibility. I didn't say she should automatically vomit btw. I talked about the chances of that happening (hourly checks etc.) and the possible consequences *if* it did happen. Astronauts are floating. Moving when they apply force to themselves. There is no effective gravity. They are not free falling through the air into an endless pit.
Can we say that despite we differ on opinion wether or not this was cruel or inappropriate behaviour it is a better option to talk to the player, since obviously we are pretty much divided on the issue.
It is your game and rules and your job to make it fun for everyone if possible, that does include you though (as DM) so if you disagree strongly talk it over and move on.
However I see it I do not think the player conciously was acting cruel, maybe caught up a bit in some sort of payback on the fictional NPC, all in good fun it is a game and we do not have to win the RP award of the year.
I pretty much agree up and down the line here.
I didn't say it was a given. I said it was possible and hinted at a mechanic (hourly checks) to see if it did. The situation is a tad unusual and requires a bit of "out of the box" thinking.
Oh, I know of it, but I rarely see it. I did ask how often it happens? Not often as far as I know and have seen.
You didn't just suggest a mechanic, you suggested a mechanic that would automatically kill her in a few hours.
Have her save, maybe once an hour to avoid puking. Giver her a -1 per hour after the first left in there. If she does it in the hour they get back, check on how long it takes her to drown in her own vomit and give them a reasonable chance to recover her. If she's got a strong stomach she lives. If she doesn't your Paladin is scr3wed.
Why are you assuming that the NPC will automatically be tumbling? That they will automatically vomit? As mentioned above, astronauts "fall" for days and don't seem to have a problem with the falling feeling.
They tied her up and threw her in. She's going to be moving. She has no control over that movement. Tumbling seems like a fair possibility. I didn't say she should automatically vomit btw. I talked about the chances of that happening (hourly checks etc.) and the possible consequences *if* it did happen. Astronauts are floating. Moving when they apply force to themselves. There is no effective gravity. They are not free falling through the air into an endless pit.
Actually, the OP said that they "dumped" her, not threw her in. You seem to have interpreted this as meaning that they treated her as a pin ball, having her tumbling and bouncing off wall, sure to die. Done in a malicious manner too, or that the Paladin was negligent.
Anyways, I'm not sure if there is any point in continuing the discussion as the OP hasn't responded to questions, to provide more detail, so all of us are making assumptions basing our answers on that. We don't seem to be making the same assumptions.
It sounds like a DM trying to control my character to me. If you as the DM know the NPC is in danger, and the paladin is not being malicious then there is nothing wrong with saying so. Now if the pally is warned and ignores you then it is on him.
The way I DM is that if you let someone live and they kill people you are in trouble because the paladin code saysPRD
help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends),Now if the paladin talks the party into letting...
I didn't say he shouldn't get warnings. This one knew the prisoner was distressed after the first time they pulled her in. I hate to spell out things too obviously, but I provide plenty of hints as needed. The characters actions are up to them. The consequences are up to the DM.
In a game once another PC committed a random murder (while in company with mine) in a city at night. He wanted to "know what would happen". A lot of screaming ensued, the watch was called (verbally) and a general hue and cry set off (the neighbors came out to see what was up). We both ran like H3ll. He (a fighter) got caught. My monk hid on a roof until it was safe to get out of the area. I watched his execution. Had a beer while doing so. Consequences.
Distress is not torture, and screaming normally brings guards.
a deity's issues with your actions, since every DM is different, should be more direct.
Becoming a warrior is not a hand slap. I also think that a DM and player should discuss what they expect from a pally before it becomes an issue though.No, it's not. That's why I favor attonement for negligence, not expulsion. If he won't "do the right thing", he's out. And yes, the expectations of the paladin's code are something they should be intimately familiar with.
*edit* In this case, whether the girl dies or lives, I see it as a learning experience. He has to tighten it up and pay attention to his actions. Man up, or woman up as the case may be. Or suffer the consequences of his failure to live up to the code.
How was he supposed to know the prisoner may die if the DM did not inform him of the physical damage. Now if the DM did, then I missed it, and he may deserve to fall. All this really depends on the DM's ability to give hints properly. You may be decent at it, but the DM in question is too vague.
If the PCs never take any prisoners again, they're evil b@stards and the Paladin is scheduled for "Fighterhood" anyway.
Damed if you, damned if you dont.
1. I'm not introducing anything except common knowledge / sense.
2. The general rules don't have any provisions for throwing up but I'm sure it happens. They also don't specifically mention falling forever while tied up, gagged and (probably?) in the dark.
3. And it doesn't cover tying someone up and throwing them into the endless pit either. Correct? The endlessly falling thing is new, so is the whole tying / gagging / throwing someone in. I'd say it calls for the DM to interpret a bit.
4. I'm not using a rule against a PC. I'm interpreting the results of their actions which can't be wholly anticipated in the adventure as written or in the rules. The rules don't specifically mention a lot of things. I suspect this is where the DM comes in. Rule 0.
Intorducing real life rules/physics into a game has caused many issues before. It is normally better to not do it.
Well...this thread has gotten rather heated hasn't it? And so, this is my final post on this one since I don't have the adventure in question.
1) I don't advocate the Paladin losing their abilities over this action. However, I do think its a gray area and something that character and player should be very careful about.
2) Endless falling, irregardless of it not causing damage, is definitely detrimental to the prisoner, IMO. Is it direct torture? Not unless it continues needlessly for a long time. And if the characters are in a dungeon and this is the best option they could come up with, then it may be the best solution, but the paladin should still be very concerned about what might happen since he/she promised to release the prisoner. If a wandering monster comes along and eats her? Not good.
3) The paladin already, to the mind of the evil NPC in question, broke the spirit of his/her word. He/she said the NPC would be released, and now has put her in the pit twice (was it?). That evil NPC is likely thinking the paladin is going to come back and kill her at this point(i.e. "release" her to her final reward) instead of actually letting her go. Add the kind of dread you might feel over that and the pit falling becomes a lot more terrifying.
4) A Paladin of Erastil might not have as much issue with this as a Paladin of Abadar, since Abadar is the god of Law.
Overall, I think this issue depends a lot more on circumstances than just what we've heard about the topic. I would definitely rule the pally actions as a gray area and not a good act. Not an evil act either unless circumstances change. Or they leave her there for an extended period, etc. My chief point is, the paladin needs to be careful at this point. This act alone shouldn't remove a paladin's abilities, but it shouldn't be a habit no matter what deity they follow. As a DM I would warn them about being more careful with treatment of prisoners in the future, but punishing them in this case isn't warranted at this point, IMO.
You didn't just suggest a mechanic, you suggested a mechanic that would automatically kill her in a few hours.
Actually I never got too specific on the check. Thinking on it a DC10 Forttiude save per hour with a +1 to DC per hour after one. Seems fair... maybe lower the initial DC and let the hours in the pit place her in more significant danger. Hard to say. There should be a significan chance (as I believe there would be in RL) but it should not be "automatic".
Actually, the OP said that they "dumped" her, not threw her in. You seem to have interpreted this as meaning that they treated her as a pin ball, having her tumbling and bouncing off wall, sure to die. Done in a malicious manner too, or that the Paladin was negligent.
OK. They took her to the edge and gently moved her into the pit? They dropped her in or gave her the heave ho in would be my guess. They needed an elemental to retrieve her apparently there was movement or they could have just pulled her in. Agreed though there wasn't a lot of detail from the OP on this.
Anyways, I'm not sure if there is any point in continuing the discussion as the OP hasn't responded to questions, to provide more detail, so all of us are making assumptions basing our answers on that. We don't seem to be making the same assumptions.
Pretty much. A lot of these threads are like that. Not enough info, a lot of speculation. And no agreement in the end :) Thanks for keeping it civil.
Distress is not torture, and screaming normally brings guards.
a deity's issues with your actions, since every DM is different, should be more direct.
Agreed.
How was he supposed to know the prisoner may die if the DM did not inform him of the physical damage. Now if the DM did, then I missed it, and he may deserve to fall. All this really depends on the DM's ability to give hints properly. You may be decent at it, but the DM in question is too vague.
The DM should have given him some hints. He didn't intend any permanent harm which is why I called it "negligent". True, there isn't any way for us to know exactly how it was handled. He did indicate he gave them hints about her distress after they brought her in the first time though. The DM would have to be the one to make this work or not.
If the PCs never take any prisoners again, they're evil b@stards and the Paladin is scheduled for "Fighterhood" anyway.Damed if you, damned if you dont.
No, d@mned by your own actions and (presumably) a failure to make up for them. If your reaction to your deity rebuking you for screwing up is to butcher all future prisoners then your stint as a Paladin was going to be short anyway. My 2cp of course.
Intorducing real life rules/physics into a game has caused many issues before. It is normally better to not do it.
True, but some things aren't covered by the rules and then you're left with your own experience (which has to involve real world physics) and common sense. Normally I divource my game from RL science and so on, but on a basic mechanical level it has to have a close relationship with "reality" for the players to make routine judgments about it.
Thanks for keeping it civil.
You mean I had a choice? Doh!
:)
No problem. I prefer discussions (arguments if you will) not open warfare.
Well...this thread has gotten rather heated hasn't it? And so, this is my final post on this one since I don't have the adventure in question.
Pretty civil compared to many. Only one person (not currently posting) has suggested I might be beating on the players for doing the unexpected. I don't have the adventure either btw, just going on what's been posted. To make a long story short I pretty much agree with what you posted. The only chance I see for atonement / punishment is if significant harm (death) does come to the NPC in question and that is (as I posted earlier) a "maybe".
No problem. I prefer discussions (arguments if you will) not open warfare.
Every time.
Sorry that I've been unable to be as vigilant as I might have wanted to be, and I'm really intrigued by the discussions going on here, but RL things have kept me away ;)
So, I'll try to elaborate on the details as best as I can....
1) She (the prisoner) surrendered to the group after having been rather easily defeated (will saves suck, btw ;) ) They tied her up and the Cleric of Gorum roughed her up a bit, until the Paladin intervened, this almost coming to blows, and the prisoner tried as best she could to put fuel on that fire. She provoked the cleric so he gave her a couple of slaps, which she laughed at, further provoking him... While the Cleric guarded the securely tied up woman, the Paladin, Bard and Wizard discussed a course of action, this being dumping her in an looping eternal fall (hard to describe but every second round or so you'd pass the same spot, to begin with and force of gravity would speed you up until terminal velocity was reached.. They dumped her in one of these holes only to retrieve her a bit later and move her to a place that was more convinient to them, but dumping her again...
2) They promised to let her go if she shared whatever info they wanted from her that she was able to give, which she did, after all, they defeated her with an apparent ease that shook her quite a bit... They dumped her in that hole, not even considering the consequences, as far as I as the DM could detect.
3) Yes, there are no rules for it, but simpel logic tells me, that if you drop an object in a hole the air will have some sort of influence on it, aerodynamics and all that, so eventually the object would begin to drift unless it was perfectly round, (which, unless I'm terribly mistaken, a bound woman is not) and would quite possibly begin to tumble and spin uncontroleably, creating a high G-force effect, I think that after a while would be detrimental to your health.
4) It was late, and I didn't quite think of all these things and therefore I posed the question to you guys...
5) If my memory serves me correct, this paladin here (Iomedaen btw) has just entered the scene, so there has been no chance for me to "guide" him so far. My problem lies in the fact that I have a hard time deciing in which place this fall in the so-called grey moral area-thingie. He defended her against the cleric, who likes to play with his muscles, but then, somewhat casually dumps her in a hole to fall, maybe forever, if they were to die...
6) I'm still leaning on giving him some sort of warning/lesson/something but I know his intent was not to do her harm (I think so) It was more like a "Duh.. this could be fun!-not thinking the thing through" kind of thing... the first time... The thing is he accepts the second dumping of her... that's what irks me most (yay! I got to say irk!)
So please fill me in if you need more clarification and I'll provide it to the best of my (limited) ability..
explanation
Ok, here's how I see it:
1) Paladin acted good, defending her from the cleric even when she was intentionally trying to provoke him.
2) They promised to let her go as in "we won't kill you" or "you're free to go about doing your badness again"? If the former...they haven't broken their word - they can't very well just cart her out of the dungeon in the middle, so she has to be secured until they can. If the latter, well...first off, that's a really stupid thing to do, secondly, for the paladin to go along with that they need to do something to keep ehr in line (mark of justice perhaps).
3) Yeah, it probably would, but I highly doubt it would kill her. She'd probably be shaken up and dizzy as hell, and likely need to be carried out of the place, but beyond that...I don't see any problem.
4) Bah, excuses, excuses! ^_-
5) Forget about the "maybe forever if they were to die". That applies to any kind of securing/imprisoning, not just this. Tied her up and put her in a secret room 9so that allies won't be as likely to find her)? Well, if you die, she's gonna starve.
6) If you see a problem with this (I don't know why, but apparently some people do), definitely don't just start stripping powers. Tell the player. Clearly you and the paladin are on different wavelengths about what's ok and what's not (otherwise he wouldn't have defended her form the cleric), so he probably, like me, considers this just fine.
I thought I was being civil. I apologize if I did not come off that way. I was intending to address various comments from the beginning of the thread on through my post, not to single any one post out.
The motherload of information. Good.
Sorry that I've been unable to be as vigilant as I might have wanted to be, and I'm really intrigued by the discussions going on here, but RL things have kept me away ;)
So, I'll try to elaborate on the details as best as I can....
I think, well hope, we all understand the RL thing :) It has been fun.
1) She (the prisoner) surrendered to the group after having been rather easily defeated (will saves suck, btw ;) ) They tied her up and the Cleric of Gorum roughed her up a bit, until the Paladin intervened, this almost coming to blows, and the prisoner tried as best she could to put fuel on that fire. She provoked the cleric so he gave her a couple of slaps, which she laughed at, further provoking him... While the Cleric guarded the securely tied up woman, the Paladin, Bard and Wizard discussed a course of action, this being dumping her in an looping eternal fall (hard to describe but every second round or so you'd pass the same spot, to begin with and force of gravity would speed you up until terminal velocity was reached.. They dumped her in one of these holes only to retrieve her a bit later and move her to a place that was more convinient to them, but dumping her again...
Pretty much what I envisioned. He certainly did "the right thing" stopping the Cleric from roughing her up. Then he did te stupid thing. Thoughtless once, careless to do it twice.
2) They promised to let her go if she shared whatever info they wanted from her that she was able to give, which she did, after all, they defeated her with an apparent ease that shook her quite a bit... They dumped her in that hole, not even considering the consequences, as far as I as the DM could detect.
Negligence, not malice. I gather she gave them the info. Then they dumped her in the hole and went on thier way whistling. Well, maybe not whistling :) What a crew.
3) Yes, there are no rules for it, but simpel logic tells me, that if you drop an object in a hole the air will have some sort of influence on it, aerodynamics and all that, so eventually the object would begin to drift unless it was perfectly round, (which, unless I'm terribly mistaken, a bound woman is not) and would quite possibly begin to tumble and spin uncontroleably, creating a high G-force effect, I think that after a while would be detrimental to your health.
About what I figured. That's why I connected her vomiting to the gag and the danger inherent in that.
4) It was late, and I didn't quite think of all these things and therefore I posed the question to you guys...
A late night game. I'm having withdrawal symptoms while I rework my campaign.
5) If my memory serves me correct, this paladin here (Iomedaen btw) has just entered the scene, so there has been no chance for me to "guide" him so far. My problem lies in the fact that I have a hard time deciing in which place this fall in the so-called grey moral area-thingie. He defended her against the cleric, who likes to play with his muscles, but then, somewhat casually dumps her in a hole to fall, maybe forever, if they were to die...
Yeah. He did good. Then got careless. Not a crash and burn, but not really acceptable without a divine comment or two :)
6) I'm still leaning on giving him some sort of warning/lesson/something but I know his intent was not to do her harm (I think so) It was more like a "Duh.. this could be fun!-not thinking the thing through" kind of thing... the first time... The thing is he accepts the second dumping of her... that's what irks me most (yay! I got to say irk!)So please fill me in if you need more clarification and I'll provide it to the best of my (limited) ability..
I like that. He had a "duh" moment. I agree warnings are in order. Especially because he did a repeat "duh". Yeah, "irk" is always fun :D
One thing, about how long was she in on the two occassions?
I thought I was being civil. I apologize if I did not come off that way. I was intending to address various comments from the beginning of the thread on through my post, not to single any one post out.
You were pretty much. Other posters here are touchier than me, as well you know I'm sure. I was probably crankier than usual myself (late night, posting while working on some classroom materials). Anyway no offence taken, especially now that I'm retreading what was said and your post about it. You have always seemed to be pretty fair minded in other posts of yours, I should have figured as much and not taken any offence.
No, d@mned by your own actions and (presumably) a failure to make up for them. If your reaction to your deity rebuking you for screwing up is to butcher all future prisoners then your stint as a Paladin was going to be short anyway. My 2cp of course.If the PCs never take any prisoners again, they're evil b@stards and the Paladin is scheduled for "Fighterhood" anyway.Damed if you, damned if you dont.
Having to take a prisoner along with you is to much of a burden. They(bad guys) are lucky to be alive since they just tried to kill you. A paladin is a warrior, and while he should be compassionate even to enemies, being reasonably safe is important. If a paladin tries to make me bring a prisoner along I would just kill the prisoner or make the pally take full responsibility for him.
Sorry that I've been unable to be as vigilant as I might have wanted to be, and I'm really intrigued by the discussions going on here, but RL things have kept me away ;)
So, I'll try to elaborate on the details as best as I can....
1) She (the prisoner) surrendered to the group after having been rather easily defeated (will saves suck, btw ;) ) They tied her up and the Cleric of Gorum roughed her up a bit, until the Paladin intervened, this almost coming to blows, and the prisoner tried as best she could to put fuel on that fire. She provoked the cleric so he gave her a couple of slaps, which she laughed at, further provoking him... While the Cleric guarded the securely tied up woman, the Paladin, Bard and Wizard discussed a course of action, this being dumping her in an looping eternal fall (hard to describe but every second round or so you'd pass the same spot, to begin with and force of gravity would speed you up until terminal velocity was reached.. They dumped her in one of these holes only to retrieve her a bit later and move her to a place that was more convinient to them, but dumping her again...
2) They promised to let her go if she shared whatever info they wanted from her that she was able to give, which she did, after all, they defeated her with an apparent ease that shook her quite a bit... They dumped her in that hole, not even considering the consequences, as far as I as the DM could detect.
3) Yes, there are no rules for it, but simpel logic tells me, that if you drop an object in a hole the air will have some sort of influence on it, aerodynamics and all that, so eventually the object would begin to drift unless it was perfectly round, (which, unless I'm terribly mistaken, a bound woman is not) and would quite possibly begin to tumble and spin uncontroleably, creating a high G-force effect, I think that after a while would be detrimental to your health.
4) It was late, and I didn't quite think of all these things and therefore I posed the question to you guys...
5) If my memory...
I dont remember Sian by name, but it seems that if the NPC has any real standing someone will come looking for her/him. The death by starvation because the PC's die is not likely. Being in an evil group does not mean you throw good soldiers to the wind(no pun intended).
Having to take a prisoner along with you is to much of a burden. They(bad guys) are lucky to be alive since they just tried to kill you. A paladin is a warrior, and while he should be compassionate even to enemies, being reasonably safe is important. If a paladin tries to make me bring a prisoner along I would just kill the prisoner or make the pally take full responsibility for him.
A burden you (or the Paladin anyway) accepted when you / he took them prisoner. Really when he took his oath as a Paladin. A Paladin's burden isn't much different from a soldiers now. They surrender, you accept it and shooting them is not allowed under the Rules of War. There is no legal option of killing them because it's inconvenient. Safely securing them is your responsibility within reason. Failure to do so is a war crime under the Hague and Geneva Conventions. A Paladin isn't signatory to these of course, but he has a Code and his Word. Ends up looking pretty similar in most cases. Imo, of course.
I wouldn't suggest killing a Paladin's prisoner. They may not take your violating their oath too well. Honor and all that. Justice and what not. Do they have duels in your campaign? I suggest telling the Paladin they're his responsibility. Of course, he may offer you his spot in the front line too at that point. So he can keep an eye on his prisoners, of course. Have fun :D
Having to take a prisoner along with you is to much of a burden. They(bad guys) are lucky to be alive since they just tried to kill you. A paladin is a warrior, and while he should be compassionate even to enemies, being reasonably safe is important. If a paladin tries to make me bring a prisoner along I would just kill the prisoner or make the pally take full responsibility for him.A burden you (or the Paladin anyway) accepted when you / he took them prisoner. Really when he took his oath as a Paladin. A Paladin's burden isn't much different from a soldiers now. They surrender, you accept it and shooting them is not allowed under the Rules of War. There is no legal option of killing them because it's inconvenient. Safely securing them is your responsibility within reason. Failure to do so is a war crime under the Hague and Geneva Conventions. A Paladin isn't signatory to these of course, but he has a Code and his Word. Ends up looking pretty similar in most cases. Imo, of course.
I wouldn't suggest killing a Paladin's prisoner. They may not take your violating their oath too well. Honor and all that. Justice and what not. Do they have duels in your campaign? I suggest telling the Paladin they're his responsibility. Of course, he may offer you his spot in the front line too at that point. So he can keep an eye on his prisoners, of course. Have fun :D
In real life when you capture a prisoner you can shackle him without him making a 30 escape artist check to possible escape, and you can leave him back at the base while you continue the mission. That makes it a whole different monster. No, I dont do duels, but if I did it would be a sport, and not an actual combat thing so no prisoner would be there anyway.
Yeah, and if a paladin started doing that they'd be very quickly told "your services are no longer needed, we'll take a fighter that does his fighting job without the problem with prisoners instead" by many groups.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like punishing a paladin for actually taking the prisoner and securing her without giving the entire rest of the party a headache is a bad thing. Would the paladin have randomly tossed her in this bottomless hole place if they were headed straight back to town? No (or I assume not anyway).
They're in the middle of a dungeon - they cannot be carting prisoners with them. It's just not feasible. They're going to be fighting more things, dealing with more traps, often needing to use some modicum of stealth - they can't be watching this woman to make sure she doesn't escape or cause more trouble while they're in the middle of their mission.
In real life when you capture a prisoner you can shackle him without him making a 30 escape artist check to possible escape, and you can leave him back at the base while you continue the mission. That makes it a whole different monster. No, I dont do duels, but if I did it would be a sport, and not an actual combat thing so no prisoner would be there anyway.
You can in D&D too. As for leaving them a base, yeah. First you have to take her there. If you spit on the Paladin's honor by killing his prisoner (who would be under his protection) and thereby insulted him and his god... it wouldn't be about "sport". He would warn you and then, if you went ahead and committed murder, deal with you. Odds are good if you go around murdering prisoners you'd show up on detect evil and get smited anyway...
Yeah, and if a paladin started doing that they'd be very quickly told "your services are no longer needed, we'll take a fighter that does his fighting job without the problem with prisoners instead" by many groups.
Sure. Evil groups probably don't want Paladins around. Going around killing prisoners or refusing to take any is a fairly good sign of evil. I'd say the problem is that a lot of people say they are "good" and then do whatever they find convenient. Good or not. I'm sure there are people who are only good when it's convenient. Paladins should not be among them.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like punishing a paladin for actually taking the prisoner and securing her without giving the entire rest of the party a headache is a bad thing. Would the paladin have randomly tossed her in this bottomless hole place if they were headed straight back to town? No (or I assume not anyway).
It's not punishing the Paladin to expect him to be a Paladin. If the girl dies in this scenario it's not first degree murder, that's for sure. Assault, manslaughter, negligent homicide, maybe to put it in modern terms. A violation of his Paladin's code / honor in D&D terms. Hopefully she lives and it's just a bit of distress / mild torture. If succesfully securing the prisoner and not inconveniencing the whole party was all he did, then no problem. A good character or party wouldn't, or shouldn't, whine this much about the inconvenience involved.
They're in the middle of a dungeon - they cannot be carting prisoners with them. It's just not feasible. They're going to be fighting more things, dealing with more traps, often needing to use some modicum of stealth - they can't be watching this woman to make sure she doesn't escape or cause more trouble while they're in the middle of their mission.
So, no prisoners of war for just those reasons. Well, no. Sure it makes it harder, but yes it is feasible. A Paladin, or any good character, would probably find the inconvenience worth a human life. It's maneagable if annoying to have her along as a prisoner. It's partly balanced by having immediate access to the intelligence she is providing. Anyway, tie her hands. Use a leash to control her movement. Cast charm on her or gag her. Tell her that her freedom / safety rests with the party surviving (versus monsters, hostile spells etc.). H3ll, tell her you'll rat her out for cooperating with you if the enemy wins. Tie her feet just before action (if you have a warning). There are numerous things you can do. Besides murder or leaving someone to die. Someone who is your responsibility.
Finally the Paladin (and apparently the rest) gave her their word and cut a deal with her. Breaking your word shouldn't come easily to any good character. Evil lies like it breathes -- easily. A neutral will lie if he thinks it's necessary or beneficial. A good character should do so only under duress in a life and death situation. Especially a Paladin.
You can in D&D too. As for leaving them a base, yeah. First you have to take her there. If you spit on the Paladin's honor by killing his prisoner (who would be under his protection) and thereby insulted him and his god... it wouldn't be about "sport". He would warn you and then, if you went ahead and committed murder, deal with you. Odds are good if you go around murdering prisoners you'd show up on detect evil and get smited anyway...
In real life when you capture a prisoner you can shackle him without him making a 30 escape artist check to possible escape, and you can leave him back at the base while you continue the mission. That makes it a whole different monster. No, I dont do duels, but if I did it would be a sport, and not an actual combat thing so no prisoner would be there anyway.
Taking the prisoner back to town(base) is not always an option due to time constraints. Of course if time allows it should be done.
I think I misunderstood your duel comment from your other post.I would just surrender before he could smite. :)
He could kill me, but then he is a warrior again.
Taking the prisoner back to town(base) is not always an option due to time constraints. Of course if time allows it should be done.
I think I misunderstood your duel comment from your other post.I would just surrender before he could smite. :)
He could kill me, but then he is a warrior again.
I agree it's not always feasible. So you secure her as safely as possible or drag her with you. At least if you drag her along you can question her as needed.
I'm sure you'd be taken prisoner. He's a Paladin after all. Then you'd be trying to atone to him.
I think I misunderstood your duel comment from your other post.I would just surrender before he could smite. :)
He could kill me, but then he is a warrior again.
Yep, you can absolutely surrender.
Then he takes you to the authorities, or his gods temple, or to his order's lodge house.
You are then put on trial for murder. The Paladin, very sad but very stoic, gives his eyewitness account that he saw you murder a surrendered prisoner in cold blood.
You are asked for your side of the story. You say you didn't murder, you just killed an enemy you didn't have time to deal with. Yes, she had surrendered, but you lied about accepting it.
Since all the testimony is done under a zone of truth spell, the authorities weigh the testimony, and you are punished for your crime in whatever way they deem necessary. The king might pardon you if you were working for him. The temple's response would depend on their god. The paladin's order would probably execute you for the crime of murder and send your belongings to your next of kin.
A good character or party wouldn't, or shouldn't, whine this much about the inconvenience involved.
Not true at all, and when the inconvenience can get you killed it is better to make sure the inconvenience is just not there.
Of course once the party gives their word they are bound to it, but if their failure risk many more people being killed then killing one to save the many is the better option, since saving one to risk the many is the worse of the two choices. The thing that is often lost is that while the PC's are the stars it is not just about them. "I want my deity to think I am a good guy so I put the town in danger", is just selfish.
So dragging someone along hard stone and debris isn't cruel?
C'mon man, that would be painful! And unnecessarily so.
I think I misunderstood your duel comment from your other post.I would just surrender before he could smite. :)
He could kill me, but then he is a warrior again.Yep, you can absolutely surrender.
Then he takes you to the authorities, or his gods temple, or to his order's lodge house.
You are then put on trial for murder. The Paladin, very sad but very stoic, gives his eyewitness account that he saw you murder a surrendered prisoner in cold blood.
You are asked for your side of the story. You say you didn't murder, you just killed an enemy you didn't have time to deal with. Yes, she had surrendered, but you lied about accepting it.
Since all the testimony is done under a zone of truth spell, the authorities weigh the testimony, and you are punished for your crime in whatever way they deem necessary. The king might pardon you if you were working for him. The temple's response would depend on their god. The cleric's order would probably execute you for the crime of murder and send your belongings to your next of kin.
I would just weigh the life of the prisoner against the town. An example of this came up a few years back. An Iraqi knew where an ambush was, but would not give up the information. A colonel put a gun to his head, of course the guys lips loosened then. As a result of his action which most likely saved a couple of life he was basically forced out of service. While I don't condone mental torture(killing bad guys in D&D if I can help it) I wont let them live at the town's expense either. That story did not get any press IIRC, but I am sure if the townsfolk found out why I was in prison they would be at the gates(or the equivalent) demanding my release.
A good character or party wouldn't, or shouldn't, whine this much about the inconvenience involved.Not true at all, and when the inconvenience can get you killed it is better to make sure the inconvenience is just not there.
Of course once the party gives their word they are bound to it, but if their failure risk many more people being killed then killing one to save the many is the better option, since saving one to risk the many is the worse of the two choices. The thing that is often lost is that while the PC's are the stars it is not just about them. "I want my deity to think I am a good guy so I put the town in danger", is just selfish.
It's not the tieing her up and leaving her somewhere.
I've done that before to prisoners in game, as a NG character. It's the leaving them in a place where they are falling, possibly puking their guts out, and obviously under huge stress.
We tied our prisoner up and left them in a room we'd already cleared out. We then barred the door. Then we had the team trapmaker set a bottle of acid on the outside of the door with a timing mechanism that would drop the acid on the bar in about 2 days. We figured if we didn't get back by then, we weren't coming back, and they should be able to get out of their bonds by then.
We left some food in the room and there was already water there. The rogue tied the prisoner up and left enough slack in that the rogue figured he could escape in about 2 hours, or a normal person could in 5 or 6.
Turns out we didn't make it back in 2 days (stupid planar gate). However, we did go back about a month later and found the food gone, the prisoner gone, and the acid had eaten through the bar on the door.
Later we saw the prisoner working in a shipyard, and they wet their pants and ran away. ;)
So dragging someone along hard stone and debris isn't cruel?
C'mon man, that would be painful! And unnecessarily so.
Seems to me like another example of how it is too easy to mess with a paladin. A player does not have the same understanding of his DM, as a pally does with his deity, and that is why sometimes the DM should just flat out say if you do _____ you lose your powers. The player may not agree, like the pally may not agree, but the player should make his decision, and then talk to the DM about it outside the game. Not every enemy can be redeemed or saved.
PS: I agree with you.
I would just weigh the life of the prisoner against the town. An example of this came up a few years back. An Iraqi knew where an ambush was, but would not give up the information. A colonel put a gun to his head, of course the guys lips loosened then. As a result of his action which most likely saved a couple of life he was basically forced out of service. While I don't condone mental torture(killing bad guys in D&D if I can help it) I wont let them live at the town's expense either. That story did not get any press IIRC, but I am sure if the townsfolk found out why I was in prison they would be at the gates(or the equivalent) demanding my release.
I can't speak to anything going on in Iraq.
As to the townspeople banging down the door to your cell demanding your release? Why would they?
A) It's your word you murdered for the greater good against a freaking Paladin saying you murdered for convience, who is the common farmer going to believe?
B) Most people, especially in a monarchy type setting, avoid ticking off the nobility. Storming the kings jail and breaking someone out is a sure fire way to have the army come in and smash everyone's heads in. Plus, most of those people don't own their homes or farms, the King does, and he can kick them off if he wants.
C) Unfortunately, most people are ingrates. They really are. They'd more likely grumble over it in a bar, and mouth off about how they'd tell the king a thing or two if he was to step foot in the bar. Then they go home and forget about it until the next drinking binge.
So dragging someone along hard stone and debris isn't cruel?
C'mon man, that would be painful! And unnecessarily so.
She has feet. Tie her hands / arms. Leash her. Let her walk. Pretty much the standard methodology.
Fair enough, i was just responding to the comment about dragging a prisoner.
So, no prisoners of war for just those reasons. Well, no.
Y'kjnow, we're obviously on two entirely separate wavelengths, so I'm not gonna keep trying to argue this, but this point above? Exactly. Exactly. Remember, this is an adventuring team, not an army. You know who doesn't take prisoners of war? Yeah, special forces teams. Black ops teams. Why? Because it's not feasible. It jeopardizes their mission.
An adventuring party is basically a special forces team. If they were an army, then sure, they'd have the means to secure prisoners of war, the supply lines to send them back for processing and detainment somewhere else. But they're not. They're a handful of elite "soldiers" (not technically soldiers, but since we're using a war metaphor...) with a very important mission on their hands and they can't go jeopardizing that mission to save a prisoner some stress.
And let's be perfectly honest here - anything besides just a scare, provided they come get her before she starves, is entirely a house rule, and one that needs to be clearly conveyed to players before it's implemented.
The fact that they didn't just kill her on the spot is already far more merciful than deserved...and if paladins had to always take prisoners, don't you think that anyone who knowingly lives in a world where paladins will oppose their plans would begin simply instructing their soldiers to surrender as soon as they see Sir Smitesalot? Because I can guarantee you, when the logistics of taking care of several dozen prisoners is slowing them down, there's no way in all the planes they could stop said plan.