|
Here’s the scenario, it has already been resolved with the group though I think it may come up again.
Party make up:
Wizard – CG
Bard – NG
Paladin – LG
Oracle – CG
Rogue – CG
Two Weapon Fighter – CG
Scenario:
A group of orcs fights the party in a confined hallway; wizard steps up casts Colorspray! All of the orcs (three) fail their save. The player playing the Paladin is lost on what to do as they are now ‘non-combatants’. Wizard suggests OOC just disarm them and you should be good with your alignment and code. Paladin agrees and disarms first orc. Fighter steps up (5 foot step) and coup-de-grace one orc in front of the paladin. Paladin, “That’s not cool man, they are disarmed and harmless knock it off.”
Next round, Paladin moves 5 feet and disarms second orc. Fighter moves to first orc and coup-de-grace again. Entire party, “Dude seriously! Wtf?”
As a group we agreed this second act was against the CG alignment let alone the party seeing it as unwarranted with the Paladin there.
As the DM I can see the Paladin player confused as to whether or not attack the fighter. Suffice to say he doesn’t. I explain to the Fighter he’s definitely going away from the CG alignment. The first attack was ok, the orcs were hostile to the party, but once the Paladin made it clear it was not the correct thing to do and that he had an issue with it; well the second attack was malicious.
More orcs arrived shortly afterwards and the Fighter just stood there with his arms crossed. Like “F you guys.”
As I said the situation has been resolved and actually the fighter in question is now deceased do to another combat, but I think with the Wizard optimally designed to mitigate mass combat I think this issue may arise again.
So from the community I ask:
1. Do you think we ruled this situation correctly?
2. Would you have done it differently?
3. If there was nothing wrong with the Fighters action and CG alignment please explain your standing.
So from the community I ask:
1. Do you think we ruled this situation correctly?
I do not see where there was a ruling for the readers to pass judgement on. If it is about alignment, see #3.
2. Would you have done it differently?
See #1.
3. If there was nothing wrong with the Fighters action and CG alignment please explain your standing.
Alignment is truly tricky. Unless two people "grew up" gaming together (started together, and always gamed together), it is nearly impossible to find two people who have identical viewpoints on what alignments mean.
As for the Fighters actions and Chaotic Good Alignment: They could be correct. A one phrase description of Chaotic Good could be "the ends justify the means." And by that, one less orc - no matter how it came about - is good for the world.
That doesn't mean that should be the case in your game. It just means it is possible.
So from the community I ask:1. Do you think we ruled this situation correctly?
2. Would you have done it differently?
3. If there was nothing wrong with the Fighters action and CG alignment please explain your standing.
I think that it is definatly not good behaviour, so I agree with your ruling.
I hate when CG characters are doing evil things with the argument that "It is an evil creature". My worst example is two CG characters torturing a couple of goblins we captured, eventhough it was fairly obvious that they knew nothing of use.Alignment changes are always a difficult issue, and I tend to downplay alignment as much as possible, so whether I would have made the same ruling in the situation, I can't tell. Generelly I think the player should have a warning before the GM impose an alignment change.
Furthermore, I think it might have been preferable if the paladin actually had stepped in and resolved the issue (whether by sword point, or preaching).
|
|
Context:
The party is in an old keep to some long forgotten races. Those races in question were all Good in alignment and lost control of their home to hostile enemies. The party is there for numerous reasons, one being to find out what happened and in the end retake the keep.
I completely agree with Paladins not being Lawful Stupid. Just looking for some opinions based on the scenario above. As I said as a group during the encounter we all came to the conclusion of what we did above. But i'm curious about others thoughts on this.
To shed some different light on the subject so to speak.
Once more we see the inherent tension in a game about goodness and heroism that is also about stabbing things to death.
I think alignment is a bit of a red herring in this case. The real issue is that the PC is being a dick. If it were my paladin PC in a situation like that, he would probably tell the other PC to leave the party (if the rest of the party sided with the paladin) or he would leave the party himself and I would create a new, less honourable PC (if the rest of the party sided with the other PC).
I dislike the idea that you can't kick a jerk out of your party just because he has the letters "PC" tattooed on his forehead.
Agree with Hogarth. The paladin was trying to establish order and do right by enemies who were defenseless. The chaotic fighter was trying to eliminate future threats. The jerk move was on the fighter's part when he disrespected the paladin's instruction to not harm helpless "prisoners" (for lack of a better term, I have no idea what the group planned to do with them). The fighter would have gotten a stern lecture from the pally (were I the pally) and later kicked out when he refused to fight in the following battle (if I understand that to be what he did). While I may not have cared so much about CDGing the helpless orcs were I playing another character in the group, when the fighter refused to fight I definitely would have bounced him from the group.
Okay, just to add my voice to the peanut gallery: you're attempting to apply your modern, first world nation morality to a situation that is very different to anything any of us will ever encounter. The orcs are a threat: they raid, rape, pillage and destroy and they like it. They leave little half-orc babies around because they can. From the perspective of the humans who have to suffer their raids and such, they're no better than rabid dogs, and in fact are a lot worse. They're a dangerous problem that needs to be dealt with.
The paladin disarms them, then what? He can't rehabilitate them. They're orcs. When they wake up they're just going to go back to doing what they do best. What the fighter did was the only rational response to the situation. When you have the chance to take the mad dog out, you take it.
The only way this mindset wouldn't apply is if the setting has established that orcs are something more than just savage animals that manage to mimic some of mankind's trappings of civilization, such as the Freeport setting. Then the party would be obligated to treat like actual members of a civilized(ish) race and give them a little more consideration.
Alignment is truly tricky. Unless two people "grew up" gaming together (started together, and always gamed together), it is nearly impossible to find two people who have identical viewpoints on what alignments mean.As for the Fighters actions and Chaotic Good Alignment: They could be correct. A one phrase description of Chaotic Good could be "the ends justify the means." And by that, one less orc - no matter how it came about - is good for the world.
And just to prove your point - I consider "the ends justify the means" to be an evil statement, probably LE and as far as you can get from CG
Killing heathens was lawful and good, in this case the orcs certainly would be heathens on top of all the bad stuff they normally do.
As I said before, I think alignment is a red herring, it's a matter of a fundamental disagreement between PCs. Whether those PCs are Lawful Good and Chaotic Good or Lawful Good (pacifist) and Lawful Good (martial) doesn't really matter, in the end.
|
For what it's worth, I hand alignment issues thusly:
I, as the GM, ask the player "what fictional character from popular media best typifies how your character acts? For example, do you see him as Han Solo? Jack Bauer? Etc." Then, I assign an alignment to the character based on the answer as I see it (and no, I'm not getting into that argument in this thread...). Unless the alignment doesn't match with a REQUIRED alignment (for instance, a smuggler, even with a heart of gold, wouldn't be a good choice for a Paladin), that's the end of it. If the player had said he see's his fighter as, say, Han Solo, then when something like this comes up, you can just ask yourself WWHD (hint: Han shot first).
|
I think alignment is a bit of a red herring in this case. The real issue is that the PC is being a dick.
Agreed. There's nothing good about doing something that the rest of the party has agreed not to do, and there's nothing in any alignment about folding your arms over your chest and deciding not to fight because you're feeling petulant.
Stomping your little feet and taking your ball and going home is neither chaotic, evil, good or lawful, it's just childish.
And using medieval knights, who occasionally practices such courtly virtues as raping indigenous women, rounding up surviving children and selling them into slavery, torturing heathens into repenting and then killing them to 'save their souls,' practicing archery on debtor-peasants who failed to pay their taxes on time or spoke openly of such things as equality, fairness or eschewing material wealth because of stuff they read in the Bible, and butchering cities full of people of their own faith for profit, etc. as a guideline for how to play a LG Paladin is probably a bad plan.
I think alignment is a bit of a red herring in this case. The real issue is that the PC is being a dick.Agreed. There's nothing good about doing something that the rest of the party has agreed not to do, and there's nothing in any alignment about folding your arms over your chest and deciding not to fight because you're feeling petulant.
Also agreed.
Chaotic or not, demonstrating that you're not capable or willing to work with a group basically says "it's time for this PC to be ejected". It's not about right or wrong, good or evil, it's about being part of something. As soon as you elect to set yourself apart from the groupthink, you're setting yourself up to be replaced by an adventurer who belongs.
Once more we see the inherent tension in a game about goodness and heroism that is also about stabbing things to death.
So true. And you left out "and then taking their stuff."
Still, the issue of chaotic good is one that needs to be dealt with. In this situation there are two issues to resolve, the first is whether the fighter's actions were in line with his alignment, but the second, and possibly more critical issue, is whether the party should tolerate the fighter's actions.
As far as I'm concerned, chaotic good fighters are completely able to slaughter helpless orcs and retain their alignment IF and ONLY IF the action has in-game significance towards completing a specific good goal. If the fighter CdGed the orcs because he felt that prisoners would make their task impossible to complete, and leaving them alive would likely mean alerting other orcs about their presence, then slaughtering the orcs is a defensible act for a CHAOTIC good character. It would NOT be acceptable for a LAWFUL good character, and would be borderine for a NEUTRAL good character.
As far as the party dynamic is concerned, only the party can deal with that, but the DM might ask the party about their desire to continue on with a party member who will not conform to the will of the party on such critical issues as this.
And just to prove your point - I consider "the ends justify the means" to be an evil statement, probably LE and as far as you can get from CG
Alignment is truly tricky. Unless two people "grew up" gaming together (started together, and always gamed together), it is nearly impossible to find two people who have identical viewpoints on what alignments mean.As for the Fighters actions and Chaotic Good Alignment: They could be correct. A one phrase description of Chaotic Good could be "the ends justify the means." And by that, one less orc - no matter how it came about - is good for the world.
I do acknowledge that it could just as easily be applied to traditionally evil goals and ideals as it could traditionally good goals and ideals. So I will concede to the Good / Evil axis.
I think alignment is a bit of a red herring in this case. The real issue is that the PC is being a dick.Agreed. There's nothing good about doing something that the rest of the party has agreed not to do, and there's nothing in any alignment about folding your arms over your chest and deciding not to fight because you're feeling petulant.Also agreed.
Chaotic or not, demonstrating that you're not capable or willing to work with a group basically says "it's time for this PC to be ejected". It's not about right or wrong, good or evil, it's about being part of something. As soon as you elect to set yourself apart from the groupthink, you're setting yourself up to be replaced by an adventurer who belongs.
So, just to clarify, you insist that all characters be Lawful at your table? Because all a Chaotic character that follows the "groupthink" is, is Lawful.
So, just to clarify, you insist that all characters be Lawful at your table? Because all a Chaotic character that follows the "groupthink" is, is Lawful.
Suppose PCs A, B, and C all agree not to defecate on the doorstep of the church of Pelor. If D disagrees and uses the cathedral as a chamberpot, that doesn't make him chaotic, that makes him a jerk and an idiot.
Chaotic characters can agree on an issue and lawful characters can disagree on the same issue.
I think the interpretation of a LG character not being able to kill known enemies is why so many people feel paladins are lawful stupid. Lawful good people can be people that are filled with righteousness and will kill to defend their faith and beliefs. Certainly they will kill others to protect the weak and innocent.Killing in the name of a greater good is totally acceptable even for lawful good characters. Your characterization basically means any martial characters cannot be lawful good. How will a lawful good person be able to lead men in battle? How will they be able to do anything related to killing?
They will not engage in...
The issue is not about lawful good martial characters killing others. The issue is about lawful good martial characters slaughtering helpless creatures who have been incapacitated. There is a major difference between killing someone in combat who is trying to kill you, and slaughtering a helpless being.
It is my opinion that lawful good characters in general would find this to be unacceptable behavior, while a paladin would consider this both an evil act and something that violates the paladin code directly. There is no honor in slaughtering the helpless.
I think alignment is a bit of a red herring in this case. The real issue is that the PC is being a dick.
This right here.
The fact that there wasnt even the beginnings of a discussion (as players) around this shows where this players head was at.
Creative Director
|
Yup.
Alignment isn't the problem here. It's a disruptive player that's the problem.
Personally, I see the fighter's act as certainly being chaotic. But non-good? Not so sure; as mentioned above, context is the key. If this encounter came at the end of a long campaign against orcs, and the PCs had witnessed orcs slaughtering all sorts of innocents and basically living up to their chaotic evil alignment, executing known monsters like these swiftly and mercifully like the fighter did is very much chaotic good, I would say. At the WORST it's chaotic neutral, but not so much that I'd force the fighter to change his alignment (which wouldn't matter anyway from a game standpoint, and if the player was doing his thing specifically to roleplay, he probably would agree with the alignment change).
But yeah... the problem here is a stubborn or disruptive player. Stubbornly crossing his arms and refusing to help more because the other players called him out on his disruptive play style is not an alignment problem at all.
OK, I'm going off topic first.
I've banned Chaotic Good from my table because it almost inevitably actually means "I want to be good, but I also want to be able to do anything I like with the argument that 'it's ok by my own personal code'". "What, torture?" "Well, only if they deserve it." The law/chaos axis has always been a lot more difficult to define than the good/evil one. Take revenge - lawful evil or chaotic good? I have taken to regarding it as a personality thing rather than an ethics thing - the chaotic type doesn't make anything more than basic plans and prefers to wing it and answers ethical questions about 'what would you do' with 'well, it depends'.
Back with the questions -
1. No. The orcs were disarmed, but they are going to wake up in a minute or two. Then what? It's not inherently evil to kill a helpless enemy (execution, for example) and the paladin is not a final arbiter on what is good and what is evil. The paladin, being lawful, may take exception to an ally disobeying his instruction of course. (I really hate PCs killing helpless foes mind, and might throw a tantrum about it). (Watch "The Gamers 2" for a great 'paladin in the party' situation).
2. Players get to decide what is ok action within their own group, the GM can arbite on what is/isn't alignment acceptable. I think I would have had the third orc wake up while the characters were arguing and then do whatever orcs do under those circumstances (attack the party and prove the CG fighter right? flee, sounding the alarm (ditto)? fall to knees and beg for mercy, converting to lawfulgoodness (proving the paladin right?)). I'd let the players handle what to do about a character conflict, and if I felt that the slaughter of the helpless orcs was evil I'd make it clear to the PC (as you seem to have done) that this was the case, suggesting that they've chosen the wrong alignment for their character in this game with this gm.
3. See 1. I actually think that killing helpless foes is much more likely to be against CG than against LG. LG doesn't (in my view) do "it depends". It may believe in redemption, but the concept of 'fair play' I think is inherently chaotic good. The LG will say "well, you shouldn't have brought a knife to a gun fight then, should you?" After all, if you've got an AC of 24 and they have an attack bonus of +2, they might as well be sleeping - is the Paladin going to strip down to his skivvies? No. But a CG fighter might just do so. (Chaotic Stupid). If the orcs had been rendered permanently harmless by the wizard, I think it would have been evil to kill them purely out of malice, but temporarily harmless is another matter.
But then, I'm a bitter old hag who happily finished off sleeping enemies for twenty years, and for the last ten has tried to avoid doing so. Does that mean my alignment has shifted?
So, just to clarify, you insist that all characters be Lawful at your table? Because all a Chaotic character that follows the "groupthink" is, is Lawful.Suppose PCs A, B, and C all agree not to defecate on the doorstep of the church of Pelor. If D disagrees and uses the cathedral as a chamberpot, that doesn't make him chaotic, that makes him a jerk and an idiot.
Chaotic characters can agree on an issue and lawful characters can disagree on the same issue.
And if all PC D did, from beginning to end, was conform to what PCs A, B, and C agreed on, they would be Lawful.
PC D has (voluntarily) given up their own personal freedoms to follow the mandates of others. That is not Chaotic at all.
If you choose to take that as meaning "PC D has to defecate on the doorstep of the church of Pelor," then you are the one being a jerk and an idiot.
I've always seen the killing of the helpless as a definite "non-good" act.
If the fighter had waited for them to wake and gave them a choice, "Death or complete Surrender" I wouldn't bat an eye at those that he kills that choose death -- as a Chaotic type (for me "freedom and personal choice type") he would have given them the power to decide for themselves. I also wouldn't hold it against him on the Good end either as I would find that fairly neutral to start with: akin to when Malcolm Reynolds pushes the guy into the engine of his ship.
I would say the paladin and the rest of the party was on the "right" of good here -- the killing of helpless foes that are not a threat and didn't choose death is a bad thing.
I don't care what others have done to you, or what you have witnessed others doing -- Your actions are yours.
The bad behavior of others doesn't excuse my bad behavior. To put it in modern terms it's like the guy that abuses children blaming it on his father abusing him -- it just doesn't wash, especially if he has learned better.
As to the not fighting? Meh that's his choice -- and again one I find fairly neutral -- He's a PC as others said, just as the others players can kick the character, he doesn't have to save them (or help them) just because they are PC too. It goes both ways.
So from the community I ask:1. Do you think we ruled this situation correctly?
Probably. Though I think the fighter was acting tacticaly and practicle.
2. Would you have done it differently?
Yes...who died and made the paladin the ruler? Just because the paladin says don't do something....does not make everybody has to bend knee to him. I was not there so I can't really judge it put just to put a different spin on it...color spray lasts what a minute at most? There were live opponents left on the field and combat was still happening. And evidently reinforcements were coming. I as a Paladin would have just coup de grace them as disarming then becomes meaningless when suddenly you are still fighting.
Not saying this is neccessarily right in the above situration...but just a different take on it.
3. If there was nothing wrong with the Fighters action and CG alignment please explain your standing.
As I said above...it seemed to me the situration was to use a momentary disabling effect to kill the enemy in face of more bad guys coming. Also I saw the wizard and the paladin coming to a consus...not the group.
Though the fighter sitting with his arm folded...is a problem...but than again I find your ruling a little arbitary.
Two house rules I have:
1. No player on player combat. Ever.
2. If your PC willingly changes his alignment (from anything to anything) he immediately becomes an NPC. Roll up a new PC.
The 2nd house rule is a bit much....as I have serveral characters who have changed alignments as part of growth and such. But hey is you need a heavy sledge hammer to keep your player in line more power to you.
|
|
My plan was never to move the fighters alignment to evil as I felt as CG he was perfectly justified in his actions. Just the repeated offense against the party being more along the lines of going Neutral and not Evil.
The issue was when it was brought up by the paladin and the rest of the party to not continue the act. I saw him as going away from the 'good' descriptor of his alignment. I see the 'good' part of his alignment as being: Willing and wanting to work with fellow party members for the betterment of all.
So that was the question I had, or opinions I was asking for and see several. Thank you all for your input.
So to the basic aspect of this in the party environment was in accordance with the 'Good' descriptor of his alignment?
It is also interesting to see some say the act, with the monster in question, not being against the Paladins code to do the same act. This I personnally thought would be against the paladins code. But again that is my opinion which is also shared by others. It is interesting to see both sides on that and with the 'theories' of justifing it.
The issue is about lawful good martial characters slaughtering helpless creatures who have been incapacitated.They are not incapacitated the wizard did not cast polymorph any object it is freaking color spray. The orcs will come to.
Your interpretation makes it so that every paladin in your game must stop attacking whenever the caster lands a SoS on the enemy.
Demon got hit with blind omg he is incapacitated, a paladin in your game cannot attack the incapacitated demon or risk losing his powers because he just violated his code.
A raging barbarian that is known to eat baby fetuses, gets hit with grease, are you going to tell your paladin player that by his moral code he cannot attack him until he stands up?
"Incapacitated" is not a permanent condition. If the target is lying on the floor and unable to react, that is "incapacitated."
A demon is a different thing than an orc. First of all, you can't "kill" a demon, all you can do is force its return back to its plane when you kill their prime material plane host body. Plus demons are by definition evil beings and cannot be redeemed. CdGing a demon is not comparable to CDGing an orc.
If a target is incapacitated and is not some sort of extra-planar being or some mind-controlling thing, then it can be restrained before it is no longer incapacitated and given the choice to surrender or die honorably. If the being in question is one that is an immediate and deadly threat immediately upon awakening due to mental attacks, spells or spell-like abilities or other abilities that cannot be restrained, then CdGing them would be more defensible in these conditions.
The fighter killing the orcs and disagreeing with the paladin could certainly be called a PC disagreement, brought on by roleplaying, etc, etc.
Standing there with crossed arms when the next attack came? That deffinitely falls into the disruptive player category. At that point, it's good bye fighter time.
So from the community I ask:
1. Do you think we ruled this situation correctly?
2. Would you have done it differently?
3. If there was nothing wrong with the Fighters action and CG alignment please explain your standing.
1) Yes. In some situations killing defeated enemies can be justified... and can be CG. However undermining the party who is ALSO all CG means there's an issue here.
2) Nope... Seems like it worked out just fine as you did it...
3) Let's just take the 'killing unconcious characters' out of the equation.
The party wanted to take prisoners. The fighter killed their prisoners. Taking prisoners may or may not have been about mercy or 'good'... they may have wanted to interrogate them. Get the layout of the rest of the dungeon... find out how many more orcs there were on patrol... who was in CHARGE...
When the whole party says "Let's talk to this one!!" And the fighter walks up and kills him. Then proceeds to repeat that action, then theres an issue. The character/player is flat out being a jerk and i could see arguments at the table about it.
The fact that the characters jumped on him and it didn't seem to spill over to Real world arguments means it all worked out fine :)
CG is not insane. Nor is it a 'psychopath'. CG means he wants to help as many people as possible. Not that he leaves no survivors in his bloody wake. NOR does it mean that he LIKES killing people/things. If he HAS to, he will... But it doesn't mean that he revels in blood.
After the orcs wake up and the group gets all the info they can out of them... Then I could see a whole new debate on what to do with them... but your group never got that far :)
Standing in the back of a room while enemies kill your friends... THAT is certainly not chaotic either.. That's at LEAST neutral.
Also, it's stupid. If your going ot invade a fortress and not help with the fighting because of a disagreement... then your only ensuring your own death too...
Which it sounds like he did. :)
Considering that at most color spray incapacitates the targets for 2d4 rounds (12-48 seconds), the orcs were hardly taken out of the fight. I think there is a big difference from finishing off a creature at -1 HP, vs finishing off an unconscious creature out for less than a minute (and possibly 12 seconds).
This isn't correct:
2 HD or less: The creature is unconscious, blinded, and stunned for 2d4 rounds, then blinded and stunned for 1d4 rounds, and then stunned for 1 round. (Only living creatures are knocked unconscious.)
So they are unconscious for 2d4 rounds, blinded for 3d4 rounds and stunned for the same 3d4 +1 rounds.
So you have on average 5 rounds of unconsciousness, 3 more rounds of being blinded and stunned for the final round.
Giving you about a minute to truss them up really good.
So, just to clarify, you insist that all characters be Lawful at your table? Because all all a Chaotic character that follows the "groupthink" is, is Lawful.
Not even almost, but nice try.
Take the example of a thieves' guild. That's a group of people who have united to work together to act non-lawfully. They - like all good organized crime - will no doubt have their own internal rules. Things like "the first rule of Fight Club is... don't talk about Fight Club." You don't rat out your fellows. You split the take when a job is complete precisely the way it was agreed to. You don't get jiggy with the guildmaster's daughter or wife. Unless (s)he tells you to.
When you step outside of the rules of your local peer group, you're no just Chaotic... you're effectively impossible to work with. That doesn't work in an adventuring party.
Tweaking the paladin's nose isn't Chaotic. You don't have to agree to the paladin's terms... you're free to argue as much as you like. It's when you agree to abide by your party's general consensus and then break it that you become Sociopath-Good.
There's a huge difference between Chaotic and Sociopath. I allow my players to play all the Chaotic they want, but no Sociopath. Or Evil. We don't do that either.
How many orcs do you suppose you could tie up in 1 minute - 1? Maybe less than one.
Me personally? Zero, because they don;t exist in real life. I also am not overly trained in the use of ropes. I imagine a competition cowboy could hogtie quite a few cattle in a minute, even when they aren't stunned. So I imagine, IF ORCS were real, and they were stunned, the answer would still depend on how good with a rope I was.
So I guess I would judge it depends on your ranks in the appropriate skill.
|
|
Another vote for "chaos isn't hte issue, it's the player" here.
Yeah I think all paladin players need to read more history. What was considered lawful good, is very different from what we would consider lawful good. Paladins in history killed alot of heathens, so in the Golarion setting anyone not believing in an allied god is fair game.
Killing heathens was lawful and good, in this case the orcs certainly would be heathens on top of all the bad stuff they normally do.
wat
Good and evil in the game have almost always been defined by modern standards, not by the myopic standards of medieval times, where stuff like the annihilation of the Cathar(who were hardly a threat to anyone) was considered a good and right thing. As written, and in most groups, you can't get away with with that sort of moral dissonance and still be tagged as "good".
Otherwise, that Burner from the recent webfiction about the Mendevian crusade could be considered good. No thanks.
Just the repeated offense against the party being more along the lines of going Neutral and not Evil.
To me, this situation's lack of teamwork is not about good/evil but lack of established characterization for the PCs.
Is the fighter being a jerk to annoy the paladin? Does his backstory include his family or town suffering from Chaotic Evil monsters raping and pillaging, so any orc useless as an informant should be killed asap? Or is he merely violent and morally simplistic: irredeemably evil foes are good for axe practice?
Similarly, is the paladin being a high-and-mighty jerk to annoy the fighter? Does his backstory provide a motivation for capturing instead of killing irredeemably evil foes? Is he a pacifist who will always protest killing except in immediate self-defense?
I expect that if the GM can ask the players to make the character differences more clear then peace will come within the player differences.
Your game is your game but let me just say...
OK, I'm going off topic first.
I've banned Chaotic Good from my table because it almost inevitably actually means "I want to be good, but I also want to be able to do anything I like with the argument that 'it's ok by my own personal code'".
How very, very lawful of you.
Something else bothers me about the scenario....the discussion on rather to kill the orcs was completely out of game. If I was the fighter I would have ignored it too. Sorry but something like this should have been RPed out.
Heck the paladin's response to the fighter killing the orc seemed to be out of game also.
I am a stickler for in game and out of game stuff like this.
Anyway we can actualy get the fighter's side of this?
|
|
Where do you get that? The novels D&D is based on definitely did not base morality on a modern basis. Why bother roleplaying if you don't try and get yourself into the shoes of people of a different time?
I don't recall any of the novels featuring heroes that went "kill the non-believers". Likewise, I can't see that carrying over into Golarion or any of the other traditional D&D settings with their traditional pantheons. I just don't see Iomedaeans getting a pass from their goddess if they decide wiping out a village of Calistrians or whatever. The same way a Pure Legion member can't be all "kill the religious" and still be good-aligned. Or a Pharasman going "kill the atheists". Or a dwarf going "kill all goblins, down to the last child."
They can do those actions and possibly be accepted by their society, but they've not exactly good.
Is for stepping into another mindset, I've no problem with that. I do it all the time in our games, and values dissonance is actually a fun thing to explore so long as everyone at the table is comfortable with it. My only issue is with saying something is good simply because it would be accepted in darker times in our history.
If someone wants to play that way, fine, but it grates when it gets pushed as the correct way to play the game even as it doesn't mesh with the very descriptions of good and evil in the book itself.
You can do whatever you want in your game, but in my game if a paladin killed evil creatures it would be fine. As long as he doesn't indulge in it and do it as a part of his duty it will be fine.
To bind a class with modern morality makes a class unplayable in a medieval setting. It is the fact that so many groups force modern morality that perpetrates the lawful stupid image of the paladin.
Funny thing is, most of my bad expreiences with Lawful Stupid PCs have stemmed form them taking a medieval or fantasy-setting mindset to extremes.
Your game is your game but let me just say...
SNIP
How very, very lawful of you.
Indeed. I am a complete autocrat at my table. Rule One is "The ref is always right and can change any ruling for any reason, including personal malice."
But come on - you MUST have run across players using "but I'm chaotic" as an excuse for not being good.
|
|
Your game is your game but let me just say...
SNIP
How very, very lawful of you.
Indeed. I am a complete autocrat at my table. Rule One is "The ref is always right and can change any ruling for any reason, including personal malice."
But come on - you MUST have run across players using "but I'm chaotic" as an excuse for not being good.
I've run into that issue about equally divvied between CG and LG, and very rarely at that. It's Chaotic Neutral that has the rep for being the "lololol I'm just playing my character" alignment in most quarters. (haven't banned that either, though I make a point about CN not meaning NE whenever I'm heading the table)
Haven't banned any of them, and have played all three without being an ass to the party.
Killing the Orcs would have been consistent both with Good alignment and with the Paladin's Code of Conduct; this was a battle, not a duel, and the Paladin was under no obligation to spare them. However, having done so as a personal decision, he is also perfectly justified in being offended by someone else killing them. The other characters in the party were free to choose either side as they saw fit, and they chose the Paladin's merciful approach.
Nobody did anything wrong in that fight. They could have argued about it afterwards, and they may or may not have been able to continue working together afterwards, but noone broke alignment or character.
Refusing to help them in the next battle as an act of spite is not Good. And the other PCs would certainly be well within their rights to kick him out of their party and refuse to work with him further, effectively forcing the player to make a new character. Anyone but the Paladin would have gotten away with killing him on the spot-- and the Paladin would have been justified in demanding a duel.