You have to also keep in mind the big picture here.
What does the Paladin have to gain by charging in there for his friends?
Nothing.
He'll die. They'll still die.
He can however *go to get help*. This isn't abandoning people, it isn't running away.. its using the grey matter in his head instead of letting the CE Red Dragon laugh as it gets scrambled in the cloud.
In short, we need more information. What did the Paladin do after he left? Did he go to town and get more folks? Maybe buy some potions or wands or whatever, (and maybe a wizard and another cleric perhaps)?
Upon realizing you have absolutely *no chance* of doing anything but adding to the body count in the room, the only smart and GOOD thing he can do is leave for reinforcements. There's a reason why Paladin run around in adventuring groups. They are smart enough to realize that they can't tackle the evil of the world alone.
"gee, go into the confusion gas (like the Dragon said)(and die) or go and get help".
Help wins, even for Paladin.
-S
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remember the paladin left behind not just an 8 year old but another level 12 cleric. One that is not a new character to the party.
Can we drop the nonsense about 'Aaaaaww, the poor, liddle, ickle-wickle, baby-boo-boo!'.
He's not an 8-year-old kid, he's a level 12 PC, masquerading in the form of a child.
The default game is built on the assumption that every player has created a PC who is a mature adult, of sound mind and body, and thus, able to speak in its own counsel and responsible for its own actions.
I've played and run games where all the PCs are kids; as flashbacks, and/or explaining how they chose their first class level. I've run games where they are all wizard apprentices with nothing but cantrips, or they're all level 0 prisoners who have to escape from slavers, using improvised equipment. I've run wierder stuff than that, where all the PCs were a half-inch tall, fighting scaled-up versions of common household pests, or were self-aware computer programs in a virtual world.
None of that changes anything, because in every case, the whole group had bought in.
The common fact, no matter how strange the setting, is that all the PCs start on a level playing field. One person does not get to choose to be heir to the throne, or the Chosen One, with the others his minions.
One person does not get to be Last Son Of Krypton, while the others play Rorschach and Night Owl. Either everyone is playing 'street-level' heroes, or everyone is playing Cosmic Heroes.
Similarly, you don't get to just declare yourself Princess Frou-Frou Tinkerbell Sparkly Snowflake; unless everyone is playing Magical Mary-Sue Tea Party, and is able to come up with an equally pompous (and equally worthless) title.
You want to play an 8-year old? Purely for the roleplaying?
Go for it.
You're a level 1 Commoner, with 5 point-buy. That should represent good stats for a pre-teen.
What's that? That not good enough?
You want the same point-buy as everybody else?
You want the stats of a fully-grown adult?
You want to pick a class, just like someone who's been through adolescence, had some life experience?
In other words, you had zero intention of ever playing an 8-year old kid.
What you actually had, was a transparent attempt to make your PC the centre of attention by default.
Doesn't the eidolon get banished immediately once the summoner falls unconscious? Not really relevant to the whole paladin thing, but worth mentioning at least
|
There is a feat that can delay that.
Or he could have used another summon, such as the spell, or his SLA.
Doesn't the eidolon get banished immediately once the summoner falls unconscious? Not really relevant to the whole paladin thing, but worth mentioning at least
Yes it does, and actually in a way it is relevant because the events that transpired could be completely different if the character hadn't been taken to the cleric by the eidolon.
But on the OP's main question I agree with the many people saying there is insufficient data to come to a valid opinion. With only once side and that side being one that seems to have suffered in this situation the data we are given is one sided and biased. If the paladin were to post on this thread giving his side, or even another 3rd member of the party were to recount the situation then a valid opinion may be formed but as it stands this entire thread comes off as someone crying because they didn't like the events that transpired.
I also agree with Snorter in that even tho the character is claimed to be an 8 year old child, it possesses class levels and stats equal to that of an adult. So the character would have to be insanely, and I mean insanely, gifted child who was simply born with and able to utilize his summoner abilities from birth.
~Aod43254
He's not an 8-year-old kid, he's a level 12 PC, masquerading in the form of a child.
So he's a halfling with the Childlike feat.
The OP, hasn't responded in quite a while, so it's quite possible that he decided he wasn't getting the response he wanted or even that his plan to troll the thread has succeeded.
@Gignere: There's an assumption being made that the Pally and Cleric were buddy-buddy from lvl0 onwards. Nothing was mentioned on whether they were or not, so I'd not make too many assumptions about it.
Furthermore, as written, the OP was definitively trying to make Pally sound worse than what might have actually have happened.
I will however disagree on the whole: Deity doesn't matter, paladin code is paladin code. Each religion has a distinct view of the world, and each deity has particular interests in its own portfolio, so the Paladins of one deity will undoubtedly have a different code than Paladins of another.
An example can be seen in the very much distinct Paladin Codes written out in Faiths of Purity. (Infact, some of the codes would make posters cry murder)
My new character is a 8 year old boy who happens to be a summoner. We are a lvl 12 party.
Im not evil or unlawful in any way in the paladins eyes.
I'm seeing flags all over here. 8 years old and a 12th level arcanist??
And that qualifier. let me ask you point out... Is the character evil?
In one campaign, my character is a 15 year old Sorcerer of 14th level. What are you, an agist? :-P
In one campaign, my character is a 15 year old Sorcerer of 14th level. What are you, an agist? :-P
Yeah... got a problem with that?
Whanna fight about it? :P
But on a more serious note, Half-Orc base age is 14.
The biggest problem with the whole scenario I see (other than a 12th level 8-year-old) is that the Red Dragon, an iconic CE creature, came out and said basically 'put that candle out for me'. A Paladin, trained to fight Evil Dragons (getting godawful bonuses on Smite seems to make them the Dragon Slayers ala St. George) would do nothing that an evil dragon asked him to, unless doing so was the only way to save other innocents. I agree that the Paladin seemed to have a good reason to leave (get away from the Confusion cloud and the evil dragon). And I also agree we need to hear what happened afterward, or at least hear from a different perspective.
Yeah, I'm kind of with the others. This scenario doesn't make sense.
1) the Eiodolon should have disappeared when the summoner was dropped..
2)The paladin had the best saves... he's also the biggest threat.
3)A Red dragon told them what to do... and the Paladin didn't leap at the suggestion?? How DARE he... O.o
But mostly, we need more information. What was causing the crazy? was it just blowing out a candle? Did it need magic to solve? Did the Paladin KNOW that??
If "I" was playing a paladin, and had the chance to go crazy and kill my allies unless a magic effect is dispelled.... I'm staying out of the room TOO. Nor would I take the chance that 'anyone' can get rid of it... when I have two casters in the party. There were no more enemies to smite... I'm backing off while the magic people do their thing.
If the Paladin just threw up his hands and said 'They're dead... time to find a new party!" then yeah,it's probably a fall.
If he's standing right out in safety ready to help when HIS skills will be of use, No chance.
@Snorter
Thank you very much for taking the time to explain why the 8 year old arguement doesn't hold a candle (pun intented) to this situation.
@Jeranimus Rex
Yes the oaths i was reffering to were the oaths in the faiths of purity, also i agree that some oaths would make some poeple here cry (i am thinking the scatter their families part of torag's paladin oath).
|
Remember the paladin left behind not just an 8 year old but another level 12 cleric. One that is not a new character to the party.Can we drop the nonsense about 'Aaaaaww, the poor, liddle, ickle-wickle, baby-boo-boo!'.
He's not an 8-year-old kid, he's a level 12 PC, masquerading in the form of a child.
The default game is built on the assumption that every player has created a PC who is a mature adult, of sound mind and body, and thus, able to speak in its own counsel and responsible for its own actions.
I've played and run games where all the PCs are kids; as flashbacks, and/or explaining how they chose their first class level. I've run games where they are all wizard apprentices with nothing but cantrips, or they're all level 0 prisoners who have to escape from slavers, using improvised equipment. I've run wierder stuff than that, where all the PCs were a half-inch tall, fighting scaled-up versions of common household pests, or were self-aware computer programs in a virtual world.
None of that changes anything, because in every case, the whole group had bought in.
The common fact, no matter how strange the setting, is that all the PCs start on a level playing field. One person does not get to choose to be heir to the throne, or the Chosen One, with the others his minions.One person does not get to be Last Son Of Krypton, while the others play Rorschach and Night Owl. Either everyone is playing 'street-level' heroes, or everyone is playing Cosmic Heroes.
Similarly, you don't get to just declare yourself Princess Frou-Frou Tinkerbell Sparkly Snowflake; unless everyone is playing Magical Mary-Sue Tea Party, and is able to come up with an equally pompous (and equally worthless) title.
You want to play an 8-year old? Purely for the roleplaying?
Go for it.
You're a level 1 Commoner, with 5 point-buy. That should represent good stats for a pre-teen.
What's that? That not good enough?
You want the same point-buy as everybody else?
You want the stats of a...
I love the times when someone can so clearly express important points.
|
|
Meh, paladin's point of view.
Newly met eight-year-old child with some sort of otherworldly creature as a minion, and wielding magical powers far greater than any child should wield.
Might not ping evil, but even the paladin knows there are ways around detect evil.
The unworldly child gets knocked out. The paladin understands the effect of the confusion gas. He leaves because if he heals the child, the cleric could knock him right back out. If he doesn't, the child could attack him along with the cleric.
If HE fails a save, he could probably drop the cleric, and his healing is limited and might have been running low.
If he leaves, the cleric will go back and forth between him and the smoke until the cleric makes enough saves to put the smoke out (since the cleric will only attack conscious creatures). And once the smoke is out, the cleric can heal or rez the summoner as needed.
Just because a character hasn't done something evil doesn't mean the paladin assumes that he's good. ESPECIALLY when that character is an eight year old who commands something reminiscent of demonic corruption, and wields powerful magicks far, far, FAR beyond his years.
Kid is pretty lucky the Paladin didn't just kill him and then nab an atonement spell from the cleric if it turned out that he was wrong.
8 year old in the middle of a freaking dungeon *grumble, grumble* wielding demonic powers *grumble, grumble* didn't even take the trash out first *grumble, grumble*
@Magicdealer
You forgot the part about the red dragon.
None of that changes anything, because in every case, the whole group had bought in.
The common fact, no matter how strange the setting, is that all the PCs start on a level playing field. One person does not get to choose to be heir to the throne, or the Chosen One, with the others his minions.One person does not get to be Last Son Of Krypton, while the others play Rorschach and Night Owl. Either everyone is playing 'street-level' heroes, or everyone is playing Cosmic Heroes.
You want the same point-buy as everybody else?
I agree with just about everything there... except this.
I started my RPing days with the TSR Marvel super heroes game. In that system there was no 'balance' built in. You randomly rolled and different characters were different powered.
That system was very much designed that you could have Collossus standing next to gambit or Thor fighting next to wasp...
It led to problems, and wasn't a great system... but they ARE out there ;)
Eh, pally wouldn't trust anything the red dragon said either way. No reason to assume it's not smart enough to try reverse psychology :p
I know, i just said that because you didn't mention the red dragon in your previous post.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The OP is trying to get a mechanical advantage from his choice to be an 8 year old; he is making the argument that the paladin should fall and lose most of his mechanical advantages for leaving the field. If his character were a grizzled man with a beard I think many people would apply the "he knew the risks" rule and call it a day.
Snorter's point is that by playing the 8 year old the OP is trying to get special benefits, trying to be the special character, to be more special and more important than the other characters. This causes problems. Heck, look at the other poster who uses 12 year old girls to mess with paladins. As a DM I would never allow it. You can play the youngest age for your class but that is it.
The other point he made is that playing children is not wrong in and of itself as long as everyone is on a level field. i.e. they all play children.
That "8 year old kid" who is a 12th level character does not get to be more helpless when unconscious than they 30 year old 12th level fighter who is also unconscious. They are equally helpless. But as soon as they wake up they are also both very capable.
4. helping out party members is large part of being a paladin. Leaving a party member to bleed out while next to a confused ally seems like a conscious act of breaking his paladins oath.
First of all the paladin had a solid reason for doing so only a couple of gods have a problem with leaving comrades/companions even when you have a very good reason, so unless the paladin is a paladin of one of those two gods then what you said doesn't apply.
|
|
The OP is trying to get a mechanical advantage from his choice to be an 8 year old; he is making the argument that the paladin should fall and lose most of his mechanical advantages for leaving the field. If his character were a grizzled man with a beard I think many people would apply the "he knew the risks" rule and call it a day.
how is the paladin falling a mechanical advantage for his character?
Also, you make it sound like he picked an 8 yr old with the purpose of using it to mess with the paladin. You guys are assuming way too much about the op. It is a touch ridiculous. If you are so hesitant to make a judgment about the paladin, when you clearly do not have all the info, you should be consistent and be hesitant to make a judgment about the op's purpose for making his character and his purpose for making the thread.
the idea that an 8 yr old should be protected is a role playing thing. And has to do with whether society considers protecting children to be worthwhile. Even if a kid is powerful, once he is dying and helpless, how is he any different from any other dying and helpless kid? Note that if the paladin abandons other party members because he doesn't want to take a risk, that can also be considered a bad thing to do.
It is a mechanical advantage because it causes a mechanical effect (loss of paladin powers) that would not otherwise occur. People are all ooooo poor little kid and if he was an adult character that would not occur. To reiterate: if he was an adult character he would not have the ability to cause this mechanical effect. Since he does have this ability due to his youth then it is a mechanical advantage over other characters that are made normally.
Also, you seem to have specifically misread my post. I did not say he was an 8 year old so he could mess with the paladin. I repeated Snorters valid point that he was an 8 year old so he could be special, more important than the other characters. By trying to be more special he causes problems as the other characters and by extension their players are less special.
@thepuregamer
And he was helping them, he went with them didn't he? he fought by their side didn't he? he even left the room because that's what he thought was the best way to help them.
I won't even go into the red dragon part.
The thing is though that he left his companion/comrades and only two gods have a problem with that, if all of the gods have a serious* problem with then it wouldn't have been mentioned in those two gods oaths.
*by serious i mean the paladin losing it's powers
|
|
how is the ability to weaken your own party an advantage? Note that I am of the opinion that if his character wasn't a kid, that the paladin would still be in trouble for abandoning dying party members. The kid is not that much more special than a regular party member. Unless the paladin is actually helping them by leaving the room, he is breaking his code.
I would like to refute you with a quote from an earlier post of yours:
But if the op wants to roleplay a kid then I do not see the big deal. His being a kid should remain important to party decisions though it should be somewhat mitigated most of the time because as a lvl 12 character, this kid is apparently very capable. But once the kid is knocked unconscious, it is irrelevant whether he is lvl 1 or lvl 12. He is a helpless kid who is dying. Leaving the kid to bleed out is definitely an evil act. But then again if we apply actual ethics to dnd, there isn't going to be too many good parties in it.
It is a mechanical advantage in that it causes a mechanical effect that he could not normally cause. So to extend the idea, if the paladin knows that the 8 year old character has to be specially protected and cannot be abandoned then he must change his behavior or lose his paladin powers. The 8 year old character has essentially gained a paladin bodyguard.
This goes to the specialness argument Snorter and I made before, by being 8 years old he is now somehow more special in game. It is unfair to other players to allow that to occur.
If the paladin left the room (and had the intent of returning) so that he isn't forced to kill any of you then he did good.
This. See, some questions are not a matter of alignment, but of Intelligence or Wisdom. Seeing the effects of the smoke, the paladin could very well know that, should he fall under them, the situation could become even worse.
It may be great courage to risk something stupid to help somebody, but it's neither wise nor smart, and if it risks further evil (which this situation did), it could very well behoove the paladin to go seek help before he makes the situation worse (and really DOES lose his paladinhood).
Here's my question, though: what was the GM thinking throwing in an effect that clearly nobody in the entire party had any chance of saving against?
|
|
hey, fighting by their side is great. but they were apparently in less danger during the fight than they are after the fight. If he helps for alittle while, it doesn't change the fact that he abandons them later. his leaving may not hurt them, but it clearly doesn't help them.
Paladins have heavy requirements. One of those is helping those in need. Their need is greatest when he leaves in this example. Leaving them alone, bleeding to death, under a mind effecting spell, with a red dragon.
If he was afraid of hurting them. He could drop his weapon and walk over to the summoner and drag him out of the smoke and then heal him. Then even if he failed a save, he could at best deal nonlethal damage.
Technically, the 8 yr old kid is less of a role playing burden on the party. He is not the most special character. The most special character with the most role playing hang ups, is the paladin. He has a mechanical advantage over the rest of the party, because his mere presence forces them to act in a certain manner or the party encounters strife. The person playing the 8 yr old kid is not the one who chose the special character. The guy who picked a paladin, picked a character who very often has to act like a bodyguard.
We could get into a general paladin role playing discussion but I will stay away from that tar baby. However, a paladin is RAW, an 8 year old 12th level summoner is not.
I would like to address one rule point. You can kill with non-lethal damage:
If a creature's nonlethal damage is equal to his total maximum hit points (not his current hit points), all further nonlethal damage is treated as lethal damage. This does not apply to creatures with regeneration. Such creatures simply accrue additional nonlethal damage, increasing the amount of time they remain unconscious.
The paladin had limited options here. I think he made a good call. It is as if he was set up with for a fall no matter what his final choice was.
Here's my question, though: what was the GM thinking throwing in an effect that clearly nobody in the entire party had any chance of saving against?
iirc the paladin's player said that he can save on a 4+, logically that means that the summoner saves on about 8-9+ and the cleric on a 4+.
iirc the paladin's player said that he can save on a 4+, logically that means that the summoner saves on about 8-9+ and the cleric on a 4+.
Here's my question, though: what was the GM thinking throwing in an effect that clearly nobody in the entire party had any chance of saving against?
That isn't necessarily true, the paladin would get to add his charisma bonus (if any) to all of his saving throws. But I'd say its doubtful that the bonus was so high that his saves dwarfed the others.
~Aod43254
iirc the paladin's player said that he can save on a 4+, logically that means that the summoner saves on about 8-9+ and the cleric on a 4+.
Here's my question, though: what was the GM thinking throwing in an effect that clearly nobody in the entire party had any chance of saving against?That isn't necessarily true, the paladin would get to add his charisma bonus (if any) to all of his saving throws. But I'd say its doubtful that the bonus was so high that his saves dwarfed the others.
~Aod43254
I assumed that his CHA modifier at that level would be somewhere of +4/+5 and his WIS modifier would be at +0, actually the cleric most probably would have a better chance than the paladin, most probably save on 3+.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP:
The paladin player probably doesn't give a rip about his character or your character. He was probably fed up with the BS of having to deal with someone who wants to play an 8 YO. Right now, he is emailing your DM about quitting the game or having you removed from it.
Now it could just be me, and well... I like Snorter's commentary, but finding a kid in a dungeon does not to me signal that this character is necessarily a party member.
I've had characters picked up in similar situations before. I've never once just assumed that I was part of the party just because they found me. I have always fought to prove myself useful, and deserving of a spot in party. I do not rely on the kindness of a good aligned group to just allow me to keep traveling with them.
|
|
how is the paladin falling a mechanical advantage for his character?
It's an advantage, in that it skews the social dynamic of the group, by elevating his PC above all others.
He believes his PC has to be given priority in healing, in buffing, in being carried to safety, in having people hurl themselves in the way of incoming threats, simply because he wrote an '8' in one of the boxes on his character sheet.He believes this advantage should be backed up with the force of the GM, in the form of forcing the loss of powers (in the case of divine PCs). If the the player refusing to kowtow were playing an agnostic PC, he would likely be petitioning for loss of xp and shares of the treasure.
That blackmail (if backed up by a sympathetic GM) forces the other players to either leave the game, or alter their actions, to his benefit.
If he has 4-5 PCs acting in his interests every moment, then he has gained a mechanical advantage.
He gets 5 standard actions per turn, to achieve his goals. They get none, unless he graciously releases the leash, held by his velvet glove, cast in iron.
He now has a full BAB.
He has the skills of a rogue.
He has access to the full wizard and cleric spell lists.
He has 5 parcels of ablative hit points.
Also, you make it sound like he picked an 8 yr old with the purpose of using it to mess with the paladin.
Not really.
The original poster managed to make it sound that way, all by himself, in his initial post.the idea that an 8 yr old should be protected is a role playing thing. And has to do with whether society considers protecting children to be worthwhile.
And....there you go. Buying into his scheme. Proving my point.
Even if a kid is powerful, once he is dying and helpless, how is he any different from any other dying and helpless kid?
How many normal kids have a full stat array, 12 Hit Dice, BAB +9, good base saves of +8?
Personally, I think the best possible action for the paladin would be to drag the two characters out of there asap - he's probably pretty strong, so with a run action he could carry them out in about a round.
Now, this would be the closest to iconic behavior. However, the palading isn't an alignment bot, but (at the end of the day) a human being that might not be very smart, wise, can make mistakes, or perhaps the player knows something about the situation we don't.
IMO the situation as described would be a "huh?" moment around the table, but not an immediate fall. The paladin's deity would probably know his motivations, and act accordingly. Perhaps the paladin wanted to get out, get a mouthful of fresh air, tie a rag around his mouth and rush back in to drag the two to safety with a nice circumstance bonus to his save.
|
|
Firstly, using the excuse that 'he has high saves' therefore he should do it is not a good justification.
Is the Paladin familiar with what the gas is? Does he know its exact qualities and how it works? Has he managed a spellcraft check that lets him know his awesome saves means he only needs 4 or more? No? Then using metagaming as a reason for him to be stupid is not a good justification for him going back in. (Also, the Cleric failed his saves enough times and his should be at least the same as the Paladin's)
Secondly, there is a big evil dragon telling them to get rid of the gas.
'Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.'
Teammates are doing what the EVIL red dragon wants, helping them is not required according to the code.
Those two reasons are good enough to not be running into the gas. In addition to this is the unknown - was the Paladin leaving to lure the Cleric out after him and away from the gas?
Was the Paladin going to get help? He certainly can't take on a dragon alone and by attempting to drag the Cleric and boy away he may have suffered the same consequences and eitehr killed a teammate or been left helpless like the rest for the dragon to do what it will.
As for the OP playing an 8 year old boy, aside from being insane due to being 12th lvl, I don't consider it a huge issue for one simple reason - he is not a party member, he was simply rescued, he will NEVER be a party member, it is irresponsible of a Paladin to go adventuring with a little kid. The boy would be left at the nearest good town. So, if the player wanted to be a regular at the table he will need to make a new char - purely for roleplay reasons of course, no group of adventurers would take an 8 year old with them, this is not some cheesy Hollywood movie.
|
Social norms need to be part of the holistic guide for a GM to determine what is lawful good and what is not. I think nearly all society leaving party members, literally your soldier squad behind, is not considered an honorable event.
Eh, not really. It's understandable when the situation is FUBAR, though not praised. That's why we have the Medal of Honor, for those people who went back into the FUBAR situation and brought their buddies back out.
I mean if the codes don't ban necrophilia, a paladin can partake of that forbidden act and not fall in your game?
Man, that means my pally's been doing it all wrong. No wonder the cleric of Pharasma refuses to heal me...
Some of you guys are just pathetic. I mean really?
First of all, if Im a seasoned adventurer that has seen tons of really messed up stuff in my 15 levels, Im extremely picky about who I put my life at risk with. Some 8 year old punk comes up, Im telling him to go fetch my horse, shine my boots, anything but face demons, dragons and save my life. Basically, Im telling him scram kid before you get hurt. There is no room for negotiations. Part of being a paladin is being absolute in belief and stance.
If the OP remotely played the character like it is supposed to be, he would be a whiney brat incapable of adding to an adult conversation or problem solving on an adult level. Im betting the mortgage that he isnt played this way. Im betting he interacts and speaks like a 21 year old. So I dont see how the OP comes off saying the paladin didnt PR/class play and should be punished when Im sure he clearly did not.
As proven early, the summoners pet should have disappeared once the kid got jacked. Say the DM allows it. So the paladin has to endure an out of control pet. Right there Im like "Buddy, if you cant keep your pet on a leash, then you wont have the pet. If you dont like it, beat it kid".
Fact is that the character should never exist and definately not be in the group. I agree with several posters in saying this character was injected to mess with the paladin.
Skiachtrophilia, if you can equate "scarecrow" with "straw man" ;). Perhaps Achirandrophilia might be a more verbatim translation.
'Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.'Teammates are doing what the EVIL red dragon wants, helping them is not required according to the code.
His teammates weren't doing what the red dragon wants, 1 was bleeding out while under the effects of a mind effecting spell and the other was also under the effects of a mind effecting spell. The fact that he would walk out of the room leaving them there next to a red dragon seems pretty suspect. Doing what the red dragon wants and helping his teammates is not the same thing. Dropping his sword outside the smoke, running over and picking up the 60 pound kid seems like a pretty safe way to get at least the dying person out of the smoke so he can be healed.
5th round A red dragon comes out thanks us for killing its captors and informes us that the smoke is bad that we should put it out. Cleric gets to act normal heals the summoner moves towards the smoke source and ask the paladin to help put out the smoke. Paladin walks back towards the entrance. Summoner has to hit him self.
As you can see the OP did say the cleric and summoner were doing what the red dragon suggested. The next round he states the cleric fails his save and attacks the summoner. So no one was bleeding out until after the paladin began walking towards the door. This could raise the question of how thick is the smoke, is it thick enough that the paladin would be unable to see what was happening with the cleric and summoner after walking away. I mean obviously the dragon was hidden somewhere in the room since it just came out of some unknown location.
~Aod43254