|
Ok I have a multi class paladin cavalier in my game an he has been acting in a manner that I don't consider lawful good. Wanted advice on what sort of penalties etc to impose or am I being too harsh? He is the king in a kingmaker campaign.
In combat the other night they were involved in a siege. He and 2 companions teleported out to destroy some trebuchets. They successfully destroyed the drugs engines but then got bogged down in a fight with the leader of the enemy army ( an anti paladin and his sorcerer companion) the fight was not going well for our good guys so they decided to bug out. He was the first to teleport out. Leaving the others behind. Which almost resulted in one pc dying due to the fact he was left alone. The only thing that saved him was the use of a plot twist card. Should it be expected that a paladin would first ensure everyone else got out first? Isn't that sort of what paladins do? Protect everyone else?
Another instance involved him recovering a family heirloom sword that belonged to a family allied to his. Rather than just giving the sword back and saying" here. This obviously belongs to you" he instead insisted on selling it back to them. Arguing that he needed the money to get better magic items for himself so he could better fight evil.
Am I correct in assuming this is not LG behaviour. Would stripping him of paladin powers be too harsh. Or would you consider this acceptable until he atones.
I just feel he has taken the levels in paladin purely for the feats it provides abs not because he sees himself as a paladin.
|
First have a kindly old lady come up to him to remind him, casually of his duty to others as a keeper of truth and justice.
Then give him phantom pains if he does not proceed as a Paladin.
Finally when he next fails to live up to being a Paladin. Strip him. When his character complains in game let him know in game that he was warned and now to be allowed to have his abilities returned, he must complete a quest while upholding the virtues of a Paladin.
upon completion of said quest, he get a auto get out of free jail card. until he does it again.
In the second paragraph, it's can be debated. Sure, it was bad to leave his allies, but there's a point to where you have to worry about your safety. If he's king, I think if their king falls, that's going to hurt morale a lot. Also as king, I'm guessing he could acquire the resources to revive someone. Then again, debatable. (This is my poor opinion. I really have no clue on this.)
3rd: Probably neutral on that. Still not good, I'd say you'd return it without a reward or something, then that would be good.
as the others mentioned, subtle hints.
|
|
As to the above post. Yes he is king but he is also paladin. If behaving like a king means he can't behave like a paladin then maybe kings shouldn't be paladin?
Kings can behave like paladins. It's just a bit harder. A paladin in my eyes is the sort of person to put his life before others. Or am I wrong?
In the second paragraph, it's can be debated. Sure, it was bad to leave his allies, but there's a point to where you have to worry about your safety. If he's king, I think if their king falls, that's going to hurt morale a lot. Also as king, I'm guessing he could acquire the resources to revive someone. Then again, debatable. (This is my poor opinion. I really have no clue on this.)
3rd: Probably neutral on that. Still not good, I'd say you'd return it without a reward or something, then that would be good.
as the others mentioned, subtle hints.
A paladin should be the last to leave, willing to sacrifice himself so that his allies (or innocent) may live. This might be justified if the other characters were evil or perhaps of an opposing faith, but a truly good character would save them in hopes to convert them to the side of good.
For the exchanging of a family heirloom for gold, I would claim that ad an evil act. It's blatantly selfish. He might try to justify the act to himself (fighting evil), but it's still truly about making himself more powerful; i.e. selfish. That's against the paladin code. Now, if he returned the heirloomand then asked for a donation in fighting the hoards of evil, that would be in line with a paladin's code.
Now, that's just as the paladin. As for the cavalier aspect, it depends on his order, but I would definitely dictact that it's against both paladin and cavalier code. Perhaps a warning from his god with a penalty until atonement (and atonemt is not only a spell, but a quest. I lile the penalty to all die rolls idea earlier. If he refuses, then he loses paladin and cavalier abilities (again, cavalier abilities depends.on order).
Edit: corrected typos I could find; using my phone for this. Ugh..
I agree with the 'in game warnings' first. The first example is poor leadership.
However, IN the heat of battle... There ARE situations where the Paladin should lead the retreat. This doesn't sound like ONE of those situations. I don't know where he was teleporting, or even HOW he was teleporting, but when facing the unknown... the Paladin is within his rights to be the first one into the unknown. Regardless of where the 'known' danger is.
I've seen MANY fights that left one bad room and ran smack dab into the next. If there is a fighter/ranger/Barbarian who is better suited for 'rear guard' then that's who should be there.
Avoid the 'lawful stupid' mentality.
Again, don't know the situtation here AND DO NOT WANT TO!!!! We're gonna be starting Kingmaker in a couple weeks with my own paladin king ;)
No spoilers please! ^_^
The second one is even more 'situation specific'. Did the family 'hire' him to retrieve this specific treasure item? Then he's honor bound to return it.
If they clear out random dungeon #3 and find a sweet sword, then recognize the coat of arms on the skeleton... LESS honorbound to return it.
After all... His argument DOES make sense. These APs have a specific Wealth by level concept (flawed as it may be).. and technichly that sword was JSUT as much his parties treasure as his.
If there is a fighter in the group who wants to claim the sword... the Paladin has no realistic right to DEMAND that they return to the family of the fallen... for Free.
That kind of thing should be a party vote. and the Paladin should be eager to cast HIS vote that way... but he can't speak for the whole party. Unless he's the kind of king who robs from his allies for his own ideals?
Lawful Good is a tricky slope, and it's gonna be hard to be Lawful good and be fair and Just to EVERYONE. Otherwise the Real world governments would be better ;)
This is basically the reason for my post. Am I being too harsh? In my eyes he is lawful neutral. Would that be correct?
No.
He and 2 companions teleported out to destroy some trebuchets. [...] He was the first to teleport out. Leaving the others behind.
This is quite obviously cowardice, an evil act. Also, not upholding his duties to the party, dishonorable (chaotic).
Another instance involved him recovering a family heirloom sword [...] he instead insisted on selling it back to them.
Avarice and greed, also evil. Holding onto stolen property, chaotic. By these actions he shows himself to be plainly chaotic evil.
Inform him through roleplaying and indirect warnings that he is under probation and any further alignment deviations will result in loss of paladinhood until atonement is performed. Though honestly, IMO, that second one, that tells me a lot about this player's concept of playing a paladin, because selling a treasured family heirloom back to the family it was stolen from, that takes class.
My gut instinct tells me that the player will vociferously argue when told he's under probation, and won't get the concept through his skull, and will do something else completely and totally bastard-level, and you'll have to take his paladinhood from him. Whatever you do, don't back down. Players like this gotta learn some time.
I am going to be captain obvious and point out that, as always, the good-evil scale on the alignment table is quite a bit vague and very much up for interpretation, compared to the more clear-cut law-vs-chaos.
In my opinion you -are- being a tiny bit too harsh, but maybe I am not understanding your point of view, so consider my opinion moldable at present :)
As far as I can tell, you think that the paladin has acted against his alignment. You believe his behavior to be more lawful-neutral than lawful-good which indicates that you believe his actions are moving him down the good-neutral-evil line, rather than across the lawful-neutral-chaotic line.
Now first off, remember his diety. His diety and the tenets of his faith should be the largest factor consideren when contemplating whether someone should be stripped of their powers.
If he worships a lawful-good diety he can easily start acting lawful neutral, and you should not even contemplate touching his powers. This should only happen is he grievously sins against his god/dess, his dogma and his alignment, somehow pulling a Miko Miyazaki(google it). EDIT: Removed due to wrong :)
Now I'll touch on your examples.
1 - Retreating from combat before your allies.
This should not tick negatively on his relationship with his diety unless the dogma is last-out-of-battle. Not only is retreat perfectly acceptable in many cases, but while he is obligated to protect as your quintessential lawful-good paladin, that protection usually extends to "those who cannot protect themselves". Naturally he is responsible for the men under his command, but that responsibility is his responsibility as king, rather than his responsibility as paladin, since he is not leading a squad as part of a crusade. And a king who must wait for everyone to retreat from the field, before he himself may retreat, has a short career in front of him. This is why you have rear-guard companies :)
I don't think your paladin did anything wrong in this case, but maybe there is more to it, than I have read out of your post.
2 - Selling back an heirloom to its owner.
As with last case, this is hard to answer without knowing his diety, and his code, but it is certainly not a wise decision. Now let my say I understand the case your paladin makes, however he would stand to gain something no matter how he handled the situation.
1) Keep the items for yourself - you get the items
2) Give them back to your allies - you gain political pull and loyalty, favours and reputation as a noble, just person.
3) Sell them back - you get money.
These are all viable and none are inherently good/neutral/evil, lawful/neutral/chaotic. Rather they are noble/neutral/ignoble. Rather than reflect on him as a paladin, I think they reflect on him as a king. You can use this just as well as you can use the paladin angle :) Stripping him of his powers leaves him mechanically inferior to his companions, but putting chinks in his reputation can be even more fun from a roleplay perspective.
So to summarize. In my oppinion, stripping him of his powers would be too hard. If I knew his deity I could formulate a more solid opinion, but as it stands, I think you should consider the implications of his actions in the world, rather than in the mechanics of the game. Maybe he does something at some point that, while not directly pissing off his diety, somehow tarnishes the reputation or public opinion of his order. A paladin's quest to redeem himself in the eyes of his peers, sounds more interesting, to me, than a paladin's quest to redeem himself in the eyes of his god. :)
Could you note his diety and whether these two examples are the only cases where you are wondering about his alignment? That would help (me at least) give a better perspective on the situation :)
Cheers.
Iomedae you say :)
Interesting. I'll read up on my Iomedae-fu and then I'll be back to say whether my opinion has changed :)
EDIT: Does anyone remember if there have been an Iomedae chapter in one of the Adventure books and if yes, which one? I cannot for the life of me remember :(
Iomedae
Hmmm... if he's using 'the code' from the Faiths of Purity for her, then he may have an issue with part one. There IS a distinct clause in there that says
I am the first into battle, and the last to leave it.
:/
Sarenrae's version is "The best battle is a battle I win. If I die, I can no longer fight.... "
How much longer did the battle take from the time he left???? Why didn't the others leave?
There's been a few situations where NOBODY in our group wanted to leave the others... The retreat was called for... my rogue booked out... and EVERYONE else inched back... little by little... in the most mechanically ineffiecent method of retreat... people fell, rogue had to come back...
But if the call goes out for retreat, and they are all teleporting... These rounds are only 6 seconds long... Something about spanking a dying Paladin (you DID say the battle was going badly) for teleporting on iniative 12, while the XXXX guys teleported on iniative 8.
Things can happen a lot in that 4/10ths of a second...
I think the main thing to do is talk to the player... either in or out of character. make sure he knows that the two of you have a different interpretation of the Code... and since YOU are playing Iomedae... Yours is the one he has to uphold ;)
There are a few questionable situations here... I don't see any of this as the CE that some do... but there is activities I wouldn't want to see become 'Standare operating procedure'.
|
|
Hmm lots of interesting posts with a few very conflicting ideas.
Couple of points of clarification then.
The sword was found. He was not tasked to retrieve it. My point of contention would have been that he and his family had close ties with the family who owned it. It wasn't just belonging to some random. Now while he personally did not know the owner, his father and his fathers father have had close ties with the family for some time.
It terms of the retreat. The party had decided together that they could not win this fight. Let's get out of here they said. They each had a device given to them by an allied cleric that when broken would instantly teleport them back to the clerics stronghold. A known safe location. His action was first in the initiative order so he broke his and left. Leaving behind an archer who had to dodge out of three threatened squares to activate his device. He did but took a few points of damage in AoOs. Last was a sorcerer. Unfortunately the bad guys got to act before him and they literally pounded him to within an inch of his life. He only survived due to clever use of a plot twist card. They were all aware of the initiative order.
My contention with the escape was that as a paladin he would not leave his lifelong friends surrounded on a battfefield. Surely a paladin would see to their escape first.
Yes he is king. But being king does not excuse him from his requirements as a paladin. If anything being such a public figure, he should stand up to be an example to others.
As to the previous post about a paladin king not having to be the last to leave the battfefield. I agree, to a point. I see a vast difference between ordering an orderly retreat and then withdrawing from the battfefield and say, for example, seeing yourself surrounded, screaming "retreat" and then teleporting to safety while leaving your friends and fellow countrymen to fend for themselves.
Sword: if he demanded money... that is a bit of a rude thing to do. Asking for a donation on the other hand isn't. This should be more of him being viewed as a not so noble Paladin and his kingdom being viewed with a slight loss of reputation for both.
Retreat: He should had instead used a delay action and waited for his team to fall back and help them. Is he required to do so? No. Is it a better thing to do? Yes. Should he be punished? Not severely. I would say a reprimand from Jingh, Saint Lymirin, Peace Through Vigilance, or even The Inheritor herself.
Overall I would just have him reprimanded. Next offense he takes a -1 to -2 penalty. Next offense after that he loses his Paladin powers.
His Cavalier Order if he breaks those tenants he should lose them separately.
EDIT: I got Ninja'd...
The sword was found. He was not tasked to retrieve it. My point of contention would have been that he and his family had close ties with the family who owned it. It wasn't just belonging to some random. Now while he personally did not know the owner, his father and his fathers father have had close ties with the family for some time.
In this case I find his decision to be unwise, but not at odds with his faith. If the sword is a longsword then there is alot of potential symbolism to be read into the situation. At least for him. Finding a longsword of an ally of your father, and returning it to it's proper owner, could be the highest statement of bondforging a Paladin of Iomedae can make.
However, despite the fact that I disagree with his choice, I do not see this as punishment material. As far as I can tell, it was a neutral act, and that he decided to sell it back to its owners, despite the fact that he had no such obligation, implies either good intent, or just rational thinking, neither of which Iomedae frowns on.
My contention with the escape was that as a paladin he would not leave his lifelong friends surrounded on a battfefield. Surely a paladin would see to their escape first.
Whether he WOULD leave is a matter of his character, not his class :) No but hairsplitting aside I agree on this point. It would be a simple matter to assume defensive stance and delay your initiative. Iomedae's code says "I am the first into battle and the last out of it" also the first act of Iomedae has a point to make about protecting your own.
There is a point to be made in his favour, but words fail me, so I'll not try to express it :)
As to the previous post about a paladin king not having to be the last to leave the battfefield. I agree, to a point. I see a vast difference between ordering an orderly retreat and then withdrawing from the battfefield and say, for example, seeing yourself surrounded, screaming "retreat" and then teleporting to safety while leaving your friends and fellow countrymen to fend for themselves.
This I also agree with. However in the case of your army being surrounded, shouting retreat and then teleporting out, it is not cowardly, nor wrong of the king to do so, if every member of his army has the same means of teleportation as he does.
Lets set up an alternative situation. The 3 of them teleport in, but after they arrive, for some reason, the sorcerer loses his escape ticket. Now what happens?
The king could act cowardly, retreating from battle when things got rough and leave his friend to die. (Cowardly and definitely against his code, though not decidedly evil) If a paladin of Iomedae did this, I would tell him that this is against his code. If the player goes through with it, I would not have the repercussions felt immediately, but rather let him get a sinking feeling in his chest and leave it at that. The very same night, I would have him plagued by nightmares of dishonour, a cage, a light in the darkness that he cannot reach, or some other symbolic imagery, tied to Iomedae. Then I'd have him wake up and find his armor dirty and his sword in disrepair, no matter how deligently he described his cleaning his armor, and sharpening his sword the day before. I might also do something else (something I have actually done in Rise of the Runelords campaign I am running) and extend the casting time on his spells to a full round action for a short while. Just find some means of letting him know that he f&*!ed up, and the man(or in this case the woman) upstairs, knows about it.
He could also be a true, noble paladin about it and give his means of escape to the sorcerer, and then fight to the death/unconcious, or he could yield (heroic != heroic stupid. Dying in a nightraid to kill a few siegeengineers when you have a kingdom to run, qualifies as heroic stupid in my book :P )
Anyway, ranting. Sorry.
I believe that while his actions were not as favourable in the eyes of Iomedae as they could have been, a punishment is not the right way to go. He -should- have waited for his friends to teleport, just to be sure, and to reflect this, maybe you should let his character observe signs? It can be as subtle as you like or it could be blunt-force-trauma style. The choice is yours as DM to determine how Iomedae reacts to the actions of her followers :) My tip would be to have the world react before the god. That carries more impact.
Knight of the fort are listening to the fighting of the nightraid.
The king teleports back in. "HUZZAH! HUZZAH! Milord has returned!"
The first companion returns. "HUZZAH!"
The last companion returns, brutalized beyond realism, bloody and dying.
"OH MERCIFUL GODS WHAT HAPPENED?! FETCH THE PHYSICIANS! FETCH THE CLERICS! LORD *insert name* IS IN TERRIBLE SHAPE!"
Suddenly the mood has changed, the victory has diminished, and an entirely different story will be told in barracks tonight.
Cheers :)
Nearyn has many good points.
Ok I have a multi class paladin cavalier in my game an he has been acting in a manner that I don't consider lawful good. Wanted advice on what sort of penalties etc to impose or am I being too harsh? He is the king in a kingmaker campaign.
In combat the other night they were involved in a siege. He and 2 companions teleported out to destroy some trebuchets. They successfully destroyed the drugs engines but then got bogged down in a fight with the leader of the enemy army ( an anti paladin and his sorcerer companion) the fight was not going well for our good guys so they decided to bug out. He was the first to teleport out. Leaving the others behind. Which almost resulted in one pc dying due to the fact he was left alone. The only thing that saved him was the use of a plot twist card. Should it be expected that a paladin would first ensure everyone else got out first? Isn't that sort of what paladins do? Protect everyone else?
Another instance involved him recovering a family heirloom sword that belonged to a family allied to his. Rather than just giving the sword back and saying" here. This obviously belongs to you" he instead insisted on selling it back to them. Arguing that he needed the money to get better magic items for himself so he could better fight evil.
Am I correct in assuming this is not LG behaviour. Would stripping him of paladin powers be too harsh. Or would you consider this acceptable until he atones.
I just feel he has taken the levels in paladin purely for the feats it provides abs not because he sees himself as a paladin.
I'd say he's fine on the first point. It's certainly not a good thing for him to do as a player but there's no inherent problem with once the retreat has been sounded to retreat. The fact that he is the king in Kingmaker means he has greater responsibilities, so I think he has great leeway when it comes to his own safety. Lawful Good kings send people to die for them all the time in fantasy. The fact that he risked a PC instead of some NPC is irrelevant when it comes to his alignment.
The second point is a lot more tricky. If he asked for a reward to continue his good work he's fine. If he's refusing to give them back their property without a reward he's violating LG. It's all in character and player motivation.
That's just my two coppers. I've been the victim of nitpicking when it comes to LG as a player so as a GM I'm inclined to ere on the lenient side. LG to me is simply a good person who believes in order. Paladins do have a more ridged code within that framework than your typical LG character, but punishing the player should only come up for gross violations. I don't think he's done that.
I cast my vote for an Role-Playing Punishment rather than a Mechanical one.
In combat, the other night they were involved in a siege. He and 2 companions teleported out to destroy some trebuchets. They successfully destroyed the engines, but then got bogged down in a fight with the leader of the enemy army (an anti paladin and his sorcerer companion) the fight was not going well for our good guys so they decided to bug out. He was the first to teleport out. Leaving the others behind. Which almost resulted in one pc dying due to the fact he was left alone. The only thing that saved him was the use of a plot twist card. Should it be expected that a paladin would first ensure everyone else got out first? Isn't that sort of what paladins do? Protect everyone else?
Another instance involved him recovering a family heirloom sword that belonged to a family allied to his. Rather than just giving the sword back and saying" here. This obviously belongs to you" he instead insisted on selling it back to them. Arguing that he needed the money to get better magic items for himself so he could better fight evil.
1. I do not see the retreat as an alignment issue, unless he was being a coward about it. If he was, then it was more of a selfish thing to do, and not very Paladin-like. Then again, the Cavalier code might affect that as well.
2. Depending on the deity, the paladin should have indeed checked if the others are safe. If someone was at 0 HP or lower while he was retreating and he's a Paladin of Iomedae or Torag, then that would have been against his code, and should result in a small penalty of some sort.
3. If he were a Paladin of Abadar (Torag and Iomedae seem to fit too), expecting honest payment for the retrieving of a lost item is well-warranted depending on how the request is phrased. Then again, I do not see this as being a big problem as he did indeed justify it as a bolstering of his own evil-fighting arsenal.