OK, so a party of chaotic good players + paladin are hired by an old sickened man to find his son and bring him back to the father. The father became estranged from all three of his sons. When his wife died, she placed a curse on the old man until he found his sons and repaired his relationships with his sons. The old man told the group he has found 2 of his 3 sons and offered the group treasure in exchange of finding his last son and returning him to his father.
The party fight their way through an underground Kuo-Toan lair and find the son, who has taken on a God-like position to the Kuo-Toans, subdue him and bring him back to the city to return him to the father.
As the group arrive back into the city the magic user has decided that the son is of some mystical value and does not want to return the son to the father until he can determine exactly what the son's role is in the evil plot the magic user has imagined.
When the father arrives to collect his son the Paladin refuses to turn over the son because the magic user in his group has expressed reservations on releasing the son (the son is struck with insanity at this point and cannot be spoken to - he is just a zombie like person once they subdued him and sprung him from the kuo-Toans).
When the father asked the Paladin to give his son in return for the agreed upon treasure (which the father offered to the Paladin) the Paladin refused. Paladin tried to be elusive but the father called him out and said-
"You are being dishonorable - we had a deal. I offered you treasure on the return of my son. Here is the treasure but you will not release my son. That is kidnapping! Please give my son to me!"
Regardless of the pleading the Paladin refused to turn over the son even though he did NOT detect any evil OR that the father was lying to him. He upheld the magic users reluctance based upon only what the magic user in his party said.
My question - How much of an infraction of the Paladin code was his refusal to return a son to his father when all aspects of the deal were being fulfilled?
I am inclined to make the Paladin play without his Paladin powers until he atones for his actions. In my story the next big event is rescuing a lost Paladin so I thought it was perfect that he would have to do this part of the adventure as a plain-jane fighter until he rescued the Paladin.
Is that too harsh? What is the appropriate punishment for not fulfilling your word and acting dishonorably?
thanks for taking the time to read and respond.
General guidance seems to be that a paladin MUST fall. To me though, there should be some warning. There wasn't enough here for a fall. Perhaps if the Paladin meditates he gets some kind of warning from his god or some of his power seems weaker than normal. You could even slip him a note that gives him a -1 to his saves or his Grace doesn't work and this is just a warning. Once you save that Paladin, all is back to normal (providing he doesn't go further down the slippery slope)
Too harsh?? Maybe... just a bit.
Keep in mind that among the things the Paladin's player has to balance, is the other players at the table. The absolute pain-in-the-a$$ Lawful Stupid stick-in-the-mud must not deviate from the letter of the agreement AM PALADIN might agree to turn the son over immediately and the magic user can go suck an egg.
But, a more reasonable player would probably say that nobody is in any danger, and the son will be returned eventually with everyone in good health. As long as nobody is harmed by holding the son for a short period, why shouldn't he follow the advice of a more knowledgeable companion?
** spoiler omitted **
Going by the strict letter of the agreement the paladin is wrong, but if the son is the key to some greater evil then the paladin might also be in trouble for not being more proactive in stopping evil. You the GM knows the truth, but the player does not. I would not punish the paladin with taking his powers. I would however have the father walk away, and report the kidnapping to the city guards.
Basically the paladin is in between a rock and a hard place. What I would also do was ask the caster how he intends to determine if the son is a threat. He has no legal right to hold the son so as I stated bringing in official authority is not beyond reason.
The answer is fall always fall. I can't believe you let him take two steps! The paladin class has fall as a class feature and its meant to be used when and if ever possible without hesitation.
Kidding aside, I don't see why he should fall. Where was that part? Was it when he decided not to hand the son over on the off chance he's stopping a greater evil? What kind of example is that setting?
Is that too harsh?
Yes. Its pretty ridiculous to do so over this if I understand correctly. The paladin didn't act dishonorably. This wasn't some "I'm taking your gold and your son!" or "I'm killing you on the off chance you might be bad", it was "I can't take your items or return your son right now".
Really though the easiest thing to do is ask the player to explain their character's thought process and how it relates to the paladin code.
If your playing at home you could always do a really crazy thing and put the code in the players hands. Let them make their own code for their own character and explain it when it comes up. Much easier than interpreting a 3rd party or mind reading a second.
Thank you all for the very sage and thoughtful advice. You all have convinced me that the Paladin stumbled at most and should not lose his powers for the digression. He will be visited by his ancient elders (he is a Paladin not associated with a specific deity but instead is dedicated to the code of his clan's original patriarch) and maybe they will ask for atonement in some form.
I appreciate Sehnder's approach of applying it directly to the Paladin's code which puts it in the Paladin's perspective and not the GM's. That helped a lot.
Wraithstrike's reminder that GMs know the truth and the players' actions are based on incomplete knowledge is always something that I need to keep in mind as well.
Yeah - definitely not a fall. A fall should only occur for a serious transgression of the code, not a gotcha moment.
Also, not suggesting you were doing this, but I have seen some GMs do this, do not use the paladin code as a conductor's hat. Having situations that may require the paladin to make a tough decision code-wise once in a while is fine, but when over used it becomes very stale.
I liken this to a character that creates a family, siblings, friends, etc in their character history, and then the GM constantly throws those characters in danger. Creating a rich back story should not become a great burden on the character.
The Paladin shouldn't fall or stumble or even receive a warning. So far he didn't do anything wrong. He didn't even break his agreement with the father, he just is unable to fulfill it at this time. Even if he was dishonoring an agreement, that would be fine. Paladin's can break their word to stop a greater evil. I always consider the Good part of th LG alignment for paladins be of greater importance.
The only thing the paladin that was even slightly wrong was being "elusive" He should have told the father straight up their concerns. "Keep your money for now, Our task is not over. Your son is under my care and once we know all is well I will bring him to you. Sorry for the necessary delay"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
