| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hello everyone and sorry again for my poor english
This message to get your opinion on a situation I was confronted during my last session.
I 'm currently running a pathfinder campaign. My PCs are level 5. To summarize here, there are:
- Dorian, human paladin (shining knight) 5
- Hank, half-ork barbarian (wild rager) 5
- Shine, tiefling (grimspawn) wizard (foresight school, staff bond) 5
- Balty, gnome alchemist (oenopion researcher - I authorize this archetype outside of Nex) 5
- Laurelen, half-elf oracle (stargazer) of Desna 5
- Malko, halfling rogue (scout & knife master) 5
I have to say I'm using the 9-point scale alignment system from Ultimate Campaign.
Currently in my campaign , my PCs are looking for specific NPCs . Without further details , they have discovered that these NPCs were prisoners of slavers . Their investigation led to a great free city , important center of trade, but riddled with corruption and struck by a bloody war between criminal guilds. In this city , the lord is suffering from a long illness. The authorities are present but do not seem to perform their job with the utmost integrity .
It is in this context that they have discovered a tavern in crowded slums in which among prohibited gambling tables, a dealer selling some slaves they sought.
They decided to create a " diversion" to disperse the crowd . Balty moved silently in a corner of the inn and set fire to the building with a bomb. In the midst of the crowd, Hank & Dorian tried to catch up with the merchant and slaves , but they fled through the back door that led to a warehouse where there was a secret passage leading to the sewers .
During the time that the PCs find the secret passage , the slaver had managed to outrun them , but the PCs managed to find traces into sewers, which led to a manhole just outside the fortified guild hall of a powerful and influential merchant guild .
Hank went to the gate , taunting the guards and sentries and trying to provoke them. Balty , Malko , Shine and Laurelen , using levitation potions and spells, freed themselves from the walls and decided to observe the court hall from the sky, from the rear of the building to assess protections.
Dorian encouraged Hank to attack . They eventually push the gate of the mansion after having taken several volleys of arrows . The 4 other PCs heard the mayhem in front of the building and then attacked as well .
I will not go much further , just know that they are forced to retreat due to the opposition. Custody was warned , they are now wanted in the city.
I did not expect that they directly attack . I thought they would rather take information on this merchant guild or find a way to infiltrate . Maybe I have not been enough of a deterrent in the initial defenses of the manor.
From a roleplay point of view, I agree with Hank's reaction: he is a barbarian, he ignores the authority and civilization, he is impulsive and easily frustrated. His player even said at the time of the attack: "We had to stop me! Why did you let me go?". Similarly, Balty, Shine, Laurelen and Malko were just in the observation first. They have attacked as well to help their friends.
This is the reaction of Dorian that bothers me a lot. Although the city seems to be corrupted, is this a valid reason for a paladin to use violence and violating private property, while the only evidence they had was just footsteps ? ... In my opinion it should lose Loyalty alignment points in this story, but I do not know to what extent. Do he has to lose his powers for that act? To tell you, I'm already shocked with the Inn diversion...
But until now I took no decision cos I needed to think about it. This is why I'm asking your opinion.
Interesting.
In my opinion, I would be more concerned about the 'diversion' at the inn; did the paladin know and approve of the plan to set a fire which endangered (possibly) innnocent people? (or did he check that every single one was evil first?) If so, then that is 'not good'. By itself, that would lead me to ask the player to make a knowledge: religion check so I could warn him. Also by itself, that would not make him 'fall', but if repeated more than twice more might do so. Again, I would have the player make religion checks so he gets suitable warnings about his conduct.
The assault on the merchants, in my opinion, would count as a 'good' deed, but most definitely not a 'lawful' one; again, I'd give a religion check to warn the player. This could be done after the event, to represent him thinking about what happened. And again, I'd want more than one event like this before I did anything to his status, with warnings so the player knows what is likely to happen.
This is not 'knowingly performing an evil act' - the inn diversion could be counted that way only if the player had received the warning and then chose to do it anyway, it sounds more like the player 'not thinking about it', which is the point of the religion checks - so he does think about the consequences.
And repeatedly 'not thinking about consequences' tends to be a trait of chaotic alignments so he is in danger already.
Thx of your answer
He was completely aware of the plan in the inn. Actually he was a part builder of the plan. And he didn't cast detect evil in the inn before. And even if I was shocked with the Inn, i didn't realize directly he indeed played with lives of not evil commoners.
I wasn't expecting to make him fall directly without "warning him" as you said, and I guess I wasn't thinking of those Knowledge religion tests to give him warns. I think I will take your idea about him thinking of what he did, maybe through some dreams or some flashbacks.
But considering I'm using 9-points scale alignment, I was thinking of getting him from Lawful(2)/Good(1) to Lawful(3)/Good(2) (which means he has still a degree left in the Good/Evil scale, but he is on the edge on the the Lawful/Chaotic scale). Do you think it would be appropriate?
Would this have been an issue if the party did not have a Paladin?
Not in a short term. But in a long term anyway it has. In my opinion, if you don't have an idea about the way your PCs evolves, you could miss a gameplay effect that would or would not affect your PCs: spells, items but also divine magic, divine spellcasting classes and of course your plots. It is for me really important to know what is the alignment of my PCs and not simply let them choose at the beginning and never change it through 20 levels.
Ultimate Campaign's system smacks to me of micromanaging taken to a nearly absurd level.
I agree that it is something else to manage for the Gamemaster and I truly have enough things to manage. But for me this system allow to track the inertia of a changing behaviour. When Gilarius was saying " I'd want more than one event like this before I did anything to his status, with warnings so the player knows what is likely to happen.", isn't it precisely the way to warn the player? if he loose a degree on the scale, he doesn't change his status as he is still Lawful/Good. But next time will he loose this status, except if he does enough Good or Lawful actions to get back the degree he lost.
Anyone else is using this system?
I haven't used or even read the 9-point scale, but it sounds as if all 3 of us are in broad agreement.
Both LazarX and I think we should give warning signs, even if we might use different means; and if moving him a point or two on that scale sends the same signals, then it achieves the same result.
Repeated acts that are potentially evil, or are chaotic will affect a paladin's alignment. That also applies to other characters, but most lack any major consequence.
You didn't give anyone else's alignment, but given that there are a barbarian and a rogue, the party as a whole might tend more towards being chaotic and that is likely to bring about a conflict with someone lwaful good. Hopefully, in a fun way for all involved.
If I were going to use a number system, I'd keep it hidden from the players. I'd rather have a player think. "My powers aren't working the way they should be, perhaps I'd should seek some advice" rather than (I'm two decimal points away from shifting alignment, now I should clean up my act.)
I'd probably do the same, but I would also use the character's knowledge skill (or just a wisdom check!) before he did something 'wrong' rather than leave the player failing to realise that he was affecting his alignment. Or if we all missed something, then allow a later roll to give him the opportunity to show remorse and maybe do something to atone if necessary.
If I were going to use a number system, I'd keep it hidden from the players. I'd rather have a player think. "My powers aren't working the way they should be, perhaps I'd should seek some advice" rather than (I'm two decimal points away from shifting alignment, now I should clean up my act.)
Ok I see. I prefer use a number system just to keep the track, but keeping it hidden from the players is a good idea. I guess I will combine something between some knowledge religion check, divine dreams or flashbacks, some partial random failure in his powers, and from now on a hidden track of the alignments.
Many thx for both of you.
I always like the glimpse of someone that looks like he imagines his deity, looking diappointed, or shedding a tear, in crowd. He can never seem to catch them, and none of the other party members see them. The worse he gets, the more he starts to see this figure.
When the looks turn to anger, he loses some or all of his abilities.
Let’s look at this point by point the party is on a mission to rescue certain people. They locate these people in another city that is known for its corruption and criminal activity. The people they are looking for are being held against their will and possibly tortured or worse. The party does everything it can to rescue these people. Where is the problem?
In most societies where slavery is permitted slaves have no rights. They can be beaten, raped or killed at the whim of their owner. If the paladin knew that an innocent person was being subject to torture and rape and tried to stop it by breaking into a the home would this also be a problem? The rescue of the slaves takes higher priority than the breaking and entering.
As lighting fire to the building is also not a problem. For it to work as a diversion people need to be aware of it so the chances of someone actually getting hurt is slim to none. You are going to want the fire in a very visible and hard to reach place like the roof. You are going to want more smoke then fire so it draws more attention and causes more confusion.
From what I can gather the city is not where the party is from and may even be consider hostile territory. The authorities are present but do not seem to perform their job with the utmost integrity. So what legitimate authority did the paladin disrespect? The evil slavers? The corrupt nonexistent city watch?
If the paladin knew that an innocent person was being subject to torture and rape and tried to stop it by breaking into a the home would this also be a problem? The rescue of the slaves takes higher priority than the breaking and entering.
They were not sure, they had only suspicions. And for me this is exactly the difference between the pious and the pragmatist. Indeed the paladin has always to choose between bad act and worse act, but in this case in my opinion he would clearly seek for a strong proof the manor would hold slaves. They had only footsteps.
As lighting fire to the building is also not a problem. For it to work as a diversion people need to be aware of it so the chances of someone actually getting hurt is slim to none. You are going to want the fire in a very visible and hard to reach place like the roof. You are going to want more smoke then fire so it draws more attention and causes more confusion.
I agree, in the case he would have pay attention that no innocent would be hurt. He didn't.
From what I can gather the city is not where the party is from and may even be consider hostile territory. The authorities are present but do not seem to perform their job with the utmost integrity. So what legitimate authority did the paladin disrespect? The evil slavers? The corrupt nonexistent city watch?
Not hostile but neutral territory. Hostile would be a city under the hands of a cleric of Asmodeus.
Really? Your Paladin becomes Robin Hood as soon as he is seeing some malfunctions in the institutions? In my opinion he would first try to respect the laws. If the laws don't work, then he maybe will manage to act outlaw, but after judging the pros and cons carefully.
Nowhere have I seen that anyone with any authority from the city was involved. There was no mention of the city guard being on the scene or that they attempted to take control of the situation. Therefore the paladin does not have to worry about the legitimate authority clause of the code.
It was also implied that both the party and the slaves are not form this city. It is also implied that the slaves are not willing to be slaves and were probably captured. This makes them kidnapping victims not property. The paladin is well within his alignment to take steps to rescue them. This is the same as a cop seeing someone abusing a child and saving the child even if it means he has to break into the house where it is happening. The cop does not have to knock on the door and wait outside until the person inside opens the door they can and will break down the door to stop the crime in progress. What the paladin did is no different.
It definitely looks to me like non-paladin behavior. if this is his first time then warn him absolutely that he is pushing the edge. if this is a pattern tell him from the risk of innocents with the burning down the tavern he should lose some of his powers until he atones. Have him seek out a high level cleric (preferably of his faith) have that cleric give him a quest or act he must do to atone for his actions then have the cleric cast atonement on him to get his powers back and let it serve as a warning for his action. If he changes his way as it were then he would be fine. if he reverts to wicked ways then let him fall and tell him playing a paladin isn't easy. Just my 2c.
Nowhere have I seen that anyone with any authority from the city was involved. There was no mention of the city guard being on the scene or that they attempted to take control of the situation. Therefore the paladin does not have to worry about the legitimate authority clause of the code.
It was also implied that both the party and the slaves are not form this city. It is also implied that the slaves are not willing to be slaves and were probably captured. This makes them kidnapping victims not property. The paladin is well within his alignment to take steps to rescue them. This is the same as a cop seeing someone abusing a child and saving the child even if it means he has to break into the house where it is happening. The cop does not have to knock on the door and wait outside until the person inside opens the door they can and will break down the door to stop the crime in progress. What the paladin did is no different.
More than that - when James Jacobs was asked what would happen if a Paladin from a LN deity was given an order from a LE priest that would break his code - the answer was "the Paladins of that region would be a separate branch - and so he would never be under the authority of the priest to begin with".
To me that says quite a bit - first 'legitimate authority' is intended to mean pretty much those the paladins order considers legitimate - any authority that allows slaves most likely doesn't apply (especially if his same religious orders can be considered non-legitimate).
Secondly - intent means quite a bit - did the paladin try to hurt people or just create a diversion? When they setup the 'fire' did you make sure to ask them if they were trying to make it more showy or burn the place to the ground? Some of that matters - if it was 'we set a fire' and you say 'ok' it's really hard to read into what the intent was and so giving it a pass at the table is the same as giving a pass afterwords in analysis. Setting a diversionary fire can even be non-chaotic (especially if the act was *planned* and *staged* in the best way possible).
Just my two cents.
Nowhere have I seen that anyone with any authority from the city was involved. There was no mention of the city guard being on the scene or that they attempted to take control of the situation. Therefore the paladin does not have to worry about the legitimate authority clause of the code.
It was also implied that both the party and the slaves are not form this city. It is also implied that the slaves are not willing to be slaves and were probably captured. This makes them kidnapping victims not property. The paladin is well within his alignment to take steps to rescue them. This is the same as a cop seeing someone abusing a child and saving the child even if it means he has to break into the house where it is happening. The cop does not have to knock on the door and wait outside until the person inside opens the door they can and will break down the door to stop the crime in progress. What the paladin did is no different.
In the situation of a cop seeing someone abusing a child, then you are indeed correct and such action is to be applauded by those who are either Lawful or Good or both.
But my interpretation of the original event, as presented by the only poster who was present, is more analogous to: someone is abusing a child. It might be a person in house A.
Perhaps verifying who is actually guilty before killing people would be in order? I think that is what most cops do.
|
Note to the OP.
Here's how this thread will go. We are going to have a couple of hundred posts with varying opinions on whether this is or isn't appropriate Paladin behaviour. If you wait long enough you will witness a debate about comparative morality, the nature of fixed good and fixed evil and (if you are very lucky) usage of the term "murder hobo."
What you wont get is an answer.
The question is for yourself as a GM to answer, no-one else. All you will get here is an argument and contrary to what Monty Python teaches us an argument is not generally enjoyable.
Although the city seems to be corrupted, is this a valid reason for a paladin to use violence and violating private property, while the only evidence they had was just footsteps ?
It depends. Is the city corrupt to the point where "legitimate authority" is unreliable or is an outright laughable matter? The paladin also has a charge to protect innocents. Even an innocent being threatened can spur the paladin to action under his code. If he thoroughly believes slaves are being held unjustly in a structure within a city whose legal system either doesn't exist or doesn't provide a way to investigate such things, then it could actually be quite incumbent upon the paladin to act even seemingly extrajudicially.
... In my opinion it should lose Loyalty alignment points in this story, but I do not know to what extent. Do he has to lose his powers for that act?
Loyalty to whom? Granted, I haven't used the alignment tracking system in UCamp so I don't know quite what you're talking about but I would think the above scenario I provided will similarly answer this one.
Note to the OP.
Here's how this thread will go. We are going to have a couple of hundred posts with varying opinions on whether this is or isn't appropriate Paladin behaviour. If you wait long enough you will witness a debate about comparative morality, the nature of fixed good and fixed evil and (if you are very lucky) usage of the term "murder hobo."
What you wont get is an answer.
The question is for yourself as a GM to answer, no-one else. All you will get here is an argument and contrary to what Monty Python teaches us an argument is not generally enjoyable.
I actually think the OP has already made up his mind and is simply looking for validation. But, yes, these threads rarely prove useful.
Dorian didn't set fire to the bar. Balty did. It seems the paladin now responsible for the actions of his entire party and not just himself. And here I thought he had a hard job before.
Paladins are special due to their code of conduct. They require some micromanagement. The same is true of cavaliers.
|
Nowhere have I seen that anyone with any authority from the city was involved. There was no mention of the city guard being on the scene or that they attempted to take control of the situation. Therefore the paladin does not have to worry about the legitimate authority clause of the code.
It was also implied that both the party and the slaves are not form this city. It is also implied that the slaves are not willing to be slaves and were probably captured. This makes them kidnapping victims not property. The paladin is well within his alignment to take steps to rescue them. This is the same as a cop seeing someone abusing a child and saving the child even if it means he has to break into the house where it is happening. The cop does not have to knock on the door and wait outside until the person inside opens the door they can and will break down the door to stop the crime in progress. What the paladin did is no different.
If a cop from the US was doing this in another country (or even just a foreign embassy in the US), HE would be arrested and likely sentenced for illegal behaviour.
MDJ, the first posts on this thread are quite wise and with good advice.
Much of the rest starts to look like "yet another paladin thread". You won't miss anything by ignoring it.
Dorian didn't set fire to the bar. Balty did. It seems the paladin now responsible for the actions of his entire party and not just himself. And here I thought he had a hard job before.
That's the way I see it. A lot of it is related to the party rather than Dorian.
Another thing is that you have to plan for your players to not do what you planned.
And another thing to comment on is that it might not be best for a player to say "what? Why didn't you stop me?" That's something to talk about.
|
Dorian didn't set fire to the bar. Balty did. It seems the paladin now responsible for the actions of his entire party and not just himself. And here I thought he had a hard job before.You may have missed a few posts down
"He was completely aware of the plan in the inn. Actually he was a part builder of the plan. And he didn't cast detect evil in the inn before. And even if I was shocked with the Inn, i didn't realize directly he indeed played with lives of not evil commoners."
Im going to say cavaliers are far more flexible in their options than paladins. THey dont have the same strict stay in this one alignment or lose everything vibe pallys do.
I agree.