How old exactly are the players?
Rule ONE of GMing Communicate with your players.
If you are going to vary the alignments of monsters from what is listed in the stats in the Bestiary -TELL THE PLAYERS BEFORE YOU ROLL UP CHARACTERS.
Otherwise you are playing with thier expectations and trust.
When an NPC lies to the players it is a bluff vs sense motive check, meaning it is up to you to tell the players they need to roll for sense motive. Otherwise your players will spend every following conversation with a NPC rolling SM to catch lies instead of listening to what the NPC is saying.You're saying whenever a player is lied to the GM should immediately say 'make a sense motive check'? That seems like a bit of a giveaway...
Your alternative is "Hm... "The sky is blue"? That might be a lie, I'm going to try and disbelieve it. Sense motive check!"
Those are not the only alternatives. Some players will only use the skill when they have reason to be suspicious. Some GMs can roll sense motive in secret.
The paladin failed to use all of his Erastil given abilities. He also failed to use his mind, which is part of being a paladin too!2+ skill points doesn't give you much room for your mind. Its hard choice between diplomacy, sense motive, and knowledge(religion), and you know... all those other skills.
Funnily enough, Paladins are given the ability to root out evil before smiting it into the earth.
Why were they sadistically murdering someone begging for their village to be spared?
I can't speak for the rest of it, but none of them spoke Goblin, so they didn't have a clue what he was saying.*
They still deserve to fall into evil for murdering children and the helpless.
Atonement should only cost the usual for casting services. 2500 is for knowingly violating your vows, which the OP has put forward that they have not. The DF isn't expended on casting so it's not a material cost.
*Edit to add: That said, it's usually pretty obvious when someone is pleading instead of murdering you. Goblins are weird though. Pleading and murdering might look very similar.
The paladin failed to use all of his Erastil given abilities. He also failed to use his mind, which is part of being a paladin too!2+ skill points doesn't give you much room for your mind. Its hard choice between diplomacy, sense motive, and knowledge(religion), and you know... all those other skills.Funnily enough, Paladins are given the ability to root out evil before smiting it into the earth.
Granted it is an evil Outsider, an evil Cleric, or has more than 4 hit dice.
None of which the average goblin is.
The paladin failed to use all of his Erastil given abilities. He also failed to use his mind, which is part of being a paladin too!2+ skill points doesn't give you much room for your mind. Its hard choice between diplomacy, sense motive, and knowledge(religion), and you know... all those other skills.Funnily enough, Paladins are given the ability to root out evil before smiting it into the earth.
Granted it is an evil Outsider, an evil Cleric, or has more than 4 hit dice.
None of which the average goblin is.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if something isn't evil enough to ping on your evil-dar, you probably shouldn't be killing its babies.
Demon babies? Sure. Go ahead.
Babies of a sapient race that might find "Seranrae's light" or "Erastil's Wisdom" or whatever floats your paladin's boat? Probably not a good target.
The paladin failed to use all of his Erastil given abilities. He also failed to use his mind, which is part of being a paladin too!2+ skill points doesn't give you much room for your mind. Its hard choice between diplomacy, sense motive, and knowledge(religion), and you know... all those other skills.Funnily enough, Paladins are given the ability to root out evil before smiting it into the earth.
Granted it is an evil Outsider, an evil Cleric, or has more than 4 hit dice.
None of which the average goblin is.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if something isn't evil enough to ping on your evil-dar, you probably shouldn't be killing its babies.
Demon babies? Sure. Go ahead.
Babies of a sapient race that might find "Seranrae's light" or "Erastil's Wisdom" or whatever floats your paladin's boat? Probably not a good target.
Goblins, 1 HD creatures, will never ping as evil on average.
Even if they've raped, tortured (probably with fire), and murdered innocent people (including children).
Your logic of "If it doesn't ping, it's not evil enough" doesn't hold.
Detect Evil does not detect how evil something is. It just detects how powerful something is when it also happens to be evil.
It is a glorified Scouter.
Your alternative is "Hm... "The sky is blue"? That might be a lie, I'm going to try and disbelieve it. Sense motive check!"When an NPC lies to the players it is a bluff vs sense motive check, meaning it is up to you to tell the players they need to roll for sense motive. Otherwise your players will spend every following conversation with a NPC rolling SM to catch lies instead of listening to what the NPC is saying.You're saying whenever a player is lied to the GM should immediately say 'make a sense motive check'? That seems like a bit of a giveaway...
Honestly, I'd rather just trust my players not to metagame than pull a "gotcha" on them. Though usually when I GM I just have their perception and sense motive modifiers written down, and ask for plain d20 rolls when needed (And sometimes when not, just to throw them off.
It's worth spending the move action to check.At level 1 a paladin gains the ability to cast a certain spell as a move action, and learn in that amount of time what would take any other spell caster in the universe three standard actions. The divine gifts were bestowed upon a warrior who has proven unworthy.If it matters, good and neutral people can be bad too, or if you can't accept that at least do bad things. Your detect only goes so far.
Point flew over your head. Detect doesn't catch everyone who's evil, and sometimes its the neutrals or good guys you have to worry about. Just because its neutral doesn't mean it won't kill you.
The fact that the GM let the paladin slaughter the entire village before falling should be a pretty clear indicator that this was a setup. Committing the first evil act should have instantly made the paladin fall. If I were the player I'd be retraining my paladin levels first chance I got.
So although I fear the sun will dim for my saying so, I'm going to agree with Wraithstrike here: What *should* happen depends on what the GM's pact with the players was on paladin behavior and "evil" creatures when the campaign started.That is the best thing anyone could do.. :DThis is fair enough. My take on good and evil is 100% accurate, but not all games follow those standards. Some just want to allow a paladin to hack and slash through evil and don't really care about anything else. If that's the case though, they should be certain its evil they're hacking and slashing through, and in this case they didn't.
I agree with these guys though. Since there are 2 takes on it, the one that will he enforced should be defined before hand either way.
I should obviously clarify: I'm agreeing with Wraithstrike that it is the GM's responsibility to set expectations on good and evil, and this GM failed at that.
Otherwise, I'm in my usual, "Let's argue for a while, Wraithstrike" camp.
The moment they fed the begging, pleading village elder to a Flaming Sphere? That should make any paladin in any system fall, no matter what. "Torturing sentient beings for joy" is NOT in the paladin handbook, even Torag's. They weren't trying to get information; there wasn't a need to cause the elder undue pain, they just thought it was funny. That's a fall.
Now, the OP wanted to know how the paladin should atone, and though there have been a lot of great ideas, I haven't yet addressed it.
Specifically *because* of the Flaming Sphere incident, you can't exactly call this an "accident". The paladin might have been misled into thinking the goblins were evil. The paladin's player might have come from a system where E = genocide is OK.
But he stood by while a living, pleading being was tortured.
Nope. The atonement's got to be HUGE. Not one of these, "I'm done in a day" kind of things.
I liked the previous poster's thoughts -- work with no rest 'til he fails his Fort save and drops. Keep doing it until he's dropped as many times as there were deaths in the village.
It's at least a couple of weeks of hard atonement, and it sets a nice tone. "As a paladin of Erastil, if you screw up by murdering a village, you're going to dedicate yourself to personally rebuilding that village until it's done."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Um they need to get a loan and resurrect the children. Bring them all back.Since restoring the village back to life is a long and arduous process, I would slowly restore their powers as more and more villagers are restored. And only during times that he is actively involved in something that will directly bring back another villager.
Saranrae: Child of light, I have taken away your powers and will only give them back in times of great need and in the name of this village. It will take a life time of work.
Paladin: Wait, your holding my powers ransom and you expect me to work for a lifetime? Yeah.... No. I think I'm going to go be a barbarian or something now.
I think it went down badly for a few reasons. First I have to support Rynjin on the sense motive rolls. When GMing I personally make all rolls that would cause meta issues like perception and sense motive. In earlier editions players were encouraged to use their own judgement about things like sense motive but now it is a skill. This is because players like to play characters who are better at things than they are. If my character has maximum sense motive he is gonna pick up on things I as a player miss and if I have a negative sense motive my character is gonna miss things that I as a player notice.
Second the Paladin needs to fall after the first attack roll is made. Why would Erastil allow the slaughter to continue when he has a means of screaming stop now via an immediate fall?
That said I wouldn't go back and change things now. I would talk it out with the whole group and figure out what went wrong and how to get clearer expectations. It sounds like people are unhappy, talking is what helps clear the problems up.
I would personally have Erastil visit the fallen Paladin in a dream and offer a path to redemption that involves retraining into Ranger, Inquisitor or Oracle rather than regaining his paladinhood. Paladins are the in-fluff hardest road to walk and maybe in this case the gravity of that can be driven home by having the character regain the approval of Erastil without ever regaining the right to call himself a Paladin.
I would personally have Erastil visit the fallen Paladin in a dream and offer a path to redemption that involves retraining into Ranger, Inquisitor or Oracle rather than regaining his paladinhood.
Keep mind a ranger or inquisitor or oracle plays completely differently than a paladin. Would be like going from fighter to wizard. They even have a different roleplay, inquisitor and ranger are skill monkey-esque, and Oracle I particular would give him free reign to take the powers and run and go worship Rovagug if he really wanted too.
Well... I think someone who said that would never be a Paladin in the first place :P.
You would worship someone who would hold your things ransom? Your patron sounds like a jerk. Its the principle of the thing, you know?
More seriously, there's a lot of things wrong with not allowing a player to reroll or retrain because its akin to telling the player he has to play, and I think there's a certain attaching of values to a paladin that aren't necessary here. Pathfinder paladins don't even demand you worship a Deity, though some GMs attach the requirement anyway.
Like I said earlier though, regardless of whether the paladin should or should not have fallen, working at the village for a while could be really good roleplay and a good way to handle it since atonement is out of reach. I wouldn't go and force them to devote their entire character's life to it though, that's probably best left to a player decision, which they might do actually!
I was thinking of keeping the transition as easy as possible, divine martial getting spells from Erastil to divine martial getting spells from Erastil. Have the retraining covered by the church, and have the character do what he can to make things right. Nothing plays like a Paladin really. I suppose he could simply atone, no problems because he was misled. But I think that this group will have similar problems again soon if that happens. This isn't the first time this game has resulted in advice threads.
|
hmm seems like a trap plain and simple as a GM yes the paladin may do some evil acts that the player may think is good or correct and that is when you should jump in and say something around the likes of "you feel a shuddering feeling running down your spine almost as if you are rousing the ire of your deity"
barring that maybe you should not derail the whole campaign and have him do repentance by stopping the rising evil in the distant land.
The paladin failed to use all of his Erastil given abilities. He also failed to use his mind, which is part of being a paladin too!2+ skill points doesn't give you much room for your mind. Its hard choice between diplomacy, sense motive, and knowledge(religion), and you know... all those other skills.Funnily enough, Paladins are given the ability to root out evil before smiting it into the earth.
Granted it is an evil Outsider, an evil Cleric, or has more than 4 hit dice.
None of which the average goblin is.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if something isn't evil enough to ping on your evil-dar, you probably shouldn't be killing its babies.
Demon babies? Sure. Go ahead.
Babies of a sapient race that might find "Seranrae's light" or "Erastil's Wisdom" or whatever floats your paladin's boat? Probably not a good target.
Goblins, 1 HD creatures, will never ping as evil on average.
Even if they've raped, tortured (probably with fire), and murdered innocent people (including children).
Your logic of "If it doesn't ping, it's not evil enough" doesn't hold.
Detect Evil does not detect how evil something is. It just detects how powerful something is when it also happens to be evil.
It is a glorified Scouter.
I do understand how the Paladin's Detect Evil class feature works. If you read the post you quoted again, you'll see that I said that something not being inherently evil (having the evil subtype) means that murdering it's babies is probably not the way to go for a paladin.
Sure, Kill the goblins if that makes you happy. You'll have to atone later when your god doesn't approve
Murdering the goblin babies? That's not something you really come back from.
Case in point, in a very similar situation, our party's paladin insisted that the young be taken to a temple and taught to serve his god. (the village was actually evil but he dedicated his non-adventuring time to saving them)
I wouldn't allow retraining of the levels either (in the no atonement situation) - call it a parting curse from the deity the ex-Paladin pissed off.Um they need to get a loan and resurrect the children. Bring them all back.Since restoring the village back to life is a long and arduous process, I would slowly restore their powers as more and more villagers are restored. And only during times that he is actively involved in something that will directly bring back another villager.Saranrae: Child of light, I have taken away your powers and will only give them back in times of great need and in the name of this village. It will take a life time of work.
Paladin: Wait, your holding my powers ransom and you expect me to work for a lifetime? Yeah.... No. I think I'm going to go be a barbarian or something now.
This would be fine for an NPC, but as a player this would be kinda dumb. At that point I'd tear up my character sheet and just roll a new character. Seriously, you've turned a PC into an nonredeemable and useless character, with no ability. You might as well have their deity strike them down dead there on the spot.
I can't imagine anyone would have a fun time with that sort of decision.
The paladin failed to use all of his Erastil given abilities. He also failed to use his mind, which is part of being a paladin too!2+ skill points doesn't give you much room for your mind. Its hard choice between diplomacy, sense motive, and knowledge(religion), and you know... all those other skills.Funnily enough, Paladins are given the ability to root out evil before smiting it into the earth.
Granted it is an evil Outsider, an evil Cleric, or has more than 4 hit dice.
None of which the average goblin is.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if something isn't evil enough to ping on your evil-dar, you probably shouldn't be killing its babies.
Demon babies? Sure. Go ahead.
Babies of a sapient race that might find "Seranrae's light" or "Erastil's Wisdom" or whatever floats your paladin's boat? Probably not a good target.
Goblins, 1 HD creatures, will never ping as evil on average.
Even if they've raped, tortured (probably with fire), and murdered innocent people (including children).
Your logic of "If it doesn't ping, it's not evil enough" doesn't hold.
Detect Evil does not detect how evil something is. It just detects how powerful something is when it also happens to be evil.
It is a glorified Scouter.
I do understand how the Paladin's Detect Evil class feature works. If you read the post you quoted again, you'll see that I said that something not being inherently evil (having the evil subtype) means that murdering it's babies is probably not the way to go for a paladin.
Sure, Kill the goblins if that makes you happy. You'll have to atone later when your god doesn't approve
Murdering the goblin babies? That's not something you really come back from.
Case in point, in a very similar situation, our party's paladin insisted that the young be taken to a temple and...
Disagree, goblin babies are innately/inherently evil. They aren't powered by evil (evil subtype), but they are evil.
Yes, they can redeemed but so can demons/devils so no difference.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good news: after spending a lot of gold and effort to atone, you still get to be a Paladin. Even better news: You are now a Goblin! Now you can see first hand how wrong it is to mindlessly judge things on appearance alone, and can hopefully teach others that lesson.
--Erastil.
p.s. Now go plant some wheat, you slacker!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't go so far as to say that this was GM set-up trap designed to make the party in general (and the paladin in particular) fall. To me, that implies that the absolute intent of the GM was to cause the paladin to fall. While I think there certainly was opportunity to have done things differently/better, I think its perfectly plausible that any mistakes made by the GM were simply that, a mistake.
I agree (and frankly missed it on initial read) that Nualia's claim of having been attacked by the "evil" goblins was absolutely a bluff. I also agree that should have been grounds for a sense motive check. I also understand that in many situations, the characters are more intelligent/perceptive than their players are (and vice-versa). I also absolutely understand, as a GM, not wanting to call for a Sense Motive check every time an NPC utters a lie since it could quickly lead to metagaming (sort of like the rogue who keeps checking the door for traps because he can't roll above a 3 on the die).
That said, as others have pointed out, the GM could either roll the results in secret, or simply have the players make X sense motive checks at the start of the session. Do that every session and you'll get around the metagame issue.
As for not having the paladin fall instantly upon the first evil act (which I personally do not think was the first shot, but came later when it was clear the goblins were not resisting), again, technically, there should have likely been a warning of some sort. Even if the paladin was caught up in his blood lust and was just swinging his big stick around (as opposed to using his divine powers) he still likely would have noticed something (again the GM could have asked for a perception check -- "You notice that the familiar feeling of warmth that Erastil instills in you is gone."); however, its also entirely possible the GM got caught up in the moment too. Honestly, what GM hasn't made a mistake? Heck, what GM hasn't made a lot of mistakes over the years? Granted, you hope they are not major, but it does happen.
All that said, it sounds like one of the potential problems the group in general may be having, is that they are trying too hard to set the mood, use cool visuals, etc. While the description of the things they are using sounds awesome (and almost certainly is) its also possible that once the group gathers round the table, there is too much attention being paid to all the extra doodads that other things get lost in shuffle (like the sense motive checks and the indication that the paladin is/has fallen).
This then gets even more complicated when you start bringing alignment into the equation. The standard response I give about alignment is that if you ask 10 experienced players the same alignment question, you're likely to get 13 answers. This has already been shown to be the case here. I don't think that the initial shot was an evil act based on the circumstances, but I do personally think that at a certain point it became an evil act to continue to slaughter the village that was clearly unarmed and not resisting. It sounds as though this was clear even though none of the PCs there spoke goblin. However, as we've seen, others have disagreed because they feel that it still was not clear that the goblins were not evil even though they were not resisting. To me, the issue of the goblin's alignment isn't what matters. To others, the general expectation of their alignment does. Who's right? Everyone. Which I will agree is also why a group should discuss alignment expectations when there is a paladin involved.
All of this is also why even though I agree the paladin should fall, and even though I don't think it was a conscious trap set up by the GM, the paladin should be allowed to regain his status if he wants to. I personally think that the atonement should be a character defining event and should take up quite a bit of the paladin's energies, though it can be done in such a way as to be handled "off screen". Whether its constantly tithing to the community, going out of his way to help raise and mentor a surviving goblin child, whatever. I just think that before everyone starts pointing fingers, we should take a step back and realize that while there may have been some bad handling of the situation, that doesn't mean there weren't honest mistakes made.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Um they need to get a loan and resurrect the children. Bring them all back.Since restoring the village back to life is a long and arduous process, I would slowly restore their powers as more and more villagers are restored. And only during times that he is actively involved in something that will directly bring back another villager.Saranrae: Child of light, I have taken away your powers and will only give them back in times of great need and in the name of this village. It will take a life time of work.
Paladin: Wait, your holding my powers ransom and you expect me to work for a lifetime? Yeah.... No. I think I'm going to go be a barbarian or something now.
Saranrae: Then you child, were never a paladin to begin with
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously doesn't anyone look at the OP other posts????
Back in Feb this year he started a thread titled "how to deal with a half arsed paladin" complaining about his paladin player. The OP came across as a control freak who wanted the paladin PC to fall because he had been gambling. The thread eventually got locked with multiple posts deleted.
He forces to the paladin's player to sign up to a code where the paladin will fall if "he every murders a child" (first on a list of you WILL fall if you...).
Lo and behold a few months latter he introduces into his ROTRL campaign, after four levels of goblin slaughter, a "good" tribe of goblins which plenty of NPCs know about but strangely failed to mention to the PCs. He then sets up the party to attack the goblins and BAM there falls the paladin.
Then he starts trolling here to get support for what has to be some of the worst DMing I have every seen.
So Mulet, to go back to your original post
I need this post to make sure I'm not bullying Justin.
you've totally failed your group.
Am I being harsh? Maybe this wasn't a trap? It sure smells like one - exactly what is the stealthy good tribe of goblins adding to ROTRL? Of course here's Mulet's opinion on 'whoever' wrote ROTRL - he knows better
Both us DM's re-process the atrociously laid out contents. (Seriously, the dudes that write up campaign stuff need to be slapped.)
from here.
Saranrae: Then you child, were never a paladin to begin withUm they need to get a loan and resurrect the children. Bring them all back.Since restoring the village back to life is a long and arduous process, I would slowly restore their powers as more and more villagers are restored. And only during times that he is actively involved in something that will directly bring back another villager.Saranrae: Child of light, I have taken away your powers and will only give them back in times of great need and in the name of this village. It will take a life time of work.
Paladin: Wait, your holding my powers ransom and you expect me to work for a lifetime? Yeah.... No. I think I'm going to go be a barbarian or something now.
And then John was an antipaladin.
Seriously doesn't anyone look at the OP other posts????
As much as I love to spend (too much) time on these boards, I'm afraid that no, I don't do "background checks" on OPs.
Thanks for the information. I, for one, find it very informative.
Seriously doesn't anyone look at the OP other posts????
Back in Feb this year he started a thread titled "how to deal with a half arsed paladin" complaining about his paladin player. The OP came across as a control freak who wanted the paladin PC to fall because he had been gambling. The thread eventually got locked with multiple posts deleted.
He forces to the paladin's player to sign up to a code where the paladin will fall if "he every murders a child" (first on a list of you WILL fall if you...).
Lo and behold a few months latter he introduces into his ROTRL campaign, after four levels of goblin slaughter, a "good" tribe of goblins which plenty of NPCs know about but strangely failed to mention to the PCs. He then sets up the party to attack the goblins and BAM there falls the paladin.
Then he starts trolling here to get support for what has to be some of the worst DMing I have every seen.
So Mulet, to go back to your original post
I need this post to make sure I'm not bullying Justin.you've totally failed your group.
Am I being harsh? Maybe this wasn't a trap? It sure smells like one - exactly what is the stealthy good tribe of goblins adding to ROTRL? Of course here's Mulet's opinion on 'whoever' wrote ROTRL - he knows better
Both us DM's re-process the atrociously laid out contents. (Seriously, the dudes that write up campaign stuff need to be slapped.)from here.
I remember that thread, that was pretty horrible
NobodysHome,
You're very welcome. I have to admit I spent way too much time reading and thinking about my post, but I don't post too often and have been guilty of hip-shooting in the past, so I'd rather look at the big picture or not post at all.
Disagree, goblin babies are innately/inherently evil. They aren't powered by evil (evil subtype), but they are evil.
Yes, they can redeemed but so can demons/devils so no difference.
Apparently they weren't innately evil, because the whole village was good. This was a DM choice that differs from most campaigns, but none the less the goblin babies were inheritly evil
And then John was an antipaladin.
I have no problem with that because it follows the rules, something the paladin failed at
NobodysHome,
You're very welcome. I have to admit I spent way too much time reading and thinking about my post, but I don't post too often and have been guilty of hip-shooting in the past, so I'd rather look at the big picture or not post at all.
Well, there's a reason I always preface my opinions with, "Well, *if* it went down the way the OP describes..."
I mean, for a paladin thread, this one is downright friendly and polite, and I'm seeing a lot of neat ideas. Just changes my original stance to, "Wow! I'd love to see the players' take on that same incident..."
@The Purity of Violence
I completely understand his desire to teach the paladin a lesson in values. It seems as though the way he has been acting, he needed it. Gambling seems like a stupid reason for a paladin to fall. It may not be the most exalted thing to do, but its not against the paladins code. However, not killing children being at the top of that code is certainly justifiable. It was certainly a set up, but a trap it was not, more like an opportunity to learn a lesson. If this player wants to play a paladin he should learn how to play one. If not there's nothing wrong with that, he should just play a different class
I have not read the first thread mentioned, but I did read and partake in the "the script" thread.
It is certainly true that the OP has had missteps as a GM -- again what GM hasn't? Anybody who claims otherwise is either a) lying or b) has players that just don't care. No amount of preparation, or even innate talent, will prepare us for running a campaign. Every GM makes mistakes because GMs, surprisingly enough, are humans too.
That said, this thread comes off differently, to me, than the last thread about "leaving the script". It could be that while the OP still has a lot to learn, he actually is learning, which is a great thing. I agree that there are things that could have been handled differently. That doesn't; however, mean that the GM set out to deliberately cause the paladin to fall.
Is it possible he did? Of course. We are, as pointed out, seeing only his version of the session. We have not heard from the players. Granted, he asked them, understandably, not to look in this thread. At the same time, I don't see a thread along the lines of "My GM keeps setting us up to fail and has now forced the Paladin to fall by setting an undetectable trap!" Now, maybe its because his players just don't care. Or maybe, just maybe, its because the players realize, in hindsight, that they screwed up. Now of course, if such thread does exist and I've simply missed it, I will gladly check it out and maybe we can see where the problems lie (in my experience, the "truth" typically lies somewhere in the middle).
To me, the question ultimately comes down to: "Does slaughtering a helpless village of creatures the party is unable to communicate with constitute an evil act when said villagers never raise a finger toward the party -- even throughout the slaughter?" Obviously, from this thread, the answer is Yes. Obviously, from this thread, the answer is No. In other words, Different Strokes for Different Folks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just want to chip in my 2 cents. While the paladin's conduct in killing the tribe of good goblins and showing no mercy is fall worthy, I do think this was a GM trap.
The OP has another thread about how the party just failed Burnt offerings here.
Apparently, this tribe of good goblins was so notable that the ruler of Varisia granted them his personal protection. And NONE of the PCs knew about it. The fact that this unique goblin tribe had such status to draw the attention of the ruler of the country, but Shalelu didn't think them worth mentioning makes me think this was a GM trap. If not specifically for the paladin, it is something that the GM thought would be such a cool "gotcha!" moment for the party that he was willing to ignore past events and basic logic to accomplish it.
So in isolation, torching a village of good goblins and killing all of them is definitely against the paladin code, and would cause a fall. But personally, given the apparent misinformation and manipulation the GM is doing to the players with this scenario, I don't think a paladin fall is appropriate. I would feel like an slimy, evil a-hole if I made a paladin fall for doing something that seemed logical because I withheld vital in-game knowledge that should have been readily provided to the party.
I think the player retiring the character and never playing a paladin with this GM again is the correct course of action. If this type of bait-and-switch is how the OP generally operates, I personally would question my reason for playing in his campaign at all. I don't like playing in games where the world is so internally inconsistent.
Anyone who says no is wrong.
Imagine if American troops went over to Africa and slaughtered a small indigenous tribe that they couldn't communicate with but refused to fight back. There elder was on his knees pleading with them, and just because they couldn't understand him, they threw him into a fire. Then as small children ran out of a building fleeing in different directions, they were all shot down. Just because some other tribes may be cannibalistic does not mean it would be ok to slaughter this one as it begs for its life.
Disagree if you like, it really only speaks as to your comprehension of right and wrong
EDIT* that wasn't directed at you Garg, just using the closing of your last statement as an opportunity is all
|
|
Jimibones its not the act we are questioning it is the situation and GM (who has started threads that would make you think that he has been trying to do so for awhile) also I think it would be wise to refrain form comparing a rpg to real life .. or people
on a unrelated note makes me think of journeyquest's glorian
Anyone who says no is wrong.
Imagine if American troops went over to Africa and slaughtered a small indigenous tribe that they couldn't communicate with but refused to fight back. There elder was on his knees pleading with them, and just because they couldn't understand him, they threw him into a fire. Then as small children ran out of a building fleeing in different directions, they were all shot down. Just because some other tribes may be cannibalistic does not mean it would be ok to slaughter this one as it begs for its life.
Disagree if you like, it really only speaks as to your comprehension of right and wrong
EDIT* that wasn't directed at you Garg, just using the closing of your last statement as an opportunity is all
I get where you are coming from and don't think it was directed at me.
That said, I'm not sure that comparing the game to American soldiers killing African villagers is an accurate one. I think a closer comparison would be taking those same American soldiers in African, only have them having been harassed by several "tribes" of gorillas that outright attack the barracks, soldiers, etc., and then come across a tribe of gorillas and proceed to mow down every last one even though none fight back, they all run, and a few even appear to be trying to communicate (albeit incoherently) with the troops. Throw in knowledge that the gorillas of the region are certainly . . . "awakened" . . . (i.e. maybe not human but pretty darn close) and I think you have a closer analogy. But in any event, trying to compare what goes on in an RPG to real life is always a perilous prospect.
@Shadowkire: Good point about none of the goblins being able to speak common.
As I said earlier, we obviously are only getting one side of the story here and it may or may not in fact be an accurate account. I am still not convinced that it was a trap per se, as it could simply have been an issue of a new GM who is still going through the growing pains most of us have at one point. Certainly his history isn't exactly great, but that doesn't mean that he wanted them to get tripped up by his clever little trap/story element. That said, it would be interesting to hear what the players had to say about it.
Seriously doesn't anyone look at the OP other posts????
Back in Feb this year he started a thread titled "how to deal with a half arsed paladin" complaining about his paladin player. The OP came across as a control freak who wanted the paladin PC to fall because he had been gambling. The thread eventually got locked with multiple posts deleted.
He forces to the paladin's player to sign up to a code where the paladin will fall if "he every murders a child" (first on a list of you WILL fall if you...).
Lo and behold a few months latter he introduces into his ROTRL campaign, after four levels of goblin slaughter, a "good" tribe of goblins which plenty of NPCs know about but strangely failed to mention to the PCs. He then sets up the party to attack the goblins and BAM there falls the paladin.
Then he starts trolling here to get support for what has to be some of the worst DMing I have every seen.
So Mulet, to go back to your original post
I need this post to make sure I'm not bullying Justin.you've totally failed your group.
Am I being harsh? Maybe this wasn't a trap? It sure smells like one - exactly what is the stealthy good tribe of goblins adding to ROTRL? Of course here's Mulet's opinion on 'whoever' wrote ROTRL - he knows better
Both us DM's re-process the atrociously laid out contents. (Seriously, the dudes that write up campaign stuff need to be slapped.)from here.
Requoting, because frankly, Purity nails it. So does Shadowkire
@Mulet - I've read the other threads of yours too. You freely admit back in February that you like to make things hard. Ok, so congrats, you trapped your Paladin (much like I suspect you always wanted to) and got the result you wanted. So live with it. Paladin has fallen, don't even try the whole "redemption" route. Because, if history is a judge, you'll just do it to him again (and by extension, the party) again.
You previously posted that your party had a goblin to interrogate for 3 sessions (and this good aligned goblin tribe never came up, it seems). An NPC, presumably a trustworthy one (Shalelu), gave them a strategic briefing and never mentioned a "good" goblin tribe (why not? That's pretty important stuff when goblins around Sandpoint are generally "kill on sight" pests Heck, in another AP Sandpoint reinstitutes a "per ear" bounty on goblins!! That goblins are evil is a pretty reasonable line to take for a PC party). Then, another NPC managed to "trick" them into wiping out the tribe. Wouldn't take much, you've intentionally set the table for the party to go in, guns blazing, given intentional, on the DM's part, omissions to information that the party really should have had. Final straw - Paladin never got a hint of warning after the first couple of goblin kills that perhaps this was a big mistake, y'know, like losing his powers, feeling a disconnect with his god, etc.
If you wanted to mess with the Paladin (and lots of your other postings rather suggest this, I'd say), then congrats, you succeeded. But then, any DM can lay a trap for players, and Paladins are especially vulnerable to DM shenanigans. You can add me to Purity's camp regarding bad DM'ing.
|
|
Seriously doesn't anyone look at the OP other posts????
Back in Feb this year he started a thread titled "how to deal with a half arsed paladin" complaining about his paladin player. The OP came across as a control freak who wanted the paladin PC to fall because he had been gambling. The thread eventually got locked with multiple posts deleted.
He forces to the paladin's player to sign up to a code where the paladin will fall if "he every murders a child" (first on a list of you WILL fall if you...).
Lo and behold a few months latter he introduces into his ROTRL campaign, after four levels of goblin slaughter, a "good" tribe of goblins which plenty of NPCs know about but strangely failed to mention to the PCs. He then sets up the party to attack the goblins and BAM there falls the paladin.
Then he starts trolling here to get support for what has to be some of the worst DMing I have every seen.
So Mulet, to go back to your original post
I need this post to make sure I'm not bullying Justin.you've totally failed your group.
Am I being harsh? Maybe this wasn't a trap? It sure smells like one - exactly what is the stealthy good tribe of goblins adding to ROTRL? Of course here's Mulet's opinion on 'whoever' wrote ROTRL - he knows better
Both us DM's re-process the atrociously laid out contents. (Seriously, the dudes that write up campaign stuff need to be slapped.)from here.Requoting, because frankly, Purity nails it. So does Shadowkire
@Mulet - I've read the other threads of yours too. You freely admit back in February that you like to make things hard. Ok, so congrats, you trapped your Paladin (much like I suspect you always wanted to) and got the result you wanted. So live with it. Paladin has fallen, don't even try the whole "redemption" route. Because, if history is a judge, you'll just do it...
If you wanted to mess with the Paladin (and lots of your other postings rather suggest this, I'd say), then congrats, you succeeded. But then, any DM can lay a trap for players, and Paladins are especially vulnerable to DM shenanigans. You can add me to Purity's camp regarding bad DM'ing.
Add me to that same list of people saying Bad GMing. Mulet, you should not be GMing at all. You purposely with held info from a player to make him fail and then come here looking for support while masking your crappy manipulations of the game so you can feel like you did nothing out of line at all.
Quit GMing, you suck at it.
You guys make fair points. The GM handled it as badly as the players, I can agree with that. But still, creatures running and begging as they are slaughtered should be enough to immediately question whether they are evil or not. They should have stopped and evaluated the situation, but they didn't and the paladin should certainly pay the price for that. I suppose it does sound like everyone handled it poorly, and I also suppose that I can see an explanation to both sides, though neither is good enough to justify their actions lol.
I disagree about comparing to real life though. If not compared to real life, then what standard is there? Nothing solid
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You guys make fair points. The GM handled it as badly as the players, I can agree with that. But still, creatures running and begging as they are slaughtered should be enough to immediately question whether they are evil or not. They should have stopped and evaluated the situation, but they didn't and the paladin should certainly pay the price for that. I suppose it does sound like everyone handled it poorly, and I also suppose that I can see an explanation to both sides, though neither is good enough to justify their actions lol.
I disagree about comparing to real life though. If not compared to real life, then what standard is there? Nothing solid
This is why I'd really like to hear the party's side of the story. I wouldn't be shocked if the description they got of what was happening was rather different from what the OP has told us.
I joined late and did not read all the posts but...
1 Day and 1 Night spent in the service of the community, a farmer or a builder. He must labour until exhausted, praying the whole time to Erastil for forgiveness. Plus 100GP donation to the local church.
Seems clearly not enough. At the very least he should (possibly with help of the party) ensure a proper burial for all the goblins. No mass graves allowed. That means digging 6ft graves and a grave-marker for everyone. Depending on help he gets (or buys) that can mean quite some days digging and crafting tombstones. After that is done a shrine to Erastil would round it up fine.
That being said: Why not make him feel his god's displeasure before the massacre was finished?
Anyone who says no is wrong.
Imagine if American troops went over to Africa and slaughtered a small indigenous tribe that they couldn't communicate with but refused to fight back. There elder was on his knees pleading with them, and just because they couldn't understand him, they threw him into a fire. Then as small children ran out of a building fleeing in different directions, they were all shot down. Just because some other tribes may be cannibalistic does not mean it would be ok to slaughter this one as it begs for its life.
Disagree if you like, it really only speaks as to your comprehension of right and wrong
EDIT* that wasn't directed at you Garg, just using the closing of your last statement as an opportunity is all
The game does NOT work like real life. In real like you can't just go around killing people and taking their stuff. Even if you kill them in self defense it is still stealing, but the game does not consider it to be stealing.
Anyone who does not realize you can't always use real life comparisons is wrong.
You guys make fair points. The GM handled it as badly as the players, I can agree with that. But still, creatures running and begging as they are slaughtered should be enough to immediately question whether they are evil or not. They should have stopped and evaluated the situation, but they didn't and the paladin should certainly pay the price for that. I suppose it does sound like everyone handled it poorly, and I also suppose that I can see an explanation to both sides, though neither is good enough to justify their actions lol.
I disagree about comparing to real life though. If not compared to real life, then what standard is there? Nothing solid
So running away equals not evil now, really? O.o
I have my bad guys run away when they are getting their butts kicked Some of the AP's suggest the GM's have bad guys run once their hit points get below a certain point or X number of their buddies are killed.
So tell me with GM's like myself and the official games using the same idea, but still having the bad guys be evil, how does your point stand?
PS: If the PC's get a surprise round in my bad guys might retreat so they can regroup, so not fighting back is by no means a sign of "not evil", ESPECIALLY, among creatures that do nothing but cause trouble.