Paladin situation

[Deadmanwalking]

wraithstrike wrote:

pennywit wrote:

Omnidara wrote:

WARNING: CRIMSON THRONE SPOILERS BELLOW

** spoiler omitted **

Honestly .... I think this paladin should fall, or the player should at least get a talking-to from the GM. In a situation against overwhelming odds, a paladin still (IMO) ought to do something about the situation. Perhaps the paladin can't defeat an army of bad guys by force of arms, but he could still:

* Call town guards
* Challenge the bad guy leader to a duel or single combat (bonus points if the paladin's allies use the duel as a diversion to ameliorate the situation otherwise)
* Get as many innocents as possible to safety.
* Fight the overwhelming forces (maximizing defense as he does so) while other PCs get innocents to safety.

A paladin should always look for ways to protect the innocent ... even when the situation seems hopeless.

None of those were viable in that situation. His options were live to fight another day, or die.

Actually...per the encounter description, the third and fourth options are viable. And maybe even the second. The first doesn't work since they sorta are the town guards...but the rest are doable. Not necessarily easily, but doable.

Also...if a Paladin is for some reason completely unable to prevent such a thing, they should be upset, angry, and trying to make sure nothing like it happens again, not just shrugging and going on their way, while continuing to work with someone who participated in the massacre. So...very much not what this Paladin is described as doing. Which makes a difference...not saving innocents because it's impossible is fine for a Paladin, while not saving innocents because you just don't care is not.

[wraithstrike]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

pennywit wrote:

Omnidara wrote:

WARNING: CRIMSON THRONE SPOILERS BELLOW

** spoiler omitted **

Honestly .... I think this paladin should fall, or the player should at least get a talking-to from the GM. In a situation against overwhelming odds, a paladin still (IMO) ought to do something about the situation. Perhaps the paladin can't defeat an army of bad guys by force of arms, but he could still:

* Call town guards
* Challenge the bad guy leader to a duel or single combat (bonus points if the paladin's allies use the duel as a diversion to ameliorate the situation otherwise)
* Get as many innocents as possible to safety.
* Fight the overwhelming forces (maximizing defense as he does so) while other PCs get innocents to safety.

A paladin should always look for ways to protect the innocent ... even when the situation seems hopeless.

None of those were viable in that situation. His options were live to fight another day, or die.

Actually...per the encounter description, the third and fourth options are viable. And maybe even the second. The first doesn't work since they sorta are the town guards...but the rest are doable. Not necessarily easily, but doable.

Also...if a Paladin is for some reason completely unable to prevent such a thing, they should be upset, angry, and trying to make sure nothing like it happens again, not just shrugging and going on their way, while continuing to work with someone who participated in the massacre. So...very much not what this Paladin is described as doing. Which makes a difference...not saving innocents because it's impossible is fine for a Paladin, while not saving innocents because you just don't care is not.

Not without dying if he fights.

And as for getting the innocent to leave I had assumed that had already failed, but the OP is missing information so he may nto have thought of using diplomacy to talk the crowd down before the "combat" began.

[Imbicatus]

There is a Star Trek quote from Sisko that I apply to Paladins.

You made a military decision, to protect your ship and crew. But you're a Starfleet officer, Worf. We don't put civilians at risk or even potentially at risk to save ourselves. Sometimes that means we lose the battle, and sometimes our lives. But if you can't make that choice, then you can't wear that uniform.

Replace "Starfleet officer" with "paladin".

The paladin should have done something in that situation other than shrug and walk away.

[pennywit]

wraithstrike wrote:

pennywit wrote:

Omnidara wrote:

WARNING: CRIMSON THRONE SPOILERS BELLOW

** spoiler omitted **

Honestly .... I think this paladin should fall, or the player should at least get a talking-to from the GM. In a situation against overwhelming odds, a paladin still (IMO) ought to do something about the situation. Perhaps the paladin can't defeat an army of bad guys by force of arms, but he could still:

* Call town guards
* Challenge the bad guy leader to a duel or single combat (bonus points if the paladin's allies use the duel as a diversion to ameliorate the situation otherwise)
* Get as many innocents as possible to safety.
* Fight the overwhelming forces (maximizing defense as he does so) while other PCs get innocents to safety.

A paladin should always look for ways to protect the innocent ... even when the situation seems hopeless.

None of those were viable in that situation. His options were live to fight another day, or die.

Ermm ... that's kind of not a good situation gamewise, IMO. I'm of the opinion that players should always be able to Take a Third Option.

[wraithstrike]

Imbicatus wrote:

There is a Star Trek quote from Sisko that I apply to Paladins.

You made a military decision, to protect your ship and crew. But you're a Starfleet officer, Worf. We don't put civilians at risk or even potentially at risk to save ourselves. Sometimes that means we lose the battle, and sometimes our lives. But if you can't make that choice, then you can't wear that uniform.

Replace "Starfleet officer" with "paladin".

The paladin should have done something in that situation other than shrug and walk away.

Not even remotely the same.

[wraithstrike]

pennywit wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

pennywit wrote:

Omnidara wrote:

WARNING: CRIMSON THRONE SPOILERS BELLOW

** spoiler omitted **

Honestly .... I think this paladin should fall, or the player should at least get a talking-to from the GM. In a situation against overwhelming odds, a paladin still (IMO) ought to do something about the situation. Perhaps the paladin can't defeat an army of bad guys by force of arms, but he could still:

* Call town guards
* Challenge the bad guy leader to a duel or single combat (bonus points if the paladin's allies use the duel as a diversion to ameliorate the situation otherwise)
* Get as many innocents as possible to safety.
* Fight the overwhelming forces (maximizing defense as he does so) while other PCs get innocents to safety.

A paladin should always look for ways to protect the innocent ... even when the situation seems hopeless.

None of those were viable in that situation. His options were live to fight another day, or die.

Ermm ... that's kind of not a good situation gamewise, IMO. I'm of the opinion that players should always be able to Take a Third Option.

Let me clarify: Once things escalate to a point of fighting it is too late.

[Mykull]

So what if combat leads to the paladin's death?

* Party pays to raise the paladin.
* Church pays to resurrect the paladin.
* Player decides to play a new character based on one of the innocents saved by the paladin's sacrifice; who takes up the paladin's cause.

A noble death for a paladin is far better than an ignoble life.

[Bwang]

I remember trying to get D&D players to play Bushido...

[wraithstrike]

Mykull wrote:

So what if combat leads to the paladin's death?

* Party pays to raise the paladin.
* Church pays to resurrect the paladin.
* Player decides to play a new character based on one of the innocents saved by the paladin's sacrifice; who takes up the paladin's cause.

A noble death for a paladin is far better than an ignoble life.

1. The party might not have the funds

2. relies on GM Fiat which is never a godo idea.

3. The player may not want to do taht.

Ignoble life is subjective.

[Shadowkire]

A lot of people have not been reading the original post, because people keep suggesting that the paladin's party should work together to do something to stop the slaughter. It is a good sentiment, but ignores the fact that a member of the party was aiding in the slaughter.

There is not enough information to gauge the situation, we don't even know if the PCs consist of more than the paladin and the oracle.

pennywit wrote:

Perhaps the paladin can't defeat an army of bad guys by force of arms, but he could still:

* Call town guards
* Challenge the bad guy leader to a duel or single combat (bonus points if the paladin's allies use the duel as a diversion to ameliorate the situation otherwise)
* Get as many innocents as possible to safety.
* Fight the overwhelming forces (maximizing defense as he does so) while other PCs get innocents to safety.

A paladin should always look for ways to protect the innocent ... even when the situation seems hopeless.

*Can't call the guards, the grey maidens are guards/soldiers of the government.

*Against the part of the code where you should respect legitimate authority.
*The paladin tried, when s/he attempted to get the crowd to disperse before it was attacked
*The only other PC we know exists was killing innocents

Mykull wrote:

So what if combat leads to the paladin's death?

* Party pays to raise the paladin.
* Church pays to resurrect the paladin.
* Player decides to play a new character based on one of the innocents saved by the paladin's sacrifice; who takes up the paladin's cause.

A noble death for a paladin is far better than an ignoble life.

1. The party should be about level 5, so Raise Dead is just within the price range(to bankrupt the party), but finding a cleric willing to raise someone who died fighting against the authority that rules the city can be tricky.

2. I don't like to rely on GM fiat for bringing my character back from the dead. Also making decisions based on this possibility is meta-gamey.

3. If one of the innocents was anywhere close to the level of power the paladin had, why would s/he need to intervene?