So which of us was the bigger fool

[Wind Chime]

So my third level party encountered an evil higher level sorceress (a necro-bunny) and were running errands for her when she was attacked by a truly prodigious number of enemies which she disposed with a truly malevolent alacrity. Our party paladin had been moaning about the sorceress being evil and I knew she had better equipment for my character and I thought that after she had used quite a few spells to kill the mob we might stand a chance.

So I had my character do something I knew would probably get him killed and casted hold person on her with the paladin adjacent to her and it actually worked.

So our paladin had his turn and he could have killed the evil sorceress with a coup de gras with my character egging him on to finish it, and he did nothing and she made her save and the rest was really messy for the party.

So yes the party wipe was my fault but seriously what the hell I gift wrap the paladin a chance to smite evil ......... and he stands there uselessly.

So which of us do you think made the bigger mistake.

To be fair I expected she would just kill my character and was a little surprised when she just blasted the entire party to smithereens. It was one of those occasions where I thought you would either pull off a coup or win a darwin award, both of which outcomes would have amused me.

[QuidEst]

You, I think. Shouting, "Hey buddy, you need to murder the helpless person next to you in the next six seconds, GO!" is probably not going to work out well, evil or not. If the Pally didn't have a weapon drawn, it wouldn't work at all. (Barring Quick Draw or other odd scenarios.)

[The Sword]

The paladin, could have grappled her, knocked her unconscious, tied her up or done a wide range of things to incapacitate her without killing a helpless person.

That said it is usually not a good idea to surprise you team mates and then expect them to follow your master plan --- that you neglected to mention to them!

[Wind Chime]

It was definitely more of a spur of the moment thing.

[GM 1990]

So if the group had decided to run errands for this evil sorceress, it does sound like your paladin was accepting the "I need to work with evil a short while for a greater good." You were partners with her to a degree it seems?

You suddenly incapacitating her and asking him to murder her isn't something most paladins would do. Now...he could have grappled/pinned and attempted to capture her if he'd felt it was time to bring her to justice or end his temporary work arrangement.

However, as you describe it, it does sound like you came out of the blue with this idea to kill her - and just for equipment. While lawful good doesn't mean lawful stupid, this seems like a case of betrayal from role-playing perspective, and if I was role-playing the paladin I probably would have looked at you as more of the aggressor that was making a moral problem for me at that point. Just my opinion.

[DM_Blake]

Who is the bigger fool? The fool, or the fool who follows him?

[Kahel Stormbender]

Neither, it's the 3rd fool chasing after the first two crying out "HEY! Wait for me!"

[DM_Blake]

So, Chewbacca then?

[Wind Chime]

There was politics going on (arcane power vacuum)and we had been given sufficient evidence attacking her would end badly (the previous group that tried to kill her) but it was an opportunity I just couldn't just pass up especially given she was treating us like pawns and moronic as it seemed my character had his own aspirations of claiming the deceased sorcerer's tower for himself which could come to nothing with her in the way. Basically I saw the opportunity to skip waiting half a year (and several levels) to get what my character wanted.

[DM_Blake]

So your character, acting in a selfish and chaotic and murderous fashion, and you decided A FREAKING PALADIN is your best ally in this plan but didn't take (or have) the time to get his agreement to commit murder assist you, and you didn't anticipate that there could be any problems with this plan?

You took a shot. Sounds like good roleplaying of a CN character. The paladin balked. Sounds like good roleplaying of a LG character.

I see no problems here, except maybe the CN roleplayer being surprised that he didn't get this way. In fact I'm going to chalk this up under the heading: One More Reason that CN Characters Should NOT Adventure with Paladins". For example, I bet this story had a much happier ending for you if your ally had been a chaotic barbarian instead of a paladin.

[Wind Chime]

He was moaning about the Sorceress before the fight (basically he didn't like necromancy and mind controlled servants)and he had just seen her kill a lots of people (admittedly people who were trying to kill her) his character clearly wanted her gone, we were both on the same page about that.

[Dave Justus]

I'll grant you that If I was the DM, the Sorceress would have been happy just killing your character and spared the Paladin and the other characters, unless they subsequently joined in the fight.

Or possibly just turned you into a newt.

[Kahel Stormbender]

Wind Chime wrote:

He was moaning about the Sorceress before the fight (basically he didn't like necromancy and mind controlled servants)and he had just seen her kill a lots of people (admittedly people who were trying to kill her) his character clearly wanted her gone, we were both on the same page about that.

The problem stems from the betrayal. While she was evil, the tasks she sent you guys on I assume weren't those that would be vile acts. As such betraying her at the drop of a hat could have caused the paladin to fall due to violating his code of conduct.

Although he might have been on thin ice with his god(dess) already due to willingly working for an evil being for any reason.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Yeah, I'd say that was a foolish mage action, though the paladin's inability to adapt was a bit foolish as well, and the sorceress's response was a bit foolish on the GM's part.

I'd say the paladin gets slightly more "fool points" for talking all that game about hating the sorceress and then not following through when his partymember's life was on the line. Did he protest the "killing a paralyzed foe" angle? I'd at least accept it if he was one of those paladins who includes "senseless violence has to be fought fairly" in their code. Goofy, but at least acceptable.

If he didn't invoke the "fair murder" rule, though, he's just a fool. Fools all around!

[Kobold Catgirl]

Everybody here is assuming the paladin refused because she was paralyzed or because she was an "ally", but the OP hasn't said anything about that. In fact, they've made it quite clear the paladin detested the sorceress and didn't seem to want her as an ally at all. So let's not assume anything, people.

[Artifix]

What did the paladin end up doing?

[Samasboy1]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

If he didn't invoke the "fair murder" rule, though, he's just a fool. Fools all around!

I will have to remember to use the phrase "fair murder rule" in all future gaming opportunities.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I mean, if you're going to contribute to an endless cycle of killing and revengekilling, you'd better be fair about it and make sure they're armed when you do it!

[Snowblind]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I mean, if you're going to contribute to an endless cycle of killing and revengekilling, you'd better be fair about it and make sure they're armed when you do it!

That's right, better start handing out daggers to orc babies before you get with the smiting. It would be wrong to do otherwise.

...Actually, this could solve a lot of forum arguments. I like it. Good thinking, KC!

[Hugo Rune]

Without having been there it is extremely hard to adjudicate. My gut feeling is that the OP took an opportunity when it presented itself and was playing well. I wouldn't have punished the Paladin had he taken the opportunity as he was getting rid of a necromancer he had been forced to serve. Neither would I have blamed him for not acting, if he saw it as a dishonourable action. Had I been GMing, I think I would have killed the OP's character for the betrayal but not the rest of the party, who had shown loyalty to the sorceress by not acting.

But as I said at the start it is impossible to say without being there

[Kobold Catgirl]

Hugo Rune wrote:

Without having been there it is extremely hard to adjudicate. My gut feeling is that the OP took an opportunity when it presented itself and was playing well. I wouldn't have punished the Paladin had he taken the opportunity as he was getting rid of a necromancer he had been forced to serve. Neither would I have blamed him for not acting, if he saw it as a dishonourable action. Had I been GMing, I think I would have killed the OP's character for the betrayal but not the rest of the party, who had shown loyalty to the sorceress by not acting.

But as I said at the start it is impossible to say without being there

Yeah, I'm inclined to answer "the GM". TPKs should be avoided if there's a plausible alternative. The hobgoblins take you prisoner (and maybe kill the pureblood elves). The mind flayer charms the party into service. The sorceress turns the offending PC into a pygmy possum.

[Tacticslion]

Hugo Rune wrote:

Without having been there it is extremely hard to adjudicate. My gut feeling is that the OP took an opportunity when it presented itself and was playing well. I wouldn't have punished the Paladin had he taken the opportunity as he was getting rid of a necromancer he had been forced to serve. Neither would I have blamed him for not acting, if he saw it as a dishonourable action. Had I been GMing, I think I would have killed the OP's character for the betrayal but not the rest of the party, who had shown loyalty to the sorceress by not acting.

But as I said at the start it is impossible to say without being there

Pretty much this one.

That said,

OP wrote:

So which of us was the bigger fool

I dunno. How tall, wide, and heavy are each of you? Who has higher muscle tone (which would make that person smaller, per weight)?

Or is there a specific unit of measurement by which we are being questioned? In which case, you've got to be more specific, man! Clarity! >:I

No, but seriously, it's the first thing. I think a place to put blame is being sought where no blame in particular is to be had. There are plenty of points to criticize all, but blame none, in this scenario... at least without having been there.

[Nox Aeterna]

It is all about the party mate , know your customer.

In one of my current tables , the party is hold together by a fine thread , even with every single party member being good , chances are at most 1 or 2 would even consider for a moment following such action , because honestly? Each PC has its own ideals and diferent things it cares about and those thing matter a LOT for each , which means , it is before to talk things before hand and quick moves probably will kill you when the party dont follow.

On another table , the party is mostly neutral near evil , but every single party member got the others back dont matter what happen at all. And in this situation the sorcs head would have rolled without a doubt.

In the end , neither way of playing is wrong and neither what you did or what the paladin is stupid , but you need to know how your party will react before you act , otherwise you will be in big trouble.

[Atlas2112]

Two things:

1) The bigger fool is the Fool. Not the Fool who follows him. The Fool that is following at least knows that he does not know, and figures that since he can't really cut it on his own, he better go a different route, since at worst he'll only do as good as he's doing now. The Fool that is leading actually thinks it would be a good idea for more people to do what he's doing, and thusly does NOT know that he does not know.

2) The "She's helpless therefore I can't kill her angle" is complete rubbish. Even when the best Judicial System in the planet kills criminals, they're not given a sword and a shield and told to defend themselves, they're tied up, knelt down, and put before the LG Headman's ax. Or tied up, blindfolded, and a rope is put around their neck. The condition of the criminal is usually going to be of the Helpless variety when put to the sword.
Hence, the only decision for the Paladin to make was "Is she evil enough to deserve slaying?" It sounds like he flat out didn't pull the trigger and has no logic for it.

He's kinda got the Batman/Joker thing going on: Now for every innocent that suffers at her hands, he (at least posthumously) is culpable.

Okay, three things:

3) Perfect example of when about to initiate combat, make sure the rest of the party knows about it. Because, as The Emperor tells us: Victory requires no explanation, defeat allows none. =)

[SmiloDan]

TL/DR: But, can you Smite Evil with an unarmed strike? Then the paladin could have knocked her out with nonlethal damage (or was she undeadish enough to be immune or resistant to nonlethal damage?).

[Hugo Rune]

It sounds like a rewind might be in order. The thread title and the OP's message sounds like there is no group angst and if everybody was having fun it seems a shame to end the adventure.

I would suggest that the event is told as a story with the sorceress winning the encounter and annoyed with the PCs for not helping.

I would also suggest that the GM and Paladin discuss what he is and is not allowed to do. In my games, I go so far as to advise the player of a Paladin if a course of action is contrary to his code before he does it. It’s knowledge his character would know but the player might not, after all it is the Gm's game world not the player's and to my mind not telling him and letting him fall is a jerk move.