Paladin In RL ?

[Korath]

I'm a new DM in RL. Our campaign is just getting started. The players have no idea what RL is all about. To some it up quick, the DPs have sucked the players into Barovia. The players are not sure what power checkes, horror checks etc are.

The Paladin had to do his first power check. It was for murder of an evil npc by trampling him with his horse. The evil npc was not armed and posed no threat. I set it up so the Paladin was real upset with the human. He killed an 8 month old girl, that the party was searching for, by roasting her over a fire and was in the process of having dinner.

This was the first power check in the campain and the Paladin character rolled a 2%. I couldn't believe it. A 2% right at the start of the campain. Now he is at first stage " the Caress "

My question is this. Does the pally become evil at the first stage in the Path of Corruption? Or can he still keep his Paladin abilities? When would he normally lose his Lawfull Good alignment along this path of corruption?

TY for any advise or ideas.

[Nathan of the FoS]

Well, here's my two cents:

That was pretty bad luck for the paladin, but *shrug* that's the way the cookie crumbles. I'd say he loses all paladin abilities until he makes atonement, but that he stays LG for now. I would change his alignment (probably to LN) either when he fails a second powers check OR if he doesn't pursue redemption energetically.

[Joël of the FoS]

Assuming he killed the NPC by having his horse pass on him only once, just for nitpicking, IMHO what the paladin did was closer to "assault, grievous" than "murder, brutal" (see again those definitions) and the power check for this against evil NPC is only 1% But that's only my interpretation ...

---

This said, I would not retract all paladin powers from him. I think the Dark Powers know better They could tempt him into more powers by being brutal (path of the brute?).

On the other hand, the paladin could also be haunted by remorse, and seek penance. Great adventure potential hooks here.

Joël

[Jester of the FoS]

I see Dark Power checks and paladin abilities as seperate things. It's rare to find a DP check that isn't an evil action immedietly removing the paladin's abilities, but there are some. Riding down an evil foe (destroying evil, administering justice) might just be one.

He didn't do anything directly EEeeEEvil, so I wouldn't remove his paladin abilities. Nor would he change alignment; that's only the consequence of regular evil and becoming a darklord.

Instead, I would just curse him with a new power, perhaps one that amplyfies but twists one of his paladin abilities. Maybe his Lay on Hands only grants false life or his immunity to disease makes him a carrier/Typhoid Mary.

[Jack of Tears]

>>On the other hand, the paladin could also be haunted by remorse<<


Haunted by remorse for running down a man who was eating an innocent child? Hate to say it, but that sounds rediculous. The man may not have been armed, but he was unquestionably evil and had murdered an innocent. In this situation I'd not even require a powers check. If he'd only kidnapped the child and there was some question that he'd done something terrible do her, I could see it ... but there has to be a limit or people are going to be making powers checks all the time.

It seems to me the official material has always been a bit too eager to force these checks on people - soon enough they become tedious and the players become convinced they can't do anything at all.

[Korath]

Thanks for some of the quick replys. It happened at the end of the adventure so I have time to plan this out before the next one. I will put him on the " path of the brute. " he will lose some looks and gain strength +2 and I will additionally take away 2 Charisma from him.

I will leave him with the rest of his paladin abilities for now. I will temp him to be the brute many times over and see how he reacts.

This adv first revolved around Lycans. So I will try and get him to go on a quest for a cure to try and atone his transactions. I may take some Paladin abilities away, but I'll think and work on that first.

[Rotipher of the FoS]

Just wondering, did the paladin do this while riding his special mount? If so, I'd think it'd be appropriate under the circumstances if the mount -- which belongs to an outlander, hence (IIRC; I haven't actually run a 3E outlander paladin IMC ) shouldn't start out as a dread companion -- suddenly began to change alignment, developing the "dread companion" quirks and traits. By using his mount as the instrument of a Powers check-meriting act of overkill, the paladin had deliberately made it a tool of his own "dark side", which is precisely what a dread mount normally is.

Personally, I'd likely leave it at that IMC, and not actually advance the PC himself along a Terror Track. The players are newbies in the setting, and ought to rate one "warning-shot" null check (particularly if they're used to a more lax moral code in other campaigns), no matter what the dice have to say about it. Telling the paladin he gets a terrible, creepy feeling of malign attention directed at him is fine, however, and will likely serve the purpose of alerting your players to the need for caution.

[Joël of the FoS]

>>On the other hand, the paladin could also be haunted by remorse<<

Haunted by remorse for running down a man who was eating an innocent child? Hate to say it, but that sounds rediculous. The man may not have been armed, but he was unquestionably evil and had murdered an innocent.

*lol* Well yes, I do believe a paladin can have remorses for killing the guy on the spot. That's not how highly lawful people would behave IMHO.
The paladin should instead turn the man to the local authorities. The man could have been possessed (or otherwise controled, or forced) to do this evil act, making him a victim too. (Yes, Jerry Springer would do a fortune in D&D). So the paladin would have remorses for acting wrecklessly (according to his lawful ethics).

Rotifer, for the DPs to hit the paladin mount is again a good idea. Since the PCs are new to RL, this could be a great way to tell them how things work in RL, instead of potentially making them hate Ravenloft

Joël

[Jack of Tears]

>>That's not how highly lawful people would behave <<


I guess that depends on how you define lawful. A Paladin follows the laws of his religion, so unless said religion believes in giving psychotic killers a fair trial, then it doesn't fit. A Paladin in Ravenloft will quickly find that his religious beliefs and the laws of the land do not coincide.

The Paladin is the strong arm of his religion, he has to be able to defend it against infidels and heathens - which often means killing them without the benefit of a trial. The "bring the offender in to justice" approach is a very modern way of thinking - especially in a situation similar to that given above.

Now, the chance for failure was minute, but I still woudn't give the player any evident benefits or drawbacks even if he did fail. Instead, I might play upon his temper ... have it stoak a little easier than normal. Next time he gets into a fight, he may find that he is filled with "rightouse fury" and gains berzerking benefits. (and drawbacks) Perhaps, as the game progresses, he'll discover that the angrier he allows himself to become, the stronger he gets. (thus encouraging him to give in to his passion)

OR

Grant the player the ability to sense when someone is preparing to commit a crime. (Naturally this isn't always reliable - which should be apparent to the paladin - so it can't be used to ruin the game) Let him decide what to do at that point. If he treats the person to a beating, or worse, then he deserves a little more of Ravenloft's attention. In the next stage, give him flashes of the crime a person intends to commit - by touch, say. The trick being, of course, that people often bear some terrible thoughts they never intend to follow through on ... the Paladin need not know this, however.

Me, I prefer that a failed powers check never be defined as easily as a bonus and subtraction to stats - make them appropriate to the situation and the individual; don't be affraid to get complicated, be creative!


PS
(added after I went back and read Rot's response) Rot's idea also bears merit and could make for some interesting game play. But, be careful taking away (or even corrupting) a Paladin's mount - destroying a beloved class feature can have repercussions.

[Rotipher of the FoS]

True. The DM would have to make sure that the mount's actions can be traced back to its master's poor judgement. ("But that's what you had me do to that other person you thought badly of, isn't it...?" -- Look in mount's eyes after it tramples a rude bystander to death)

[Joël of the FoS]

I guess that depends on how you define lawful. A Paladin follows the laws of his religion, so unless said religion believes in giving psychotic killers a fair trial, then it doesn't fit. A Paladin in Ravenloft will quickly find that his religious beliefs and the laws of the land do not coincide.

The Paladin is the strong arm of his religion, he has to be able to defend it against infidels and heathens - which often means killing them without the benefit of a trial. The "bring the offender in to justice" approach is a very modern way of thinking - especially in a situation similar to that given above.

I do think that in areas where there are laws against murder, I do not believe a paladin going this far against the law. A murder is a murder, unless it was self defense. If the man was armed, and the paladin had no other choice but to kill him, it's another story. But the man in our story wasn't.

And I still believe many LG Ravenloft NPC have this "redemption first" attitude (à la Batman). I do not picture VR (or the twins) killing murderers, he would have more satisfaction in putting them behind bars.

But that's my way to see things. Other people might have a different view.

Joël

[Archedius]

I do not think that the paladins action warrants a powers check. The man he killed had roasted a child- an innocent to death. If the paladin has no way to prove the man did it (as I assume is probably the case) It becomes his duty to act as judge, jury and executioner if it will be for the greater good. Sure he could have taken the man prisoner- but what would that have done? The man could've just denied the charges if there was no proof . As for the unarmed part- I think the prevention of further evils more than outweighs this.
The paladin did not act cruelly towards the man in delivering justice; he attacked with the intent of killing as quickly as possible (from what I could gather from your post). The only way I would warrant a powers check would be a prolonged killing with the intent to cause as much pain as possible before death. Being trampled by a horse does not strike me as a slow death.
You may bring up the anger the paladin felt. Well, why shouldn't the paladin be angry. Any person with at least some semblance of humanity would feel enraged at such an atrocity. It is ok for a paladin to be angry at those who commit evil- as long as it doesn't spur them on to cruelty.
No powers check necessary in this case IMHO.

[Joël of the FoS]

Quite informative / interesting how a moral case bring up different views to it

I think many people here (me too perhaps!) are confusing how they would react themselves and how a LG paladin would? (I'd probably need a power check or two if I was onm this scene)

IMHO, unless he was alone, the paladin had a few other witness then himself to testify, so the guy was fried in a local jail.

Joël

[Gemathustra]

In my opinion, what the paladin did doesn't warrant a powers check. After all, his "victim" was, for all intents and purposes, a literal human monster. If one has to make a powers check for being overcome with righteous fury over him having murdered, cooked and eaten a baby, then why not force the PCs to make powers checks for setting ghouls on fire?

If you ask me, the paladin would only warrant a powers check if he were to have done something along the lines of torturing the murderer to death, perhaps as poetic justice, or, be so overcome with fury that he wrenches the creep's head of with his bare hands.

On the other hand, while I don't think that he deserves a powers check, I would think that he would come under greater scrutiny from the Dark Powers.

[Jester of the FoS]

It depends on whether the paladin is more lawful than good or more good than lawful.

Really, I have no problems with a paladin killing a killer. That's NOT murder, not anymore than lethal injection or the chair. It's punishment carried out by a divine hand.
As long as guilt is assured (which we can assume it was given they knew how the killer finished off the child) then a trial (a modern convenience) can really be overlooked.

Killing him with no chance of defending himself though... that's not very honerable. Not enough to remove paladin-hood but enough for a nasty check.
A good opportunity to show the horrors of the Mists and the possibility of redemtion.