Should this paladin *Fall?*

[MrFahrenheit]

I'm trying to make a very long story short with this one, so don't hesitate for more details if necessary:

Party (level 16) was chased by an ancient red into a cave complex. There, the sole resident is a dwarf stuck in the copper age. He's the last of his people, as they all would sacrifice one of their own to the red, in order for the rest to live ("I didn't like the circumstances, but what choice did I have?") He said for the party to continue on, one of the PCs must be sacrificed. Party instead KOs the guy, ties him up, and leaves him for the dragon, who permits their passage.

So here's the thing: one of my PCs is a LG hill dwarf paladin of Moradin. He wrestled with the decision, but ultimately decided to go with the party, given the copper age dwarf's crimes against his fellows. I made the player roll religion, and he did decently (total 15, IIRC), which was enough to justify the course of action...to himself.

Another issue is the paladin's got the oath of vengeance, and his backstory is all about how his parents were killed by highwaymen (EDIT: and he can forgive those who surrender, with the exception of highwaymen). What is that dragon, guarding the pass and demanding sacrifice, other than a form of that?

I'm not sure where to go with this. Since he rolled ok (but not great), I may let it slide. I could also either make him fallen, or have his deity send him a warning and/or give him a quest for forgiveness.

[BiPolar]

I'm trying to make a very long story short with this one, so don't hesitate for more details if necessary:

Party (level 16) was chased by an ancient red into a cave complex. There, the sole resident is a dwarf stuck in the copper age. He's the last of his people, as they all would sacrifice one of their own to the red, in order for the rest to live ("I didn't like the circumstances, but what choice did I have?") He said for the party to continue on, one of the PCs must be sacrificed. Party instead KOs the guy, ties him up, and leaves him for the dragon, who permits their passage.

So here's the thing: one of my PCs is a LG hill dwarf paladin of Moradin. He wrestled with the decision, but ultimately decided to go with the party, given the copper age dwarf's crimes against his fellows. I made the player roll religion, and he did decently (total 15, IIRC), which was enough to justify the course of action...to himself.

Another issue is the paladin's got the oath of vengeance, and his backstory is all about how his parents were killed by highwaymen (EDIT: and he can forgive those who surrender, with the exception of highwaymen). What is that dragon, guarding the pass and demanding sacrifice, other than a form of that?

I'm not sure where to go with this. Since he rolled ok (but not great), I may let it slide. I could also either make him fallen, or have his deity send him a warning and/or give him a quest for forgiveness.

You've got a LG paladin Dwarf who encounters another Dwarf who has sacrificed his own so that he may live. The paladin allows his comrades to sacrafice said dwarf so that they may live. As a Vengeance paladin, he can allow collateral damage as long as he focuses on those who deserve vengeance.

As you've said, the Dragon is very much acting like a highwayman. You gave him a religion roll, but I'm not sure I totally understand what that was for. If it was whether or not Moradin would approve, then I'd think a 15 is enough to justify his choice and no penalty. This man is a Paladin of Moradin, if you were rolling for self-persuasion, then why religion?

However, I think there is enough question here not to have him *FALL*, but possibly for Moradin to send him another test to see if he has started to lose his faith. If it happens again, then there may be consequences.

[SilverStud]

What rolls you have players make for what reasons is between you and them, though I agree that a 15 seems like an appropriate success in this situation to find sufficient justifying doctrine or whatever.

I definitely agree with Moradin sending another trial, just to give the paladin a chance to reaffirm his devotion.

No reason here to strip the poor dwarf of his paladin-ness.

My advice when felling a paladin is to wait for a pattern to emerge. If he often goes against his code, then he truly is changing. One mistake shouldn't lead to ruin, unless a god is PARTICULARLY exacting. Now, if he does something spectacularly against his deity's precepts, then fell him. But this is a minor incident, IMO.

[TimBobDAnimal]

I would force the paladin to atone for his action via a quest from his deity;

I think his deity would look unfavourably on the action but would understand the circumstances. Thus, he would offer him a chance to show his piety before losing his powers. I would suggest a quest that immortalises the dwarf culture he just ended by constructing a monument with particularly rare metals on a specifically holy place to the deity. To make it interesting to the rest of the party, put it somewhere that is guarded by creatures that are considered unsavoury to the deity.

If you want to add a sense of urgency, make it so that the paladin loses his highest level spell slots until the quest is completed. Or make it so that the paladin cannot use his smites (as the deity feels that he no longer righteous, and should not be able to strike with righteous fury!). But I would consider this an option only if the player is shrugging off the need to repent.

[BiPolar]

I would force the paladin to atone for his action via a quest from his deity;

I think his deity would look unfavourably on the action but would understand the circumstances. Thus, he would offer him a chance to show his piety before losing his powers. I would suggest a quest that immortalises the dwarf culture he just ended by constructing a monument with particularly rare metals on a specifically holy place to the deity. To make it interesting to the rest of the party, put it somewhere that is guarded by creatures that are considered unsavoury to the deity.

If you want to add a sense of urgency, make it so that the paladin loses his highest level spell slots until the quest is completed. Or make it so that the paladin cannot use his smites (as the deity feels that he no longer righteous, and should not be able to strike with righteous fury!). But I would consider this an option only if the player is shrugging off the need to repent.

Or if they kill the highwayman (dragon). I also don't really understand why a Level 16 party was running away from a dragon and, if so, why'd they'd sacrifice someone to keep running away...into a cave.

edit: But I still don't like him making a roll, apparently succeeding, and still not having enough information that he made the wrong decision because the roll wasn't really to provide that info but really just to rationalize his actions. Seems bait and switch.

[NecroDancer]

First off this thread won't end well. Second I feel that the paladin is justified for doing this the copper dwarf isn't a good person and dosn't seem to regret his actions. Also if a party member is killed then they lose a major edge when facing the dragon. This is really a lessor of to evils situation. The paladin shouldn't fall but maybe change his alignment.

[Arkhios]

I see that as a minor infraction. If I recall, Moradin is actually quite stern god, likely to punish wrongdoers accordingly.
A dwarf sacrificing his own kin without remorse is definitely on the grey side of morality, if not outright evil. Although sacrificing the copper age dwarf might seem a bit rough, it's probable that this dwarf had already prepared for this fate long ago, and thus might not actually feel enmity towards the group's actions.

If I was the dwarf paladin in question, I'd at least pray for his dwarven kin to find his way to his people in afterlife and, having Oath of Vengeance, vowing to right this wrong someday, when the time is right. The dragon is, afterall, almost epitomic example of a highwayman bully, deserving of vengeance being laid upon him.

I cast my vote to not falling from oath. Alignment shift might be possible if he showed no remorse afterwards, otherwise this course of action would fall smoothly into lesser of two evils, if it leads them to defeating the dragon later.

[TimBobDAnimal]

Or if they kill the highwayman (dragon). I also don't really understand why a Level 16 party was running away from a dragon and, if so, why'd they'd sacrifice someone to keep running away...into a cave.

edit: But I still don't like him making a roll, apparently succeeding, and still not having enough information that he made the wrong decision because the roll wasn't really to provide that info but really just to rationalize his actions. Seems bait and switch.

I would argue that Knowledge checks don't let the character know if they had bad info; the player is making that inference through the die roll, but the character thinks his knowledge of his religion is sound. If the DM feels like the deity would respond negatively after the fact is totally within the realm of reason. Just have the deity interact with the player directly to let him know his disfavour. Its not so much a bait and switch as a poor understanding of his deity's response.

[BiPolar]

I would argue that Knowledge checks don't let the character know if they had bad info; the player is making that inference through the die roll, but the character thinks his knowledge of his religion is sound. If the DM feels like the deity would respond negatively after the fact is totally within the realm of reason. Just have the deity interact with the player directly to let him know his disfavour. Its not so much a bait and switch as a poor understanding of his deity's response.

But that's what the roll was to determine. A 15 seems like it wouldn't be a poor understanding, that's a good understanding. Unless the DC was higher, but then why doesn't a Paladin of a god have a good understanding of what his god would want? A 15 should be sufficient to provide him with the information. If the DM had the direction and didn't provide it, and then the Paladin acted on the false information that should have been true, I'm having a hard time faulting the Paladin. That's where the bait and switch occurred.

The Paladin tried to use his knowledge of his religion and his god. Apparently succeeded...but didn't. That's unfair IMO.

[hymer]

I'll have a crack at it. :smallsmile:

Firstly, I don't understand the Religion check. If he rolls high enough, then the action becomes acceptable? That sounds pretty weird to me, except perhaps for a god of lawyers, where weaselling with the word of the rules is what you're expected to do. At most, the roll could inform the paladin whether the act is acceptable or not.

I don't think it's acceptable. The dwarf may have had it coming in some way, but the party are doing to him exactly what they think he did wrong, with exactly the same thing to gain. That's not worthy of a good person, much less a paladin. It's beyond me how a 16th level party couldn't find other ways to get past this issue without sacrificing someone to a dragon. So I think a quest of atonement is in order.

As for the highwayman thing, that isn't part of his code, but his personality (I'm presuming, anyway). There should be no mechanical penalty for going against the established personality or backstory, although there may be some social things coming. Someone might ask what made him change his mind in this case (and maybe he'll realize what he did and be ashamed and swear vengenance, which would be appropriate). Maybe someone in the know will change their mind about how honourable or truthful the PC is, and act accordingly in future.

[BiPolar]

I'll have a crack at it. :smallsmile:

Firstly, I don't understand the Religion check. If he rolls high enough, then the action becomes acceptable? That sounds pretty weird to me, except perhaps for a god of lawyers, where weaselling with the word of the rules is what you're expected to do. At most, the roll could inform the paladin whether the act is acceptable or not.

I don't think it's acceptable. The dwarf may have had it coming in some way, but the party are doing to him exactly what they think he did wrong, with exactly the same thing to gain. That's not worthy of a good person, much less a paladin. It's beyond me how a 16th level party couldn't find other ways to get past this issue without sacrificing someone to a dragon. So I think a quest of atonement is in order.

As for the highwayman thing, that isn't part of his code, but his personality (I'm presuming, anyway). There should be no mechanical penalty for going against the established personality or backstory, although there may be some social things coming. Someone might ask what made him change his mind in this case (and maybe he'll realize what he did and be ashamed and swear vengenance, which would be appropriate). Maybe someone in the know will change their mind about how honourable or truthful the PC is, and act accordingly in future.

I don't think the roll was to make it acceptable - it was to understand whether or not it would be acceptable to his Moradin (or, that's how I read it. If it was your interpretation then yes, that's really weird and the DM should still have said something because it doesn't make sense.)

With the Highwayman, it IS his code. He is a Paladin of Vengeance (remember, paladin's in 5e are different than before), and his target of gengeance is highwaymen. The Dragon is clearly acting as one, so if anything the issue here is more ignoring a massive highwayman. He is failing in his vengeance.

The more I think about this, the more he needs to destroy the Dragon to make everything good.

[hymer]

I don't think the roll was to make it acceptable

I don't know what it was for either, which is why I ask. I have a feeling it might have been one of those times when the players suddenly says something like "Can I make a Religion check?" and the DM, slightly puzzled, goes "sure". Nobody really knows what's being rolled for or why, and that's no good.


With the Highwayman, it IS his code.

The 'No Mercy for the Wicked' part? Fair enough, then he's in trouble for Oath reasons as well as his god's tenets. I just got the impression it was a personality thing.
He may also have problems with 'Restitution', as he's required to help those injured by the highwayman dragon.

[BiPolar]

I don't know what it was for either, which is why I ask. I have a feeling it might have been one of those times when the players suddenly says something like "Can I make a Religion check?" and the DM, slightly puzzled, goes "sure". Nobody really knows what's being rolled for or why, and that's no good.



The 'No Mercy for the Wicked' part? Fair enough, then he's in trouble for Oath reasons as well as his god's tenets. I just got the impression it was a personality thing.
He may also have problems with 'Restitution', as he's required to help those injured by the highwayman dragon.

Although restitution, you still have this Copper Dwarf who sacrificed his people to save himself. He's not good. But unless there is clarity for everyone on what that Religion check actually was, I don't think there can be a strict punishment except for clearly suggesting that the Dragon must die.

[gfishfunk]

I'm stuck by weird details:

- The Religion roll should have let him know what his God demands, not give him enough to justify himself. That would be like a perception check success giving you what you want to see rather than showing you what is actually there.

- Sounds like he went with the group's decision, which should be encouraged. Better to be Lawful-Flexible rather than Lawful-Don't-Want-Me-in-the-Game.

At this point, if you make him fall it is based on your arbitrary decision rather than the consequences of his decisions. His religion already told him that he would be fine.

[hymer]

Although restitution, you still have this Copper Dwarf who sacrificed his people to save himself.

There's no mention of innocents being the ones to receive restitution. *shrug*

[BiPolar]

There's no mention of innocents being the ones to receive restitution. *shrug*

True, but if someone evil gets destroyed by your target of vengeance, you don't really care. It's the target of vengeance that matters.

[BiPolar]

I'm stuck by weird details:

- The Religion roll should have let him know what his God demands, not give him enough to justify himself. That would be like a perception check success giving you what you want to see rather than showing you what is actually there.

- Sounds like he went with the group's decision, which should be encouraged. Better to be Lawful-Flexible rather than Lawful-Don't-Want-Me-in-the-Game.

At this point, if you make him fall it is based on your arbitrary decision rather than the consequences of his decisions. His religion already told him that he would be fine.

Agree with all of this, but I still feel that if his Vengeance focus is Highwaymen, and the dragon is basically acting like one, he's got to convince everyone to kill it. Otherwise, he gets the benefits of Vengeance without ever feeling the need to fulfill it.

[MrFahrenheit]

Regarding the religion roll:

It was a scaling DC. Below 10, he would have gone against it. 10-19, justifies it to himself. 20+ would've brought a trial situation (did the NPC dwarf act with evil intent? Answer to that may very well be no. But...a community was lost anyhow. etc.) and to realize that the dwarf deserved execution, but not in furtherance of an ancient evil's desires.

I was kinda thinking a quest from Moradin to slay the dragon would be the most appropriate solution. And as for why the party initially ran from the dragon, they'd just been on an airship that was attacked by multiple hobgoblins riding wyverns. The monsters tore up the sails, forcing the party to land; one of those encounters where enough lower level CRs + environment (limited mobility; 500 ft up) = medium challenge. And they're also guarding an NPC who knows the lay of the land and is their guide. The combat wasn't super taxing, but it was taxing enough that they felt the need to run.

There's only one full caster in the party, which currently consists of...
LG hill dwarf paladin (vengeance) 16 of Moradin
LG human monk (open hand) 16 of Pelor*
CG human barbarian (totem - bear/bear/bear) 16 of Kord**
LN wood elf cleric (death) 16 of Wee Jas***
CN stout (iirc...might be wrong. Away from their sheets ATM) halfling Rogue (assassin) 5/fighter (battle master) 11
CN stout halfling Ranger (hunter) 5/rogue (assassin) 11

*I've considered moving him to LN, but he donated 1,000 gp of accumulated loot to the temple of Pelor before leaving town last session. Also, I house ruled that the standard human can swap out any ability +1 with a skill proficiency. Vuman is not an option.
**I only require divine classes pick deities. This barbarian character is rp'ed as a "bro" though, and figured Kord's epic parties in Ysgard would be a sweet deal when his time is up.
***I DM'ed it was fine to be a death cleric without being evil. As long as the PCs are within one alignment shift from their deity, they're fine. In this case, after all, "momma always said death is just a part of life."

In any event, there's a glaring hole where what rhymes with "shmarcane shmaster" could be.

[mgshamster]

So here's the thing: one of my PCs is a LG hill dwarf paladin of Moradin. He wrestled with the decision, but ultimately decided to go with the party, given the copper age dwarf's crimes against his fellows.

He wrestled with the decision, meaning that it was a morally grey area and he had to come to a solution where every decision was bad. That's enough for a paladin to justify his actions and come to what he believes is the best conclusion.

If he came to the conclusion without a seconds thought, then he's not trying to figure out if it's ok. That would deserve some questioning. But he didn't; he thought about it and wavered over it. He tried.


I made the player roll religion, and he did decently (total 15, IIRC), which was enough to justify the course of action...to himself.

You had a player roll without determining the DC first, and then based it on whether you felt the roll was good? Wtf man?

You called it. It passed. It's good. End of story. No backtracking now. That's just messed up.

Edit: I see you did have set DCs. I retract my statement here. Good on you.


Another issue is the paladin's got the oath of vengeance, and his backstory is all about how his parents were killed by highwaymen (EDIT: and he can forgive those who surrender, with the exception of highwaymen). What is that dragon, guarding the pass and demanding sacrifice, other than a form of that?

Why not both? End the copper dwarf for his crimes and also pledge to end the dragon. Hell, maybe even Moradin tells him to end the dragon.


I'm not sure where to go with this. Since he rolled ok (but not great), I may let it slide. I could also either make him fallen, or have his deity send him a warning and/or give him a quest for forgiveness.

No more having players roll without first setting a DC. Stop it. Bad DM. Bad. No.

He rolled. You called it a pass. That's good enough. Now justify it in game. Maybe Moradin was pissed at the dwarves for what he thinks is unnatural life extension instead of coming home to him. Maybe Moradin wants the dragon dead AND the dwarves to come to rest.

And if Moradin is really irked about it, have him be irked at the copper dwarves and not the paladin, but instead use his paladin to find another hidden valley of copper dwarves to reintroduce into the world, so they can once again thrive (but this time a population that didn't unnaturally extend their lives by making deals with evil dragons and sacrificing people).

The player tried. And if the Player doesn't want to play a fallen paladin, he shouldn't have to. You set him up in this scenario, you allowed him to roll (instead of just giving the paladin the information needed), you set him up for potential failure in a no-win situation. Any punishment given to the paladin for at least trying to roleplay his character properly is on you, and if you make him fall, well that's just effed up.

Turn it into a fun quest where he can feel like a hero, rather than a punishment for a contrived situation you decided to put him into.

[hymer]

True, but if someone evil gets destroyed by your target of vengeance, you don't really care. It's the target of vengeance that matters.

You may not care, but you still swore the oath. The oath doesn't care whether you care. :smallwink:
Regardless, was the dwarf so evil that they were going to exterminate him anyway? I'm thinking if they'd encountered him with no dragon out there, they'd have left him to his own devices as long as he didn't attack or provoke them. If the dwarf was getting killed by the party anyway, then I don't see it as such a horrible thing that he was left for the dragon to kill. Still not knight in shining armour stuff, but not paladin fall stuff either.

Edit: I now see that they were supposed to execute the dwarf. In that case it's, as mentioned, tarnishing the shining armour, and a good clean is in order. But not fall worthy.
That still leaves the oath breaking, though.

[MrFahrenheit]

He wrestled with the decision, meaning that it was a morally grey area and he had to come to a solution where every decision was bad. That's enough for a paladin to justify his actions and come to what he believes is the best conclusion.

If he came to the conclusion without a seconds thought, then he's not trying to figure out if it's ok. That would deserve some questioning. But he didn't; he thought about it and wavered over it. He tried.



You had a player roll without determining the DC first, and then based it on whether you felt the roll was good? Wtf man?

You called it. It passed. It's good. End of story. No backtracking now. That's just messed up.



Why not both? End the copper dwarf for his crimes and also pledge to end the dragon. Hell, maybe even Moradin tells him to end the dragon.



No more having players roll without first setting a DC. Stop it. Bad DM. Bad. No.

He rolled. You called it a pass. That's good enough. Now justify it in game. Maybe Moradin was pissed at the dwarves for what he thinks is unnatural life extension instead of coming home to him. Maybe Moradin wants the dragon dead AND the dwarves to come to rest.

And if Moradin is really irked about it, have him be irked at the copper dwarves and not the paladin, but instead use his paladin to find another hidden valley of copper dwarves to reintroduce into the world, so they can once again thrive (but this time a population that didn't unnaturally extend their lives by making deals with evil dragons and sacrificing people).

The player tried. And if the Player doesn't want to play a fallen paladin, he shouldn't have to. You set him up in this scenario, you allowed him to roll (instead of just giving the paladin the information needed), you set him up for potential failure in a no-win situation. Any punishment given to the paladin for at least trying to roleplay his character properly is on you, and if you make him fall, well that's just effed up.

Turn it into a fun quest where he can feel like a hero, rather than a punishment for a contrived situation you decided to put him into.

Looks like you were writing this when I was typing my earlier response. See my notes on the DC there and sliding scale. Session ended shortly after that encounter, so he hasn't had time for second thoughts.

[BiPolar]

Regarding the religion roll:

It was a scaling DC. Below 10, he would have gone against it. 10-19, justifies it to himself. 20+ would've brought a trial situation (did the NPC dwarf act with evil intent? Answer to that may very well be no. But...a community was lost anyhow. etc.) and to realize that the dwarf deserved execution, but not in furtherance of an ancient evil's desires.

I was kinda thinking a quest from Moradin to slay the dragon would be the most appropriate solution. And as for why the party initially ran from the dragon, they'd just been on an airship that was attacked by multiple hobgoblins riding wyverns. The monsters tore up the sails, forcing the party to land; one of those encounters where enough lower level CRs + environment (limited mobility; 500 ft up) = medium challenge. And they're also guarding an NPC who knows the lay of the land and is their guide. The combat wasn't super taxing, but it was taxing enough that they felt the need to run.

There's only one full caster in the party, which currently consists of...
LG paladin (vengeance) 16 of Moradin
LG monk (open hand) 16 of Pelor*
CG barbarian (totem - bear/bear/bear) 16 of Kord**
LN cleric (death) 16 of Wee Jas***
CN Rogue (assassin) 5/fighter (battle master) 11
CN Ranger (hunter) 5/rogue (assassin) 11

*I've considered moving him to LN, but he donated 1,000 gp of accumulated loot to the temple of Pelor before leaving town last session
**I only require divine classes pick deities. This barbarian character is rp'ed as a "bro" though, and figured Kord's epic parties in Ysgard would be a sweet deal when his time is up.
***I DM'ed it was fine to be a death cleric without being evil. As long as the PCs are within one alignment shift from their deity, they're fine. In this case, after all, "momma always said death is just a part of life."

That is a crazy high DC for something he should be well versed in (the tenets and beliefs of Moradin). DId you give him proficiency? While he may not have proficiency in religion in general, you've got to think he does for his own god. But either way, did you explain what he was rolling and consequence thereof? Or did he think it was for one thing and you another?

I think he needs to realize that he sacrificed a NPC to someone he has sworn to destroy. That's more of the issue in my mind. The killing of the dwarf is much less of an issue than letting the Dragon go free. It even makes sense with his roll. Moradin doesn't have an issue with the sacrifice of a questionnable NPC, Moradin has an issue with giving a highwayman what it wants and not destroying it.

[mgshamster]

Looks like you were writing this when I was typing my earlier response. See my notes on the DC there and sliding scale. Session ended shortly after that encounter, so he hasn't had time for second thoughts.

Ha! You wrote this as I was Editting! :)

That's funny.

Also, not "second thoughts," but rather, "a second's thought." As in, didn't think about it for more than a second.

[MrFahrenheit]

That is a crazy high DC for something he should be well versed in (the tenets and beliefs of Moradin). DId you give him proficiency? While he may not have proficiency in religion in general, you've got to think he does for his own god. But either way, did you explain what he was rolling and consequence thereof? Or did he think it was for one thing and you another?

I think he needs to realize that he sacrificed a NPC to someone he has sworn to destroy. That's more of the issue in my mind. The killing of the dwarf is much less of an issue than letting the Dragon go free. It even makes sense with his roll. Moradin doesn't have an issue with the sacrifice of a questionnable NPC, Moradin has an issue with giving a highwayman what it wants and not destroying it.

So he has proficiency in religion, and IIRC, I gave him advantage on the roll.

Further note: the party rogues looted 10,000 gp worth of ancient-style copper weapons (they realized the art value therein) from the caves while the lawful members of the party + barbarian were deciding the dwarf NPC's fate. I may add in that there would be a negative effect if the paladin lets these items be sold at market, and not memorialized in some way.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Let him off with a warning, I'd say; some sort of nasty visitation and maybe some orders to atone. You could make an argument that it's not good Paladin behavior, but it is good player behavior-- he acknowledged the moral dilemma without tying up the game too much or triggering PVP, which would not be an uncommon end to the story. He shouldn't get off scot-free, but he shouldn't fall without a pattern of bad behavior and at least one warning.


***I DM'ed it was fine to be a death cleric without being evil. As long as the PCs are within one alignment shift from their deity, they're fine. In this case, after all, "momma always said death is just a part of life."
I think Wee Jas is traditionally LN, actually.

[Temperjoke]

I largely agree with what has been said so far, the paladin shouldn't fall based on the dwarf situation. However, the dragon is a symbol of what he has sworn his Oath against. I'd recommend that Moradin send him a vision or dream, of him fighting a red-haired/bearded dwarf in scale mail in a circle of fire, or something other vision loaded with symbols for dragon. If he's been wrestling with the thought of going back to fight the dragon when they've rested a bit, that should be a big enough hint. If he deliberately chooses to ignore it, then that would be a major strike against him.

[hymer]

I think Wee Jas is traditionally LN, actually.

She flips around a bit between editions. She's been all of LN, LE and LN(E), IIRC.

[gfishfunk]

I dislike the scale and the difficulty. At a 20 difficulty, you are suggesting that only the greatest scholars of the religion would know what to do.

If you wanted a sliding scale, 1-10 should be self-justified (big failure), 11-15 unsure (minor failure), and above should be knowing what is right. These are just my thoughts - but I think you are ambushing him with something rather than letting him make meaningful choices. Just my thoughts - I respect your authority in your game, and if your players are used to it, they know what to expect.

[BiPolar]

So he has proficiency in religion, and IIRC, I gave him advantage on the roll.

Further note: the party rogues looted 10,000 gp worth of ancient-style copper weapons (they realized the art value therein) from the caves while the lawful members of the party + barbarian were deciding the dwarf NPC's fate. I may add in that there would be a negative effect if the paladin lets these items be sold at market, and not memorialized in some way.

So basically you are wanting the Paladin to be the Cop in the party. I think you're unfairly putting the Paladin in the position of Party Buzzkill. He's not going to want to play that way, and the party isn't going to what him to play that way.

The cache of weapons is just that, a cache of weapons. I don't see how finding them and selling them is a problem. THey're not stolen, they are found. I mean, I am not a fan of treasure hunting in real life, but this isn't real life. This is an adventuring party. The party taking something valuable they find should not be a failing of a paladin of Vengeance.

[Jamgretter]

First off this thread won't end well.

We know all about that, eh? As for OP, don't make him fall, but he will definently have to come back to face the dragon. Give him a reminder from his god or something along those lines, "we need to punish the wicked". As long as he goes back and prevents the red from doing any greater harm, he should be fine.

[MrFahrenheit]

We know all about that, eh? As for OP, don't make him fall, but he will definently have to come back to face the dragon. Give him a reminder from his god or something along those lines, "we need to punish the wicked". As long as he goes back and prevents the red from doing any greater harm, he should be fine.

Yeah I think that's what I'm going to go with after this discussion; definitely don't want to railroad him but this feels appropriate. I appreciate all the responses!

[Wolfkingleo]

Short Answer: No, he shouldn't, at least regarding what you posted so far.

The fall of paladins, as a general rule, IMO should occur in two scenarios:

a) The M.O. of the Paladin is against the oath: Everything that the paladin does is contraditory to what makes him a paladin and therefore he should lose his divine grace. Normaly this could happen with some PC that plays an close-minded Inquisitor that keeps punishing people regarding religious choices, or just keep killing NPC's because "good must destroy evil no matter what" when the PC is more concerned in destroying than preserving good, therefore rising more evil.

b) The fall is based in a single act, as long as this act has REALLY far reaching consquences like two-warring nations in the brink of a war decided to make a truce using an wedding arrangement between the sons of the kingds to settle down. Then a third party, allegedly interested in seeing both kingdonws destroyed, kidnapped "the damsel in distress" so they could not fulfil the act. The party eventually found the princess and discovered that she staged the kidnapping so she could marry someone she loved, and the paladin decided that she broke the trust of the nations and decided to kill her even knowing that her death would spark a war that would cause thousands of deaths, "because she is evil and broke it off...better the world without her".

That said, I don't think that rolling religion was a smart idea, first because the paladin is (SHOULD BE, EVEN OUTSIDE THE GAME) aware of his tenents and does not need to make a reminder of such. Instead, again should it reach any of the two aforementioned hypothesis, do something to redeem himself or just to avoid the fall.

Cheers

[LordVonDerp]

Party (level 16) was chased by an ancient red into a cave complex. it sounds like they weren't able to take on the dragon.




There, the sole resident is a dwarf stuck in the copper age. He's the last of his people, as they all would sacrifice one of their own to the red, in order for the rest to live ("I didn't like the circumstances, but what choice did I have?") He said for the party to continue on, one of the PCs must be sacrificed.
The dwarf in the cave sounds rather entitled.


Party instead KOs the guy, ties him up, and leaves him for the dragon, who permits their passage.
We're you expecting them to do something else?



So here's the thing: one of my PCs is a LG hill dwarf paladin of Moradin. He wrestled with the decision,
Why would he need to?



but ultimately decided to go with the party, given the copper age dwarf's crimes against his fellows.


What crimes? None of what you described counts as a crime.




I'm not sure where to go with this. Since he rolled ok (but not great), I may let it slide. I could also either make him fallen, or have his deity send him a warning and/or give him a quest for forgiveness.
The paladin was right to not fall for your trap, he should be rewarded, not punished.

[Coffee_Dragon]

First off this thread won't end well.

Let's run with it though! Wheeee


Firstly, I don't understand the Religion check. If he rolls high enough, then the action becomes acceptable?

I don't think it's acceptable. The dwarf may have had it coming in some way, but the party are doing to him exactly what they think he did wrong, with exactly the same thing to gain.

Here is the post of truth.

Sacrificing a person for your convenience is an EVIL act. It doesn't matter if that person is someone you don't like or some annoying copper age throwback; a paladin stands above that. If it's done out of necessity, then the copper dwarf's acts were also out of necessity. Even if sacrificing someone somehow seems like the only option, picking the person who isn't in your circle of friends is EVIL.

In previous editions, a paladin would fall instantly for this.

In this edition, and given the bizarre Religion roll and whatnot, I agree he should not fall, but should be visited by displeased visions from his deity.


- Sounds like he went with the group's decision, which should be encouraged. Better to be Lawful-Flexible rather than Lawful-Don't-Want-Me-in-the-Game.

What does it mean to be Lawful Good, then? If you have your character go along with the party when they're acting EVIL out of meta-convenience, why bother writing something to the contrary on your character sheet?

[Ravinsild]

Dogma:
Moradin is the father and creator of the dwarven race. Honor him by emulating his principles and workmanship in smithing, stoneworking, and other tasks. Wisdom is derived from life and tempered with experience. Advance the dwarven race in all areas of life. Innovate with new processes and skills. Found new kingdoms and clan lands, defending the existing ones from all threats. Lead the dwarves in the traditions laid down by the Soul Forger. Honor your clan leaders as you honor Moradin.

Worshippers
Moradin charges his followers with the task of removing the kingdoms of orcs and wiping out the followers of Gruumsh. He is upset if they flee from their foes or kill their fellow dwarves.

I found the above after a quick google search. I feel Moradin would be highly opposed to this Lawful Good Paladin choosing to sacrifice another Dwarf. He has made an entire Dwarf clan now extinct by sacrificing him. He has no advanced Dwarven ideals or society or helped found a new clan but rather has killed another Dwarf and set back Dwarven progress. He did not defend this existing clan (of one) from all threats (the Dragon). I feel he should be severely punished for breaking the like #1 rule of Moradin: Don't kill your fellow Dwarves.

(But what about Duergar?)

[Addaran]

Just for curiousity, i'd like more info about that copper dwarf.

At first i though he was the one who got "sacrificed" to the dragon. He'd be the dragon's slave so his clan survived.

But after reading answers, it seems all his clan got sacrificed in time, and he's the last non-sacrificed one. Is that it? If so, was it just luck he's the last one or he actually had part in the choice to sacrifice fellow dwarves and who would be sacrificed?


Also, why the sacrifice? Is it just a tax they had to pay for the dragon to not kill them?
One poster seemed to imply that they sacrificed fellow dwarves to get unaturally long life.


All in all, i'm not sure what to make of the copper dwarf and that would likely have a big impact in my personal ruling. More so since he's a vengeance paladin.

[Segev]

Leaving the cultist who wanted to sacrifice one of your companions to be the sacrifice is a time-honored tradition, and an ironic punishment that does, in fact, fit the crime. A paladin may or may not approve, but approving and even participating is not a fall-worthy offense. It is neither chaotic (he knows the culprit is guilty and, as a paladin, does have judicial and jurist authority in the unclaimed or claimed-by-evil lands he's in) nor evil (he is performing an execution which is justified, so non-evil; method is not inappropriate nor needlessly cruel, either).

[LordVonDerp]

Sacrificing a person for your convenience is an EVIL act.
Two problems:
1) they're sacrificing someone for survival, not convenience.
2) an action can not in and of itself be evil





It doesn't matter if that person is someone you don't like or some annoying copper age throwback; a paladin stands above that. If it's done out of necessity, then the copper dwarf's acts were also out of necessity.
No one's trying to claim the copper dwarves were wrong to do what they did. It's no different from the classic shipwreck situation.




Even if sacrificing someone somehow seems like the only option, picking the person who isn't in your circle of friends is EVIL.

What about sacrificing someone who is willing to kill all of you without a second thought?



In previous editions, a paladin would fall instantly for this.

Only if the DM hated paladins, then again this whole thing screams Paladin Trap.



What does it mean to be Lawful Good, then? If you have your character go along with the party when they're acting EVIL out of meta-convenience, why bother writing something to the contrary on your character sheet?

Lawful Good means believing that the benefits of society (safety, order, etc) are worth its cost.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Only if the DM hated paladins, then again this whole thing screams Paladin Trap.

Alas, the paladin ideals have never been very compatible with the sociopathic moral bubble utilitarianism that role-players seem to naturally tend towards because they neither viscerally experience their moral and existential situation nor ultimately live with the consequences.


Lawful Good means believing that the benefits of society (safety, order, etc) are worth its cost.

Lawful Evil also means believing that the benefits of society (safety, order, etc) are worth its cost, and that someone else should pay that cost.

[Ravinsild]

Lawful Evil also means believing that the benefits of society (safety, order, etc) are worth its cost, and that someone else should pay that cost.

What's that saying? "For the Greater Good?" Seems like a mostly Lawful Evil thing to justify atrocities because we will all be better off in the end, right?

[gfishfunk]

What does it mean to be Lawful Good, then? If you have your character go along with the party when they're acting EVIL out of meta-convenience, why bother writing something to the contrary on your character sheet?

That is a difficult question, in all honesty. There is a weird comfortable zone where the characters fit the party and no character that fits the party hijacks the game. The key to good choices and good RP is that it serves and helps the other players engage.


Paladins that force everyone else to play their paladin mini-game suck the life out of games. It forces the whole party to adopt the same alignment or skirt around the issue and not engage. The same thing happens when one player wants to pursue their own interest at the expense of the party - the druid that refuses to enter the town, the barbarian that hates wizards, the elf that hates dwarves. All those things can be worked around with RP flexibility (I hate wizards but I will put up with this person -- for now) and can even lead to great interactions. Just don't force the other players into a little mini-game of 'appease my character to progress.'

In-game, paladins need to juggle issues. They are the wrath of god made flesh. They regularly kill people, even for otherwise petty crimes. For example, the paladin goes out of a shop in a town at night and a group of hoodlums demand money -- so of course, its a death sentence. Have you ever taken prisoners and handed them over to the city watch? I have. The DM didn't know what to do with it.

I push for flexibility: be able to adjust how the lawfulness plays out in order to keep the group running. Lawful Flexible. Play the needs and wants of the character in such a way as to give other players options rather than take them away.

[Ravinsild]

I stick by my statement the Paladin should act according to the tenants and model of the god he follows. So look at Moradin, look at what Moradin prescribes in his believers, look at what Moradin is like. Did the Paladin follow in line with these beliefs or not?

The Paladin will most likely be trying to emulate the beliefs and principles morals as their own.

[Vogonjeltz]

I'm trying to make a very long story short with this one, so don't hesitate for more details if necessary:

Party (level 16) was chased by an ancient red into a cave complex. There, the sole resident is a dwarf stuck in the copper age. He's the last of his people, as they all would sacrifice one of their own to the red, in order for the rest to live ("I didn't like the circumstances, but what choice did I have?") He said for the party to continue on, one of the PCs must be sacrificed. Party instead KOs the guy, ties him up, and leaves him for the dragon, who permits their passage.

So here's the thing: one of my PCs is a LG hill dwarf paladin of Moradin. He wrestled with the decision, but ultimately decided to go with the party, given the copper age dwarf's crimes against his fellows. I made the player roll religion, and he did decently (total 15, IIRC), which was enough to justify the course of action...to himself.

Another issue is the paladin's got the oath of vengeance, and his backstory is all about how his parents were killed by highwaymen (EDIT: and he can forgive those who surrender, with the exception of highwaymen). What is that dragon, guarding the pass and demanding sacrifice, other than a form of that?

I'm not sure where to go with this. Since he rolled ok (but not great), I may let it slide. I could also either make him fallen, or have his deity send him a warning and/or give him a quest for forgiveness.

PHB 88, under Tenets of Vengeance:
"The tenets of the Oath of Vengeance vary by paladin, but all the tenets revolve around punishing wrongdoers by any means necessary." (emphasis added)

He literally just punished a wrongdoer as required by his oath, of course he shouldn't fall. The dragon is just another magical beastie, not a bandit. Also terrorizes people, yes, but then so do all monsters, that doesn't make them all the same as far as an Oath of Vengeance is concerned otherwise there would be no such thing as a lesser evil, they'd all be equally evil and equally worthy of punishment.

[Syll]

As a Paladin of Vengeance, sworn against Highwaymen.... I would say the Dwarf himself is sort of a non-issue. The paladin isn't your only LG character in the party; if you think it warrants an alignment shift, then apply it equally, not just to the paladin.

I don't know that I would have seen the parallel between highwaymen, and the dragon... although since you point it out I can definitely see where you're coming from. Without you coming out and drawing that parallel for your player (via dreams, or visions or omens or even a convenient NPC complaining how 'the Dragon wiped out the Highwaymen who plagued this region; but he demands 10 times the toll on resources the highwaymen did, and we are helpless to resist him') he just might not have seen the forest for the... ancient red dragon about to eat him.

If you would like to present the PLD another trial to test his Oath, then I would simply make it abundantly clear that the Dragon is the embodiment of all he is sworn against, and see how he reacts.

[MrFahrenheit]

So I'm not understanding why the religion roll is considered bizarre. Being as high as it was to achieve the "best" outcome (realizing that the execution itself was justified...but not like this) is what I've come to see the light on. It was a scaled DC, as I explained before. Just because most Paladins dump int, even if some do take proficiency in religion, doesn't in itself mean the DCs should be adjusted.

Anyhow, I'm jiving with the "get back out there and slay the dragon" shindig. Will be interesting for me to see how the party deals with it. On the one hand, it's a solo BBEG, but on the other hand, its got 8 CRs on the party...

[Coffee_Dragon]

So I'm not understanding why the religion roll is considered bizarre.

It's because in the D&D skill system you always roll to determine character success for character actions, not player success for player intent. In some games you'd do the latter, one player might challenge another whether an action is consistent with their ideals, there might be a roll and someone would get to narrate, "Well, fortunately one of the central tenets of my good dwarven religion is that unalloyed copper is an affront and the customary punishment is being fed to a dragon, or as we say, let red clean up red, it's all very good." But the way D&D is typically written and played, a Religion roll really only does what it says in the PHB, let the character recall and process facts. Success cannot manufacture a justification; failure might grant false rationalization.

[LordVonDerp]

Alas, the paladin ideals have never been very compatible with the sociopathic moral bubble utilitarianism that role-players seem to naturally tend towards because they neither viscerally experience their moral and existential situation nor ultimately live with the consequences.

It worse than that, the paladin has never been particularly compatible with actually doing the right thing.



Lawful Evil also means believing that the benefits of society (safety, order, etc) are worth its cost, and that someone else should pay that cost.
It would be more accurate to say that Lawful Evil means some combination of not caring about the cost and only caring about how it benefits you.

[Spellbreaker26]

This is a very tricky situation; the problem with these sorts of situations is that the line between a GM genuinely trying to give the party a moral question to solve (which is what I think was the original intention here) and a GM just trying to screw over the paladin is very blurry.

The Dragon was something they were running away from, so we can eliminate "killing the dragon" as an option because it would be suicide, for either the Paladin and/or any of the party members that tried to help.

The dwarf in the cage was ready to sacrifice not only members of his own people but also total strangers to a dragon. If he had been met in another situation this would be grounds for punishment, whether from death or imprisonment.

Given that the options would be "sacrifice myself so that a person we would execute normally can get imprisoned instead" or "leave him to the dragon" I think that option 2 makes sense even for a vengeance paladin. The Dragon is a highwayman, and is on the hit list, but its better to wait and ensure its destruction than try and kill it now and certainly die. Revenge is best served cold, after all. He hasn't forgiven the Dragon, he just had no way to make sure it would die. This decision was obviously not made flippantly, and while the paladin might have some thinking to do about the situation it wasn't a full on oath-breaking maneuver in my opinion.

[hamishspence]

Two problems:
1) they're sacrificing someone for survival, not convenience.
2) an action can not in and of itself be evil

Depends on the edition, and on how much "past edition morality" gets reused.

BOVD's classic example was "endanger/destroy village to ensure own survival" after all. "I want to survive" can sometimes qualify as a nefarious motive for killing somebody, be the committor a Vampire, illithid, or generic life-stealing immortal.

Given that the victim has done exactly what the party is about to do - "they're giving him his just punishment" seems like an unconvincing after-the-fact rationalization.


And if the dragon chases another party into the cave immediately after the dwarf is "tied up for the dragon" - by the existing party's own logic - they are guilty of the same crime as the dwarf, and deserve to be sacrificed in the same way.

[Sigreid]

Well, my party which is composed of all neutral and evil characters would most likely choose to rest/recharge in the cave and try to take out the dragon. At 16th level I think an ancient dragon is a rough, deadly serious encounter but possible.

[BiPolar]

And if the dragon chases another party into the cave immediately after the dwarf is "tied up for the dragon" - by the existing party's own logic - they are guilty of the same crime as the dwarf, and deserve to be sacrificed in the same way.

This would be really clever. Bring in a low level party of GOOD adventurers. Someone has to be sacrificed or they have to fight together to defeat the dragon.

[Spellbreaker26]

I'm wondering about everybody saying that a party of 16th level adventurers are gonna be able to kill an ancient red dragon. Ancient red dragons are CR24. An Adult red dragon, sure, but an *ancient* red dragon? That seems a little out of their league.

[BiPolar]

I'm wondering about everybody saying that a party of 16th level adventurers are gonna be able to kill an ancient red dragon. Ancient red dragons are CR24. An Adult red dragon, sure, but an *ancient* red dragon? That seems a little out of their league.

6 Level 16 Adventurers? That's a hard encounter. Definitely not out of their league. And if it is, see my above post about another group of adventurers being chased in and forcing the question of sacrifice or fight.

[Spellbreaker26]

6 Level 16 Adventurers? That's a hard encounter. Definitely not out of their league. And if it is, see my above post about another group of adventurers being chased in and forcing the question of sacrifice or fight.

Were there 6 of them? Fair enough, better chances (if they're all at full health and with all spell slots). But the random other adventurers just dropping in feels contrived. The problem with these moral questions is that they're often posed as a test - is your moral code the same as the GM's? - rather than "have you weighed the pros and cons of leaving this dwarf to be eaten v.s. fighting the dragon?". Putting other adventurers in just feels like a clumsy way to try and show the players the "right answer" to a tricky situation.

[BiPolar]

Were there 6 of them? Fair enough, better chances (if they're all at full health and with all spell slots). But the random other adventurers just dropping in feels contrived. The problem with these moral questions is that they're often posed as a test - is your moral code the same as the GM's? - rather than "have you weighed the pros and cons of leaving this dwarf to be eaten v.s. fighting the dragon?". Putting other adventurers in just feels like a clumsy way to try and show the players the "right answer" to a tricky situation.

I agree, but if there was a miscommunication between the GM and Players, this is a potential fix/2nd chance for everyone to get back on the same page. And they get to fight an Ancient Red.

[MrFahrenheit]

It's because in the D&D skill system you always roll to determine character success for character actions, not player success for player intent. In some games you'd do the latter, one player might challenge another whether an action is consistent with their ideals, there might be a roll and someone would get to narrate, "Well, fortunately one of the central tenets of my good dwarven religion is that unalloyed copper is an affront and the customary punishment is being fed to a dragon, or as we say, let red clean up red, it's all very good." But the way D&D is typically written and played, a Religion roll really only does what it says in the PHB, let the character recall and process facts. Success cannot manufacture a justification; failure might grant false rationalization.

I don't think we're disagreeing on the reasons, actually. The player rolled religion for the character to recall customary observances. So in a theocratic manner of speaking, and not carrying any holy books with him, the paladin would recall that the execution is justified, but not recall that he should not engage in the act knowing it would be in furtherance of another evil. The only thing I really think was screwed in that sense was the DC being so high. Not the roll in and of itself.

I think the party could take the dragon if they could get a terrain advantage and surprise it. But it's the dragon's home turf, so that's iffy. May be best for them to wait till level 17 (they're about halfway there) for those endgame features to come online.

[Syll]

Given that the victim has done exactly what the party is about to do - "they're giving him his just punishment" seems like an unconvincing after-the-fact rationalization.

If they sacrifice the dwarf to the dragon as poetic justice, but then kill the dragon to end the cycle, I would call it a fair rationalization

[Hawkstar]

Dogma:
Moradin is the father and creator of the dwarven race. Honor him by emulating his principles and workmanship in smithing, stoneworking, and other tasks. Wisdom is derived from life and tempered with experience. Advance the dwarven race in all areas of life. Innovate with new processes and skills. Found new kingdoms and clan lands, defending the existing ones from all threats. Lead the dwarves in the traditions laid down by the Soul Forger. Honor your clan leaders as you honor Moradin.

Worshippers
Moradin charges his followers with the task of removing the kingdoms of orcs and wiping out the followers of Gruumsh. He is upset if they flee from their foes or kill their fellow dwarves.

I found the above after a quick google search. I feel Moradin would be highly opposed to this Lawful Good Paladin choosing to sacrifice another Dwarf. He has made an entire Dwarf clan now extinct by sacrificing him. He has no advanced Dwarven ideals or society or helped found a new clan but rather has killed another Dwarf and set back Dwarven progress. He did not defend this existing clan (of one) from all threats (the Dragon). I feel he should be severely punished for breaking the like #1 rule of Moradin: Don't kill your fellow Dwarves.

(But what about Duergar?)Maybe the Copper Dwarf should have thought of that before sacrificing his clan to a foe he was too cowardly to face. This is a Vengeance Paladin, not Devotion Paladin.

The Dragon definitely belongs on the Paladin's hit-list as well, but so did this dwarf.

[Sicarius Victis]

I'd just like to point out that a Paladin's power doesn't actually come from a deity. Their power comes from "the sacred weight of their divine Oaths", or something along those lines. So, they CAN try to follow the rules of their deity of choice, but going against those rules doesn't mean that the Paladin falls, because that's not where they get their power in the first place.

So, their deitymay not particularly like it, but it's not necessarily all that bad for the Paladin. It's just bad for them when they break their Oaths.

[MrFahrenheit]

I'd just like to point out that a Paladin's power doesn't actually come from a deity. Their power comes from "the sacred weight of their divine Oaths", or something along those lines. So, they CAN try to follow the rules of their deity of choice, but going against those rules doesn't mean that the Paladin falls, because that's not where they get their power in the first place.

So, their deitymay not particularly like it, but it's not necessarily all that bad for the Paladin. It's just bad for them when they break their Oaths.

Doesn't that beg the question who they swore the oath to? I'd always DMed it was their deity.

[Spellbreaker26]

Doesn't that beg the question who they swore the oath to? I'd always DMed it was their deity.

They can swear their oaths to the principles themselves, or on more mundane things : a paladin might swear it on their mother's grave, for example.
Not all oaths sworn in courtrooms are on holy books, after all.

[BiPolar]

this paladin may have sworn it on his parents' grave to avenge their death and protect others from highwaymen

[MrFahrenheit]

Ahhh. I see where the flaw in my initial line of thinking re: falling was. He shouldn't fall at all, but is it that his spellcasting might be jacked up, since that is granted by the divine?

[BiPolar]

Ahhh. I see where the flaw in my initial line of thinking re: falling was. He shouldn't fall at all, but is it that his spellcasting might be jacked up, since that is granted by the divine?

You can do as you wish, but the Paladin really doesn't get his power from the divine.


Charisma is your spellcasting ability for your paladin spells, since their power derives from the strength of your convictions

Again, if anything it may be the lack of realization that in this the case the Dragon is acting like a Highwayman and he isn't destroying it.

Out of curiosity, you set up the scenario of the depleted party getting chased into this situation. What was your hoped for outcome that would have avoided this?

[RickAllison]

Ahhh. I see where the flaw in my initial line of thinking re: falling was. He shouldn't fall at all, but is it that his spellcasting might be jacked up, since that is granted by the divine?

Nope. It is divine magic vs arcane, but the divine magic is from the paladin's belief in his oaths rather than a deity. A paladin can swear his oath to a deity that hates him, with precepts that directly conflict the deity's, and in every way disrespect what said deity stands for and still gain divine power from his oath so long as the paladin believes in it. Only a cleric's magic is actually given by a deity, and that has its own problems...

[hamishspence]

If they sacrifice the dwarf to the dragon as poetic justice, but then kill the dragon to end the cycle, I would call it a fair rationalization

Might also depend on the nature of the sacrificing. If it was "draw lots, and the loser voluntarily walks out to the Dragon" then the dwarves themselves aren't exactly guilty of murder or anything like that.

But if it was "the physically strongest overcome the weaker ones, tie them up, and push them out to the dragon" - then it's much more appropriate to regard the dwarves as murderers and the last surviving dwarf as a multiple murderer.

[MrFahrenheit]

Might also depend on the nature of the sacrificing. If it was "draw lots, and the loser voluntarily walks out to the Dragon" then the dwarves themselves aren't exactly guilty of murder or anything like that.

But if it was "the physically strongest overcome the weaker ones, tie them up, and push them out to the dragon" - then it's much more appropriate to regard the dwarves as murderers and the last surviving dwarf as a multiple murderer.

It was the latter, though the party never asked.

[BiPolar]

Out of curiosity, you set up the scenario of the depleted party getting chased into this situation. What was your hoped for outcome that would have avoided this?

[hamishspence]

It was the latter, though the party never asked.

Which makes them seem much more like the dwarves themselves. If the dwarves are regarded as murderers, but the party do not know this at all - doesn't that make them the same kind of murderers?

[MrFahrenheit]

Out of curiosity, you set up the scenario of the depleted party getting chased into this situation. What was your hoped for outcome that would have avoided this?

There were other escape routes which simply weren't investigated (rogues only went for nearby loot). It was a community built into the mountain.

[BiPolar]

There were other escape routes which simply weren't investigated (rogues only went for nearby loot). It was a community built into the mountain.

So they didn't pick a wrong route, just a route that happened to lead to no positive outcomes (either give up the dwarf or fight the red dragon with sub optimal prep?)

Running into the safety of a community built into a mountain seems like a great option if I was playing.

[Spellbreaker26]

Nope. It is divine magic vs arcane, but the divine magic is from the paladin's belief in his oaths rather than a deity. A paladin can swear his oath to a deity that hates him, with precepts that directly conflict the deity's, and in every way disrespect what said deity stands for and still gain divine power from his oath so long as the paladin believes in it. Only a cleric's magic is actually given by a deity, and that has its own problems...

My group had a big argument over this; they eventually convinced me that there could be clerics that don't necessarily have deities (though I still hold that they will be very rare). Ur-Priests, for example, hijack their powers, while the cleric in Planescape: Torment is agnostic.

[RickAllison]

My group had a big argument over this; they eventually convinced me that there could be clerics that don't necessarily have deities (though I still hold that they will be very rare). Ur-Priests, for example, hijack their powers, while the cleric in Planescape: Torment is agnostic.

I could definitely see that. The power is certainly the cleric's (given that it is achieved in the same way as wizards and such), and it isn't a huge jump to say that the person chooses how they define their powers rather than a god.

[Ruslan]

Sigh. Whenever I see a thread about a Paladin falling, I always harbor a small hope that it's about some kind of convoluted situation involving rope bridges, ravines, flying monsters, Acrobatics checks and Dexterity saves. But no, it always ends up being another "morally justified" debate. I really should stop clicking on those.

[EvilAnagram]

Sigh. Whenever I see a thread about a Paladin falling, I always harbor a small hope that it's about some kind of convoluted situation involving rope bridges, ravines, flying monsters, Acrobatics checks and Dexterity saves. But no, it always ends up being another "morally justified" debate. I really should stop clicking on those.

The thing is, it's not inherently a bad way for the plot to move forward. It's just that people seem to only actually approach it in a terrible way.

[Spellbreaker26]

The thing is, it's not inherently a bad way for the plot to move forward. It's just that people seem to only actually approach it in a terrible way.

The problem is that no other class (aside from potentially the cleric in extreme circumstances) is in danger of having its abilities messed up because of making a choice that the GM decided was the wrong one. The GM could be very right, and the player could be acting totally inappropriately, but for something as objective as morality there's always a huge grey area. Combined with the two facts that: 1. Paladins need to have a provision for falling else their oath makes little sense and 2. you're almost always going to have at least one complete sadist in your party - any way to approach Paladin falling seems to look pretty terrible.

[EvilAnagram]

The problem is that no other class (aside from potentially the cleric in extreme circumstances) is in danger of having its abilities messed up because of making a choice that the GM decided was the wrong one. The GM could be very right, and the player could be acting totally inappropriately, but for something as objective as morality there's always a huge grey area. Combined with the two facts that: 1. Paladins need to have a provision for falling else their oath makes little sense and 2. you're almost always going to have at least one complete sadist in your party - any way to approach Paladin falling seems to look pretty terrible.

The thing is that morality is not entrenched in the falling in this edition. So long as you adhere to the tenets of your oath, it does not matter how you behave. When DMs bring up your god's opinion or talk about right and wrong, they're editorializing the rules in order to entrap you after the fact.

However, when a player knowingly violates his oath because doing so is worth falling, that's a great ****ing story.

[Sigreid]

The thing is that morality is not entrenched in the falling in this edition. So long as you adhere to the tenets of your oath, it does not matter how you behave. When DMs bring up your god's opinion or talk about right and wrong, they're editorializing the rules in order to entrap you after the fact.

However, when a player knowingly violates his oath because doing so is worth falling, that's a great ****ing story.

I agree quite a bit with you here. IMO the advantage of the oaths is that it isn't a morality question any more. It's much easier to judge against a specific set of sworn to criteria than "Is this a good or evil thing."

That being said, I don't think a DM should set out to create tests for the paladin. I think they should run their world exactly as they would if the paladin were a fighter and leave it to the paladin to make choices that will test himself against his oath. I think most people will. After all, greed and selfishness are essential parts of our nature. For all the bad press they get, they also help people survive.

[Vogonjeltz]

Doesn't that beg the question who they swore the oath to? I'd always DMed it was their deity.

PHB 82:
"Whatever their origin and their mission, paladins are united by their oaths to stand against the forces of evil. Whether sworn before a god's alter and the witness of a priest, in a sacred glade before nature spirits and fey beings, or in a moment of desperation and grief with the dead as the only witness, a paladin's oath is a powerful bond."

So, the oath is technically to themselves, but based on the oath is might be more tilted in who you're keeping it for (i.e. Deity, Nature, the Dead, or from SCAG, the Crown).