Dealing with Killer Characters

[Doc Democracy]

18 hours ago, Christopher said:

Also don't you mean "compromise Law for Good"? The way you wrote it, sounds like Lawfull Neutral Territory.

"I am sorry I can not free those slaves, it would be against local law to do so" does not sound remotely Paladin like.

 

So close!  But I still refrain from getting into a discussion of D&D alignments!!  ?

 

Doc

[BoloOfEarth]

Well, we had our talk, such as it was.  The killer character's player still doesn't feel he did anything wrong, and several other players supported him in that.  (FYI, one of the players whose PC has CvK was out sick, and the other CvK player didn't say anything at all.)  Another player insisted that Croc had "ordered" Riptide (admittedly a killer NPC) to attack his (female) character and said attack almost took her to negative BODY, so Croc effectively "had it coming."  And while I remember Riptide's attack doing a lot of damage, I don't remember Croc giving any such order, and was pretty sure the hero's KA's both happened before Riptide even got in the room.  However, several other players insisted things happened the way that player said, so perhaps I'm remembering things wrong.  Never mind how heroic "he had it coming" sounds, or that killing Croc wouldn't actually stop Riptide from continuing to rip people apart.

 

One player even tried to blame Croc's death on the Aquans, saying that if they had left Croc behind instead of taking him away and trying to bandage his wounds themselves, the PC mage would have healed him up and saved his life.  (In fairness, this is probably true.)  However, you should totally assume someone else will keep your friend alive, even though that person's friend just tried to kill him. 

 

Anyway, no remorse at all.

 

As to the Healing, the players don't really think that they have a relaxed attitude on BODY damage since the mage can simply heal it all away.  Regarding the comment about letting the hostages drop and healing them afterward, the mage's player said that was said aloud, not over the Mind Link, and insisted he said that as a bluff, knowing Pops could teleport them all to safety before they hit the ground.  He pointed out that his Healing doesn't bring someone back from the dead, so obviously they have to take BODY damage seriously. 

 

Overall, I'm not even angry or irritated about any of it any more.  Mostly just apathetic.  I'm seriously considering ending my Champions campaign soon and taking another break from GMing.  (This current campaign followed a 4-year break from GMing.)  I may even take a break from all gaming. 

[Christopher]

12 minutes ago, BoloOfEarth said:

As to the Healing, the players don't really think that they have a relaxed attitude on BODY damage since the mage can simply heal it all away.

 

12 minutes ago, BoloOfEarth said:

One player even tried to blame Croc's death on the Aquans, saying that if they had left Croc behind instead of taking him away and trying to bandage his wounds themselves, the PC mage would have healed him up and saved his life.  (In fairness, this is probably true.)  However, you should totally assume someone else will keep your friend alive, even though that person's friend just tried to kill him. 

I think they jsut do not want to realize it is the healing.  Maybe they even felt genuinely betrayed because you did not gave them the option to heal Croc?

It does not need to make sense (as you explained, there was no reason for the Aquans to let Croc there with people that tried to kill him). Emotions never do. And this sounds like a prime case

 

Regardless, it all seems to come down to the Healing. Just try taking it away for a moment. You can still allow it for storyline purposes as a "power you do not spend points on". But it is highly detrimental for gameplay, as you have just learned the hard way.

As a lesser version, you could try to apply timepressure so they do not have a option to heal after combat. Or maybe apply any of the rules that limit the (re)usabiltiy of healing. But I remain convinced you will not get around taking it away, unfortunately.

 

Sometimes stuff has big picture/longterm effects. In Stellaris singing a migration treaty will annoy the heck out of the Xenophobe Faction. Because a Migration Treaty causes Xenophile attraction (the opposite of Xenophobe one)

If your shortterm goal is stability, you would not sign a migration treaty.

If your longterm goal is to change your Ethics, you totally would. Even at the cost of short term instability.

Healing just had such a effect on your game. It slowly over time moved the allignment from "Afraid of killing" to "The mage can heal it".

[Scott Ruggels]

Sorry you have to hit the eject button, buit if it's no fun, there really isn't any point in doing it any further.  Taking a break from all gaming though.... (What.. are you getting married?XD). Might be a bit drastic?

[BoloOfEarth]

15 minutes ago, Scott Ruggels said:

Sorry you have to hit the eject button, buit if it's no fun, there really isn't any point in doing it any further.  Taking a break from all gaming though.... (What.. are you getting married?XD). Might be a bit drastic?

 

It's the same group of players, and outside my Champions campaign the other GMs only run D&D (except for one Pathfinder campaign).  Frankly, fantasy is not my favorite genre, and I'm kinda sick of the "murder hobo" mentality.  Maybe a little time away from it all might help. 

[BoloOfEarth]

25 minutes ago, Christopher said:

But I remain convinced you will not get around taking it away, unfortunately.

 

Yeah, I'm getting that impression as well.  I'm not seeing a way to do so without it feeling excessively heavy-handed, however, and leaving noses bent out of shape.  I don't want to lose friendships over a game.  And I've been friends with most of these players since the mid 1980s. 

 

Most of my Champions campaigns have lasted 3-4 years, and this one is coming up on Year 4.  It seems easier just to end it, and then if I start a new Champions game (and that seems like a fairly large "if"), I'll leave out Healing.  And Multiform.  And UBO powers.  And VPPs that don't require long change times. And...  well, you get the picture.

[sentry0]

16 minutes ago, BoloOfEarth said:

 

Yeah, I'm getting that impression as well.  I'm not seeing a way to do so without it feeling excessively heavy-handed, however, and leaving noses bent out of shape.  I don't want to lose friendships over a game.  And I've been friends with most of these players since the mid 1980s. 

 

Most of my Champions campaigns have lasted 3-4 years, and this one is coming up on Year 4.  It seems easier just to end it, and then if I start a new Champions game (and that seems like a fairly large "if"), I'll leave out Healing.  And Multiform.  And UBO powers.  And VPPs that don't require long change times. And...  well, you get the picture.

 

As you correctly assert, no game is worth losing friends over.  

 

If you can let it go and not see this as a failure but rather a learning experience I think you'll be doing yourself a service.  Some of your players just sound like asshats in game and have a poor mentality for 4-color styles of games.  That's not your fault.

 

I would suggest that players like these would thrive in a Dark Champions game.  Maybe after some time you can take a run at that assuming you don't absolutely hate the genre.

 

At any rate, try to be kind to yourself over all this ?

[Christopher]

4 hours ago, BoloOfEarth said:

Most of my Champions campaigns have lasted 3-4 years, and this one is coming up on Year 4.  It seems easier just to end it, and then if I start a new Champions game (and that seems like a fairly large "if"), I'll leave out Healing.  And Multiform.  And UBO powers.  And VPPs that don't require long change times. And...  well, you get the picture.

"Humanity never developed a System we did not manage to break."

[Hugh Neilson]

On 12/9/2018 at 8:49 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

A person for whom Good is the sole guide would not be Lawful Good. but Neutral Good.  A Lawful Good character will compromise Good for Law in some instances.

 

 

On 12/9/2018 at 11:15 AM, Christopher said:

There is a difference between sole and primary.

 

Also don't you mean "compromise Law for Good"? The way you wrote it, sounds like Lawfull Neutral Territory.

"I am sorry I can not free those slaves, it would be against local law to do so" does not sound remotely Paladin like.

 

 

I meant that, while the character will sometimes compromise Law for Good (which I did not state), he will also sometimes sacrifice Good for Law.

 

Lawful Good is driven by both Lawful and Good.  In some cases, either will be compromised for the other.   A Neutral Good character is driven entirely by the tenets of "Good", while a Lawful Neutral character is driven entirely by the tenets of "Law".  A Lawful Good character is driven by both, not by one in constant priority over the other.

 

Different Paladins will prioritize differently, and can disagree legitimately.  None would condone evil acts, but some may be more willing that others to accept, say, a death penalty for capital offenses.  They will not all think in tandem.

 

On 12/9/2018 at 11:15 AM, Christopher said:

"I am sorry I can not free those slaves, it would be against local law to do so" does not sound remotely Paladin like.

 

The stuff you linked makes it clear that as the intention. Nr. 3 is "act with Honor" And Nr. 4 "Follow the local authorities, unless soemthing else overrules it".

 

 

The tenets, in order, are listed as:

 

• You must never willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or casting an evil spell.
• You must not take actions that you know will harm an innocent, or through inaction cause an innocent to come to immediate harm when you knew your action could reasonably prevent it. This tenet doesn't force you to take action against possible harm to innocents or to sacrifice your life and future potential in an attempt to protect an innocent.
• You must act with honor, never cheating, lying, or taking advantage of others.
• You must respect the lawful authority of the legitimate ruler or leadership in whichever land you may be, following their laws unless they violate a higher tenet.

The first is irrelevant to freeing, or not freeing, the slaves.

 

The second depends on the context.  Are the slaves at risk?  Are they innocents? Are they convicted criminals whose sentence includes enforced servitude?  Are they prisoners of war, with enforced work being the alternative to executing prisoners that the society cannot support?  Will a Paladin reject a draft in times of war, or does he expect citizens to dutifully discharge their responsibility to their country? 

 

The third seems irrelevant as well.

 

The fourth respects legitimate authority, which may include slavery under some legal codes.

 

Note that " He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society. " is the description of a chaotic good character, not a lawful good character.

 

[Surrealone]

On ‎12‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 11:14 AM, BoloOfEarth said:

Anyway, no remorse at all.

…
 

Overall, I'm not even angry or irritated about any of it any more.  Mostly just apathetic.  I'm seriously considering ending my Champions campaign soon and taking another break from GMing.  (This current campaign followed a 4-year break from GMing.)  I may even take a break from all gaming. 

In tabletop roleplaying, Players and GMs come together for fun and adventure in what is ultimately a rules-driven form of group storytelling.  It sounds to me like you and your players are going about this particular story from different angles.  Would that really make you quit?  Just because the players have a different perspective on the story than you do???

 

Instead of quitting, perhaps it's time to go all Dark Champions on them … and take the story in the direction in which they've expressed interest by way of their characters' actions.  You could certainly have a great deal of fun with this; all it requires is letting go of your own preconceived notions, embracing their characters' actions, and running with the idea that actions have consequences.  Dark Champions is just that … dark.  But it's loads of fun, too … in that 'morality is a mutable, gray mass … not shades of black/white' kind of way.

Frankly, it's sort of disheartening to hear that you got angry/irritated with it to begin with.  Be the GM they want you to be by showing them how dark the world is and how deep the moral rabbit hole they've opened up … goes.  And have fun doing it, because now's your chance to be EVIL; they asked for it!

 

That's my $0.02, anyway...

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

9 hours ago, BoloOfEarth said:

Overall, I'm not even angry or irritated about any of it any more.  Mostly just apathetic.  I'm seriously considering ending my Champions campaign soon and taking another break from GMing.  (This current campaign followed a 4-year break from GMing.)  I may even take a break from all gaming. 

It sounds, honestly, like the grievances you had didn't make it through to your players.  I can't really be sure without having been there, but the description you give of their response suggests they thought "He doesn't like our decisions" when you were trying to say "I don't like the tone of this game and don't want to run Dark Champions".  If that's not made clear to them, they'll never change and they'll get (justifiably) angry if you 'punish' them for what they thought was fine.  Moreover, if I'm reading you right you don't want to run 'suddenly, consequences' because you want heroics. 

If you want to keep the game going, definitely sit down with them and present the issue again.  Be very clear that it's you not liking things, use I statements, etc.  If it comes off as accusatory you risk hurting the friends you so clearly treasure enough to run an unfun game for.  If you make it clear the issue lies on your side (even if you don't feel it does), then you place massively less strain on the relationship. 

 

Remember though, not having a game is better than having to deal with a bad game.  If you're having no fun RPGing with your friends, it's time to tell them that and have fun doing something else with them.  Just say "I'm not having fun, and would like to do X instead". 

 

 

[csyphrett]

I'm sorry that you're going to end your campaign, Bolo. You know from my writeups that I am a killer GM so my position is the same as Surrealone. If the players start killing people, then they have to justify that to the law. Other criminals, especially friends of the criminals, decide it's okay to do massive attacks and so forth, and blame it on the players. Vampire Elvis turns one of them into a vampire.

 

When i was running Domino City, one of the rogue's gallery played at being the hero and making the heroes look incompetent.  I loved the whole captain america speeches on the news after he performed a rescue.

 

"This fire could have been so much worse if my colleagues hadn't contained it until I arrived. The city needs to thank its Defenders for such selfless courage given their capabilities. Now I must away."

 

       CES

[Lord Liaden]

It's been some time since I ran any games. Spending time here, and on other similar forums, is enough for the time being to satisfy my interest in RPGs without the grief attendant with GMing. Perhaps it can do so for a while for you too, Bolo.

[bubba smith]

Quote

 

why not ask the player to tone down the killer bit ? or have them make another character that will not kill although now that 'Venom' is on streaming you might get plenty of lethal types

[Surrealone]

21 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

Moreover, if I'm reading you right you don't want to run 'suddenly, consequences' because you want heroics. 

You seem to imply mutual exclusivity, here, when, in fact, that's simply … not … accurate. Assuming a solid GM, 'suddenly, consequences' can, in fact, be heroic … as well as give rise to heroic arcs.  (Have you been watching the latest season of Green Arrow, perchance?  If not, note that our hero was jailed because … 'suddenly, consequences.'  I won't detail more for risk of spoilers, but the mid-season finale was pretty slick.)

[Christopher]

On 12/11/2018 at 2:12 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

You must not take actions that you know will harm an innocent, or through inaction cause an innocent to come to immediate harm when you knew your action could reasonably prevent it. This tenet doesn't force you to take action against possible harm to innocents or to sacrifice your life and future potential in an attempt to protect an innocent.

 

On 12/11/2018 at 2:12 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

The second depends on the context.  Are the slaves at risk?  Are they innocents? Are they convicted criminals whose sentence includes enforced servitude?    Will a Paladin reject a draft in times of war, or does he expect citizens to dutifully discharge their responsibility to their country? 

Being a slave is by definition harm being done to you. Why else would slaves not run away?

I could propably find you 3 different human rights slavery violates at least. On top of the one explicitly about "no slavery".

 

"Are they innocents? Are they convicted criminals whose sentence includes enforced servitude?" Then they are not slaves. They are convicted criminals whose stence includes enforced servitude. As long as the justice system itself is not evil/they were wrongfully convicted, they are not normally your concern. And in the later case, you do have the legal options to take.

 

"Are they prisoners of war, with enforced work being the alternative to executing prisoners that the society cannot support?" Then the action of freeing them would bring harm to them. "You must not do harm" actually comes before "you must prevent harm".

 

"Will a Paladin reject a draft in times of war, or does he expect citizens to dutifully discharge their responsibility to their country? " Usually Paladins with actuall magical power derived from a real divine source are excempt for laws like "draft". Their own association with their church and any deals between church and country overrule that. It might even be nessesary to forsake their citizenship to join, wich also negates the applicability of Drafting.  Unlike Excommunication, it actually goes both ways.

There is always the part of tenet 2, "do not pointlessly rob yourself of the ability to do future good". So you need to give me a ton more information before I know what the answer might be. In the end both accepting the draft and avoiding it and landing in prision would be against that part. In wich capacity you can do more good is what maters. Good still trumps law.

 

In my case, there was not even a reason to compromise law for good. The people had only attempted to steal from the group. No 3rd party was affected. It was entirely within the rights of the party to not press charges. Wich all but the paladin player agreed to do. And if they did not press charges, law was not even involved. The Authorities were not concerned. Tenet 4 would never even be called up to enter the ring.

[Hugh Neilson]

11 hours ago, Christopher said:

 

Being a slave is by definition harm being done to you. Why else would slaves not run away?

I could propably find you 3 different human rights slavery violates at least. On top of the one explicitly about "no slavery".

 

 

Medieval serfs were basically property tied to the land.  Many did not run away because there was nowhere to go, and here they had (poor, but existing) food and shelter.  I am pretty sure a fellow riding a big horse and lopping off the heads of evildoers without due process also violates many modern conceptions of "human rights".

 

Liberty and freedom is a Chaotic concept of Good.  Duty is a Lawful concept of Good.

 

11 hours ago, Christopher said:

"Are they innocents? Are they convicted criminals whose sentence includes enforced servitude?" Then they are not slaves. They are convicted criminals whose stence includes enforced servitude. As long as the justice system itself is not evil/they were wrongfully convicted, they are not normally your concern. And in the later case, you do have the legal options to take.

 

"Are they prisoners of war, with enforced work being the alternative to executing prisoners that the society cannot support?" Then the action of freeing them would bring harm to them. "You must not do harm" actually comes before "you must prevent harm".

 

They are also forced to labour for their "masters" against their wishes.  That can be viewed as a form of slavery.  If we remove PoW and move to "without the slave caste, we all starve", does this also move us to "the action of freeing them brings harm"?

 

11 hours ago, Christopher said:

"Will a Paladin reject a draft in times of war, or does he expect citizens to dutifully discharge their responsibility to their country? " Usually Paladins with actuall magical power derived from a real divine source are excempt for laws like "draft". Their own association with their church and any deals between church and country overrule that. It might even be nessesary to forsake their citizenship to join, wich also negates the applicability of Drafting.  Unlike Excommunication, it actually goes both ways.

 

Sorry - I was unclear.  I was referring to conscription of the citizenry, not of the Paladin specifically.  Will the Paladin enforce the conscripts' duty to King and Country (or to the Deities of Law and Good), or is he OK with draft-dodgers and deserters?  This is another form of enforced service - one which places the conscript's safety and life at risk.

 

11 hours ago, Christopher said:

So you need to give me a ton more information before I know what the answer might be.

 

Exactly this.  The whole picture needs to be addressed, and it may well be possible to reach different conclusions as to the "best" course of action.  Paladins may disagree with other Paladins.

 

11 hours ago, Christopher said:

Good still trumps law.

 

That is a NG attitude.  For an LG character, Law is also important and may trump Good.  Taking a life is a compromise of Good.  Will the Paladin oppose carrying out a death sentence on a murderer, lawfully (and not wrongfully) convicted?  This is a compromise of Good, especially if the murderer is now incarcerated and can do no further harm.  Of course, we are now using society's resources to feed and shelter him, while innocents may be going hungry or homeless.

 

11 hours ago, Christopher said:

In my case, there was not even a reason to compromise law for good. The people had only attempted to steal from the group. No 3rd party was affected. It was entirely within the rights of the party to not press charges. Wich all but the paladin player agreed to do. And if they did not press charges, law was not even involved. The Authorities were not concerned. Tenet 4 would never even be called up to enter the ring.

 

My comments addressed your general comments, not the specific situation.  Here, I agree.  I would add that, had the Paladin come across the children prior to their attempted theft, or approached him/the party asking for help, I would have expected the Paladin to help them freely.  There was no need to compromise Good to achieve Law, which should make the decision easy.  A typical D&D character refusing to share food with those less fortunate is firmly in the Lawful Greedy mindset.

[Christopher]

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Medieval serfs were basically property tied to the land.  Many did not run away because there was nowhere to go, and here they had (poor, but existing) food and shelter.  I am pretty sure a fellow riding a big horse and lopping off the heads of evildoers without due process also violates many modern conceptions of "human rights". 

  

Liberty and freedom is a Chaotic concept of Good.  Duty is a Lawful concept of Good. 

Medieval serfs did not live in a world where people could actually heal by laying on hands. Magic alone throws any comparision to history out the window.

And I am pretty sure being not subject to "cruel and unwaranted punishment" is a Lawfull thing. Isn't not getting conquered/enslaved usually the reason we form governments?

 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

They are also forced to labour for their "masters" against their wishes.  That can be viewed as a form of slavery.

And from another point of view it is a just, lawfull punishment. The good compared to the death penalty.

 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Sorry - I was unclear.  I was referring to conscription of the citizenry, not of the Paladin specifically.  Will the Paladin enforce the conscripts' duty to King and Country (or to the Deities of Law and Good), or is he OK with draft-dodgers and deserters?  This is another form of enforced service - one which places the conscript's safety and life at risk. 

How did a Paladin end up there? Why did he take this job for the King, since he is not one of his citizen (and is not supposed to take jobs that contractid his allignment anyway).

 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

That is a NG attitude.  For an LG character, Law is also important and may trump Good.  Taking a life is a compromise of Good.  Will the Paladin oppose carrying out a death sentence on a murderer, lawfully (and not wrongfully) convicted?  This is a compromise of Good, especially if the murderer is now incarcerated and can do no further harm.  Of course, we are now using society's resources to feed and shelter him, while innocents may be going hungry or homeless. 

"A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. He combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. He tells the truth, keeps his word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.

Lawful good can be a dangerous alignment when it restricts freedom and criminalizes self-interest."

So there you have it. The slippery slope towards Lawfull Neutral you are sliding on right now. Staying Lawfull Good goes into both directions, not just the one.

 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

My comments addressed your general comments, not the specific situation.  Here, I agree.  I would add that, had the Paladin come across the children prior to their attempted theft, or approached him/the party asking for help, I would have expected the Paladin to help them freely.  There was no need to compromise Good to achieve Law, which should make the decision easy.  A typical D&D character refusing to share food with those less fortunate is firmly in the Lawful Greedy mindset.

At least something we can agree on.

[Hugh Neilson]

6 hours ago, Christopher said:

Medieval serfs did not live in a world where people could actually heal by laying on hands. Magic alone throws any comparision to history out the window.

And I am pretty sure being not subject to "cruel and unwaranted punishment" is a Lawfull thing. Isn't not getting conquered/enslaved usually the reason we form governments?

 

And from another point of view it is a just, lawfull punishment. The good compared to the death penalty.

 

 

Seems like there is some cherry picking going on here.  Magic changes everything for the serf (like putting fire breathing dragons, trolls, etc. out there in the wilderness he could depart to, I will note), but not for the PoW (maybe those Good Clerics should be Creating Food and Water to ease the resource needs?).

 

I'd consider a lot of Lawful Evil, even Lawful Neutral, characters to impose cruel punishments beyond those warranted by the severity of the offense (like, perhaps, loss of a hand for stealing bread - because that is the penalty for theft of any kind).

 

6 hours ago, Christopher said:

How did a Paladin end up there? Why did he take this job for the King, since he is not one of his citizen (and is not supposed to take jobs that contractid his allignment anyway).

 

We seem to be talking past each other.  The Paladin cannot, all alone, defeat the Orcish Hordes.  Is it acceptable to conscript an army to defend those less able to defend themselves, or do the guys who don't want to risk their necks get to sit safe(r) at home, protected by a smaller, less likely to succeed, corps of volunteers?

 

I'll come back to the LG quote later.

 

 

 

[Duke Bushido]

I haven't much to add to this conversation on either side, but I have been thoroughly enjoying it.  I thank you both for your willingness to discuss this.

 

I would like, if I may, to add a comment related to Christopher's assumption that slavery is automatically harmful.  While recent historical examples bear that out, look outside of American and Egyptian examples.  The Greeks had slaves running the government, and if I remember correctly (it has been a _long_ time since I've had any formal education; forgive my sketchy memory) harming a slave could often bear a stiffer penalty than harming a citizen.

 

Certainly we think of the most recent examples when we hear the word, but we fail to remember that slaves once upon a time lived like citizens, and were tasked with menial tasks like running the house or the government so that free citizens could pursue their "enlightenment."

 

Given the option of doing what I do now for the standard of living I currently "enjoy," I'd be hard pressed to make a decision between my current life and being a Greek slave....

 

Just sayin'....

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

6 hours ago, Christopher said:

"A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. He combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. He tells the truth, keeps his word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.

Lawful good can be a dangerous alignment when it restricts freedom and criminalizes self-interest."

So there you have it. The slippery slope towards Lawfull Neutral you are sliding on right now. Staying Lawfull Good goes into both directions, not just the one.

 

I will first note that "Lawful good can be a dangerous alignment when it restricts freedom and criminalizes self-interest." means that such actions remain within the ambit of the lawful good alignment. 

 

He "hates to see the guilty go unpunished" - are thieves not guilty? 

 

Obviously, I don't have the full backstory of your anecdote - are the characters in a LN or even LE society for some reason?  Clearly the legal system does not incorporate compassion if we know these children will certainly face amputation for stealing bread to survive, rather than being sent into kindly foster homes, or care as wards of the state.  What happens if we just let them go?  There appears to be no place for them to go.  Sooner or later, they likely get caught and turned in anyway.  Alternatively, their crimes may become more desperate, and more violent, endangering others.  

 

Should the PCs adopt the children?  Work to find them a good home?  Provide their own justice (perhaps employing them as torchbearers, porters, squires, animal handlers, etc.)?  What options exist in the game world to actually help the children?  Or was the encounter just intended to let the PCs generously not press charges, then move along leaving the kids to find their own way, whether as victims or victimizers?  Did the other characters propose options other than "turn them in" or "turn them loose"?

[Greywind]

The basic paladin follows Lawful and Good in equal measure. Not Lawful or Good depending on circumstances.

[Christopher]

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

We seem to be talking past each other.  The Paladin cannot, all alone, defeat the Orcish Hordes.  Is it acceptable to conscript an army to defend those less able to defend themselves, or do the guys who don't want to risk their necks get to sit safe(r) at home, protected by a smaller, less likely to succeed, corps of volunteers? 

A random paladin has no right to conscript people. The lord of the land does. The lord of the land is also responsible for enforcing a conscription. He runs the Military police that rounds up draft/conscription dodgers.

 

Now the Paladin can volunteer to take over such a duty. And he has to decide before he takes the job.

 

4 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

I would like, if I may, to add a comment related to Christopher's assumption that slavery is automatically harmful.  While recent historical examples bear that out, look outside of American and Egyptian examples.  The Greeks had slaves running the government, and if I remember correctly (it has been a _long_ time since I've had any formal education; forgive my sketchy memory) harming a slave could often bear a stiffer penalty than harming a citizen. 

And how many thousands of slaves were toiling on the fields or in the mines the exact same moment? Please do not bring up those "once in 10k" cases as if they are in any way representative.

We are talking about the "forced to work the fields and mines" slaves, not the "got to run the country" cases. Those might still be de-jure slaves, but de-facto they were not.

[Scott Ruggels]

On 11/30/2018 at 12:25 PM, DShomshak said:

show

I am currently playing a 7th level Paladin. I played him as a friendly idealistic type, but unfortunately, due to circumstances, he is now wearing the crown of a small kingdom, that immediately fell into civil war. He is played as a champion of the people, and treats most people with kindly respect. But the situation has forced him into hard choices, but the follower of the false saint, and the former Steward, and the evil ancient elven vampires, dont get much mercy. He’s kind to animals, and due to several lucky rolls with were rats, he considers them lucky, and they consider him a protector. After their good service and a couple of speeches, the public’s attitude towards them has changed for the better. 

 

Unfortunately OOC, because he is now King, most of the recent sessions involved wargaming battles,  and policy decisions which while I am enamoured of, the other players are nervous about the war, and want to get back to dungeon crawls. So at the completion of the current arc, I will have to sit for official coronation, and retire the character to friendly NPC status and start a new character. Too bad, abut will defer to the others wishes. 

[Greywind]

Scott, take a page from Kull's book;

 

"By this axe I rule!"