I will say this, if only for the sake of any future Oath of the Watchers or other 'Zero Tolerance' characters out there.
Being coerced into a devil's bargain is evil, yes. A character could decide that their greater oath - to protect the world from incursions by Others - was more important than maintaining a flawless record. Paladins can atone for sins and stains on their oath, especially ones undertaken in service to the greater spirit of their oath. The tenets of the Watcher's Oath state "never trust fiends or those who truck with them", which could be upheld. The paladin here certainly wasn't going to trust the goristro and its lackeys, and in opting for a Last Stand, they were arguably breaking the final tenet of their oath, Discipline, which commands them to be a shield against the horrors beyond the stars for as long as their minds and bodies hold out. Dying fruitlessly in a battle they knew they could not win makes them a poor shield indeed.
It wasn't unreasonable of the paladin in question to choose to die serving their oath (despite being a first-level novitiate that technically hadn't sworn the Oath yet :P), but it's also not unreasonable for even a sworn Watcher to seek to preserve their life and thus their chance to undermine the demon's plan when the odds are less stacked against them.
I think it was a fine bit of roleplay for the Paladins to fight it out. They may or may not know how powerful the demon is but doing the evil creature's bidding with the only threat being "or I'll kill you" basically leaves only one choice.
The GM becoming upset is on the GM. You cannot expect your players to do what you want all the time. You need to be prepared for them to do crazy whack-ass stuff. Even if the social contract calls for everybody putting in an effort to play along, throwing the party into a you must do this thing because I said so is poor play - especially if you give your players heat for not doing what you want them to do.
I think it is a case of new GM and new players like other folk have said.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I will say this, if only for the sake of any future Oath of the Watchers or other 'Zero Tolerance' characters out there.
Being coerced into a devil's bargain is evil, yes. A character could decide that their greater oath - to protect the world from incursions by Others - was more important than maintaining a flawless record. Paladins can atone for sins and stains on their oath, especially ones undertaken in service to the greater spirit of their oath. The tenets of the Watcher's Oath state "never trust fiends or those who truck with them", which could be upheld. The paladin here certainly wasn't going to trust the goristro and its lackeys, and in opting for a Last Stand, they were arguably breaking the final tenet of their oath, Discipline, which commands them to be a shield against the horrors beyond the stars for as long as their minds and bodies hold out. Dying fruitlessly in a battle they knew they could not win makes them a poor shield indeed.
It wasn't unreasonable of the paladin in question to choose to die serving their oath (despite being a first-level novitiate that technically hadn't sworn the Oath yet :P), but it's also not unreasonable for even a sworn Watcher to seek to preserve their life and thus their chance to undermine the demon's plan when the odds are less stacked against them.
My problem with using atonement in this case is that it is a bit to close to metagaming. Atonement, in my eyes, is for when you realise after the fact that your actions were in contradiction with your oaths and vows as a holy warrior, not when you willingly commit a horrible act to save your own skin.
It would depend, in large part, upon the nature of a paladin's oath.
Many players still insist that a paladin swears their Oath to an empowering deity, and that paladins are basically more-martial clerics. if this is the case, then presumably the deity has a grand goal, plan, or design in mind, or at least an Objective they are empowering their new servant to accomplish. Whether or not the deity would prefer their servant to expend their life and their divine gift in battle with a demon far beyond their power, or would prefer their servant to preserve their life and their gift in the hope of fulfilling their oath later down the line is more down to the specific deity than to forum randos on the Intarwebs. The 'cost/benefit analysis' is very real - it cost the deity to empower their paladin, and that deity may not appreciate the paladin dying without accomplishing anything. Heh, what I do know is my favorite Holy Warrior stories are the ones where the Holy Warrior is canny, cunning, highly intelligent, and able to see where individual tarnishing acts can still be in service to the essence of their Code. And where they're perfectly willing to argue that point to a deity who may not quite fully grok how grey and messy the mortal realm is, from their throne in the Heavens.
Some players have adopted the 'new' Paladin ethos, where the oath is sworn to the universe itself and empowered by a Force rather than a deity. In a sense, the Oath is its own god, a Will without volition or persona, and it empowers those who align with its ideals. The tenets of the Oath are essentially a mortal interpretation of the ideals that drive that particular set of powers, but they're still just a 'best understanding' of the will of a force that defies easy mortal comprehension. In this case, in can be tricky in situations like the one described herein, where both actions available to the paladin break their Oath and they have no path to adhering to their tenets no matter what they do.
It's why the DMG has backed off on giving the DM tools/suggestions for punishing a paladin who tarnishes their Oath - a rigid, unbending, zero-tolerance Oath is extremely brittle and can be very easily manipulated by the paladin's enemies. After all, if this goristro knew the paladin was a Watcher? Who's to say it wanted the paladin to say 'yes' at all? If the paladin says no, then the demon is within his rights (as demons see it, anyways) to kill the paladin, and if the paladin says yes and then loses his powers? Well, that goristro has destroyed a Watcher before he was even a Watcher, and thus slain his enemy in the crib. It's a win/win for the goristro. If Evil can checkmate and eliminate a paladin through even the crudest of manipulations such as this one, then how do holy warriors such as paladins ever survive to become a threat to Evil's minions?
I will say this, if only for the sake of any future Oath of the Watchers or other 'Zero Tolerance' characters out there.
Being coerced into a devil's bargain is evil, yes. A character could decide that their greater oath - to protect the world from incursions by Others - was more important than maintaining a flawless record. Paladins can atone for sins and stains on their oath, especially ones undertaken in service to the greater spirit of their oath. The tenets of the Watcher's Oath state "never trust fiends or those who truck with them", which could be upheld. The paladin here certainly wasn't going to trust the goristro and its lackeys, and in opting for a Last Stand, they were arguably breaking the final tenet of their oath, Discipline, which commands them to be a shield against the horrors beyond the stars for as long as their minds and bodies hold out. Dying fruitlessly in a battle they knew they could not win makes them a poor shield indeed.
It wasn't unreasonable of the paladin in question to choose to die serving their oath (despite being a first-level novitiate that technically hadn't sworn the Oath yet :P), but it's also not unreasonable for even a sworn Watcher to seek to preserve their life and thus their chance to undermine the demon's plan when the odds are less stacked against them.
My problem with using atonement in this case is that it is a bit to close to metagaming. Atonement, in my eyes, is for when you realise after the fact that your actions were in contradiction with your oaths and vows as a holy warrior, not when you willingly commit a horrible act to save your own skin.
Personally, I think it's more good role playing then metagaming. They may have realized what they were doing, but it could be role played as a "moment of weakness" where the character was not willing to risk there life for their oath. Then it makes a good opportunity for character growth. Then next time, the character has learned their lesson and dies for there oath or whatever.
It would depend, in large part, upon the nature of a paladin's oath.
Many players still insist that a paladin swears their Oath to an empowering deity, and that paladins are basically more-martial clerics. if this is the case, then presumably the deity has a grand goal, plan, or design in mind, or at least an Objective they are empowering their new servant to accomplish. Whether or not the deity would prefer their servant to expend their life and their divine gift in battle with a demon far beyond their power, or would prefer their servant to preserve their life and their gift in the hope of fulfilling their oath later down the line is more down to the specific deity than to forum randos on the Intarwebs. The 'cost/benefit analysis' is very real - it cost the deity to empower their paladin, and that deity may not appreciate the paladin dying without accomplishing anything. Heh, what I do know is my favorite Holy Warrior stories are the ones where the Holy Warrior is canny, cunning, highly intelligent, and able to see where individual tarnishing acts can still be in service to the essence of their Code. And where they're perfectly willing to argue that point to a deity who may not quite fully grok how grey and messy the mortal realm is, from their throne in the Heavens.
Some players have adopted the 'new' Paladin ethos, where the oath is sworn to the universe itself and empowered by a Force rather than a deity. In a sense, the Oath is its own god, a Will without volition or persona, and it empowers those who align with its ideals. The tenets of the Oath are essentially a mortal interpretation of the ideals that drive that particular set of powers, but they're still just a 'best understanding' of the will of a force that defies easy mortal comprehension. In this case, in can be tricky in situations like the one described herein, where both actions available to the paladin break their Oath and they have no path to adhering to their tenets no matter what they do.
It's why the DMG has backed off on giving the DM tools/suggestions for punishing a paladin who tarnishes their Oath - a rigid, unbending, zero-tolerance Oath is extremely brittle and can be very easily manipulated by the paladin's enemies. After all, if this goristro knew the paladin was a Watcher? Who's to say it wanted the paladin to say 'yes' at all? If the paladin says no, then the demon is within his rights (as demons see it, anyways) to kill the paladin, and if the paladin says yes and then loses his powers? Well, that goristro has destroyed a Watcher before he was even a Watcher, and thus slain his enemy in the crib. It's a win/win for the goristro. If Evil can checkmate and eliminate a paladin through even the crudest of manipulations such as this one, then how do holy warriors such as paladins ever survive to become a threat to Evil's minions?
I'm a firm proponent of Paladins are their deities Champion, the Oaths are only a way to serve the deity. I don't like how this edition is treating Paladins and Clerics as computer game characters, that's why I would prefer to have the rules for punishing Paladins in the DMG because now there is only one punishment and that's becoming an Oathbreaker.
I would prefer to have the rules for punishing Paladins in the DMG because now there is only one punishment and that's becoming an Oathbreaker.
Becoming an Oathbreaker isn't necessarily punishment. It's a character evolution. As for rules for punishing, the books being mostly silent on this means the DM can do whatever they think is most fitting. They can do that anyway, rule zero and all, but anything that gets codified in a rulebook becomes something of a straightjacket - "that's what the book says, so that's how you do it".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Welcome to the gritty realism of adventuring raising its head 😳. If you stop to think about adventuring happening in a “real” world (even if fictional) then many times beginning adventurers are going to face off with things they can’t handle and die as happened here. I agree with Yurei and Sposta that this was a combination of beginning DM and Begining players but as far as I can tell in this case playing “lawful stupid” was not an unreasonable piece of role play. I’ve been in that position at a lot higher level than first and only the dice gods saved me and the party from a TPK.
I myself think this is a bad case of railroading I wonder where the train goes next, I agree though the PC's should try to escape or find a way to kill/destroy said demon which may be where said treasure is.
We are two paladins and a cleric. We are lvl1. We travelled the desert, in search for a lost caravan, and discovered a camp of cultists. The cultists "insisted" to take us to their leader. There were 30 of them and only 3 of us, so we went along with it. they lead us to the leaders camp, and it turns out the leader is a Goristro, a demon. Our characters are shocked! (We have a paladin of Pelor, a Cleric of Lathander and a Paladin of Bahamut.). The Demon demands, that we retrieve something for him from an ancient crypt, or die. There is no possibility of escape, because the cultists surround the camp, but we also don't want to help a demon. So my character decides that he will attack the demon. He rather wants to die, then help such a creature. I think this action was in-character, because my guy is a bit overzealous and doesn't have a very high wisdom. I ask the other players if they are on board, and they nod. We don't know how strong of a monster the demon is, but we attack him anyway. We get immediately downed, in the first round of combat. We get stabilized by the cultists. After this, the DM complains that I just wanted to screw over his adventure, and that I am a bad player. I replied that I thought that this was what my character would do. We continued the game after that, but I think the DM is still upset. Am I in the wrong here? Should I apologize?
I'm a little late to the party with 10 pages of replies, but I'll say this: you did nothing wrong. Clearly, your party would rather die than make a deal with a devil and the DM should have figured this out from who you were playing or should have let you know what sort of characters would have worked for his game.
"It's what my character would do" is only a problem when it legitimises anti-social and disruptive behaviour. Anything else is just roleplaying and that's ideal as this is a roleplaying game. Your DM is inexperienced and that's not a crime, but you did nothing wrong.
I would prefer to have the rules for punishing Paladins in the DMG because now there is only one punishment and that's becoming an Oathbreaker.
Becoming an Oathbreaker isn't necessarily punishment. It's a character evolution. As for rules for punishing, the books being mostly silent on this means the DM can do whatever they think is most fitting. They can do that anyway, rule zero and all, but anything that gets codified in a rulebook becomes something of a straightjacket - "that's what the book says, so that's how you do it".
While Oathbreaker can indeed be character development, and is allowed at our tables, it is still a way even the only way to do it using the rules. In 2nd I would first have taken away the highest spell slots, or the Paladin powers, if not repentant I would remove the Paladinhood permanently and you'd have a Fighter with worse attack options. A cleric would have had to search a new deity or dual class into something else. Another way would have been with a divine Geas. None of these things would have been fun. And I would never have put players into a position like the one given by OP. No rules means that DM's have no guidelines or margins to work within. This can and does lead to arbitrariness.
This, again, is a problem in this edition and not only in this case, but that's a whole other can of worms/discussion.
I would prefer to have the rules for punishing Paladins in the DMG because now there is only one punishment and that's becoming an Oathbreaker.
Becoming an Oathbreaker isn't necessarily punishment. It's a character evolution. As for rules for punishing, the books being mostly silent on this means the DM can do whatever they think is most fitting. They can do that anyway, rule zero and all, but anything that gets codified in a rulebook becomes something of a straightjacket - "that's what the book says, so that's how you do it".
1) While Oathbreaker can indeed be character development, and is allowed at our tables, it is still a way even the only way to do it using the rules.
2) In 2nd I would first have taken away the highest spell slots, or the Paladin powers, if not repentant I would remove the Paladinhood permanently and you'd have a Fighter with worse attack options. A cleric would have had to search a new deity or dual class into something else. Another way would have been with a divine Geas. None of these things would have been fun.
3) And I would never have put players into a position like the one given by OP.
4) No rules means that DM's have no guidelines or margins to work within. This can and does lead to arbitrariness.
5) This, again, is a problem in this edition and not only in this case, but that's a whole other can of worms/discussion.
1) "An Oathbreaker is a paladin who breaks his or her sacred oaths to pursue some dark ambition or serve an evil power. Whatever light burned in the paladin’s heart has been extinguished. Only darkness remains." - by the rules, becoming an Oathbreaker is almost certainly a deliberate choice; it's not because of an accumulation of infractions or failures to live up to their oath, it's going over to the dark side. I suppose it's possible they make this choice because they were seduced or tricked, but really the Oathbreaker is the antipaladin, the Blackguard of old, not merely one who has fallen or forsaken their oath. They haven't just failed to do good, they seek to do evil. That's why it's not really suitable to go this route in order to punish a paladin character. It's a reward for doing evil, not punishment for not doing good.
2) I'm not sure why you're pointing out what you'd have done in a different edition if none of it would be fun. Having fun is the point of playing D&D. If it wouldn't be fun, don't do it.
3) The problem, such as it is, with the situation is that it happened between apparently an inexperienced DM and inexperienced players. Challenging paladins to stay true under adverse circumstances can be great. Moreover, even if hearing this demon out or pretending to go along with it would be considered a mark against the characters' faith and purity, I don't think it'd warrant anything like the options you mentioned above; to me those would only be justified by more and/or graver failures. I expect the DM had more or less the same considerations: doing something with the opportunity he got when all the players went with a faith-based character and maybe needle them a little bit, not break out the "you're the worst of the worst" hammer just for being in a tough spot.
4) That's hardly unique in D&D. What if the party gets tangled up with an NPC who doesn't abide by the standards of the party or what if another PC doesn't? I'm sure there might be consequences, but the rules don't spell out what the players should do in such a case. And the same goes for monsters, especially powerful ones, or NPCs that are antagonists in some way: if you don't want the only way to deal with them to be combat, then there are no rules for the other options you might want to give your players. There are mechanics, sure, but it's still arbitrary which of those you'd go with and how.
5) I don't think it's a problem. You made of point of saying this edition turns paladins and clerics into video game characters, well, I think codifying the rules too much would turn D&D into a video game. Being open-ended is a feature, not a bug.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
1) Choices can be deliberate yet willfully ignorant of consequence. I strongly suggest reading the short story "The White Knight" by Eric Nicol. It is only a single page and an easy read, but does a very good job of describing what I mean. http://www.mjglass.ca/metaphor/whiteknight.htm
What, exactly, is the point of Oaths if the characters are not held to them?
2) The OP and at least two other players seemed to be having fun by way of playing to what he considered their characters' oaths and values to be. You seem to be the one arguing that they should have played some other differently, to preserve the fun of what was likely the minority of players in the campaign and the fun of the DM. Furthermore, being felled in a pointless battle was almost certainly not fun for anyone, except possibly the DM. Being captured and ending up in that situation, facing that apparent choice likely was not fun either. Who should be the one deciding what should be fun for any given player?
3) Again, you seem to be expecting inexperienced players to think that deeply, to think those extra steps into the future. They do not know what the future brings but they do know what that moment brought. It is not a given that the future would be better for them. Meanwhile, they were offered a big bad target, the kind they are, in theory, trained to fight. The DM could have let them win and and they still have incentive to check out the crypt out of curiosity. The DM could have had the Demon laugh at them, tell them their souls were not even worth the trouble of killing them over, simply leave and then the cultists still be there to coerce the party.
4) There can be guidelines without hard, fast rules. Earlier editions had such.
5) You seem to be giving the party only two choices: Either accept and go along with the railroading, or suicide. You seem to be taking the position that the DM has no flexibility. That is particularly video game-like. As for the specific example, the prior editions had guidelines, not hard or fast rules. It was never some sort of hard code "if you do this, then automatically this" but rather "if you stray from the path of your faith as worked out between you and your DM, then you will see consequences." The earliest editions were more specific pinning it to Lawful Good alignment for Paladins, though and that was more video game-y.
1) does it have to be black and white? To me the situation feels like it was set up to tie into the characters' faiths and, in the case of the paladin, their oath. Seems like a good thing to me.
2) not every part of a campaign is going to be equally fun for everyone, and I still assume the DM had a fun game in mind. They failed in that goal, but presumably their decision aimed at having fun. Nechaef lists a bunch of things he thinks are not fun. DMs can try to make something fun (and fail), but I doubt they'll do that by using things they don't think are fun in the first place.
3) my entire point was about the DM, not the players. Who IMO didn't have to think all that deeply to see they were outmatched. Apparently we disagree on that, and that's ok - our opinions don't matter anyway, only those of the people at the table. Your last suggestion sounds a lot like what happened too: whether the demon doesn't touch them at all or does but keeps them alive is functionally not that different.
4) not for everything, and my point is that guidelines sometimes get taken for strict rules.
5) This edition has "if you stray from the path of your oath there will be consequences" as well. It's pretty darn vague, as I like it, but it's there. There's the Oathbreaker atonement sidebar for instance, or the Ceremony spell.
And I don't give the party only two choices. I feel there are two likely possible outcomes, and whatever they choose to do should be informed by realizing this. They can fight, they can play coy, they can negotiate, they can try to escape, they can do what they want. Everything will have consequences though, and banking on the DM taking "the demon kills the PCs" off the table would have been a bit metagamey (to the players' credit, that doesn't seem to have been their rationale).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I will say this, if only for the sake of any future Oath of the Watchers or other 'Zero Tolerance' characters out there.
Being coerced into a devil's bargain is evil, yes. A character could decide that their greater oath - to protect the world from incursions by Others - was more important than maintaining a flawless record. Paladins can atone for sins and stains on their oath, especially ones undertaken in service to the greater spirit of their oath. The tenets of the Watcher's Oath state "never trust fiends or those who truck with them", which could be upheld. The paladin here certainly wasn't going to trust the goristro and its lackeys, and in opting for a Last Stand, they were arguably breaking the final tenet of their oath, Discipline, which commands them to be a shield against the horrors beyond the stars for as long as their minds and bodies hold out. Dying fruitlessly in a battle they knew they could not win makes them a poor shield indeed.
It wasn't unreasonable of the paladin in question to choose to die serving their oath (despite being a first-level novitiate that technically hadn't sworn the Oath yet :P), but it's also not unreasonable for even a sworn Watcher to seek to preserve their life and thus their chance to undermine the demon's plan when the odds are less stacked against them.
I do agree that they should have at least stuck to a firm 'no' and called the Demon's bluff. That way if they are still killed, it really is on the Demon.
You do make a good point on atonement, but to atone properly, one must normally be truly repentant and if it is all a cost-benefit analysis on your part, it is questionable if you really are repentant. The 'cost of doing business/greater good' approach is also one used in this discussion here quite a bit, however it really can be problematic.
The players could have handled it better, too, but players with the wisdom level to sort such things out well are really hard to find and should never be assumed by the DM. This is true even of really experienced players. Theoretical theology is a pretty deep rabbit hole (or Olympic mountain) to try to take on. Most people avoid it in the name of sanity and self preservation.
I'm not sure why the CR 17, 20 ft tall, 25 str Goristro with a troop of 30 cultists would need to bluff when faced with three opponents that were presumably armed with weapons and armour of presumably a fairly standard-issue appearance.
If anything it would be the paladins (presumably the chr bots) that would have needed to have tried the bluffing, and I'm not sure how they would have gone about it.
In many situations a Goristro may have a typical disposition to do away with the likes of the party and, with currently supplied knowledge, there seems nothing to say that the mighty Goristro would have had any reason to keep the group alive for a single six seconds longer than it needed to.
I think the main options were either to go for deception and pretend be ready to enter into a (hopefully) non-binding agreement (even if just to work out positioning for an impending fight) or to fight immediately and try to get in an extra surprise round of attack at this stage.
I will say this, if only for the sake of any future Oath of the Watchers or other 'Zero Tolerance' characters out there.
Being coerced into a devil's bargain is evil, yes. A character could decide that their greater oath - to protect the world from incursions by Others - was more important than maintaining a flawless record. Paladins can atone for sins and stains on their oath, especially ones undertaken in service to the greater spirit of their oath. The tenets of the Watcher's Oath state "never trust fiends or those who truck with them", which could be upheld. The paladin here certainly wasn't going to trust the goristro and its lackeys, and in opting for a Last Stand, they were arguably breaking the final tenet of their oath, Discipline, which commands them to be a shield against the horrors beyond the stars for as long as their minds and bodies hold out. Dying fruitlessly in a battle they knew they could not win makes them a poor shield indeed.
It wasn't unreasonable of the paladin in question to choose to die serving their oath (despite being a first-level novitiate that technically hadn't sworn the Oath yet :P), but it's also not unreasonable for even a sworn Watcher to seek to preserve their life and thus their chance to undermine the demon's plan when the odds are less stacked against them.
I do agree that they should have at least stuck to a firm 'no' and called the Demon's bluff. That way if they are still killed, it really is on the Demon.
You do make a good point on atonement, but to atone properly, one must normally be truly repentant and if it is all a cost-benefit analysis on your part, it is questionable if you really are repentant. The 'cost of doing business/greater good' approach is also one used in this discussion here quite a bit, however it really can be problematic.
The players could have handled it better, too, but players with the wisdom level to sort such things out well are really hard to find and should never be assumed by the DM. This is true even of really experienced players. Theoretical theology is a pretty deep rabbit hole (or Olympic mountain) to try to take on. Most people avoid it in the name of sanity and self preservation.
I'm not sure why the CR 17, 20 ft tall, 25 str Goristro with a troop of 30 cultists would need to bluff when faced with three opponents that were presumably armed with weapons and armour of presumably a fairly standard-issue appearance.
If anything it would be the paladins (presumably the chr bots) that would have needed to have tried the bluffing, and I'm not sure how they would have gone about it.
In many situations a Goristro may have a typical disposition to do away with the likes of the party and, with currently supplied knowledge, there seems nothing to say that the mighty Goristro would have had any reason to keep the group alive for a single six seconds longer than it needed to.
I think the main options were either to go for deception and pretend be ready to enter into a (hopefully) non-binding agreement (even if just to work out positioning for an impending fight) or to fight immediately and try to get in an extra surprise round of attack at this stage.
I assumed the bluff would be that the demon needs the PCs alive and thus will not kill them even if they refuse to comply. I'm not sure why the PCs would think that were possible though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I will say this, if only for the sake of any future Oath of the Watchers or other 'Zero Tolerance' characters out there.
Being coerced into a devil's bargain is evil, yes. A character could decide that their greater oath - to protect the world from incursions by Others - was more important than maintaining a flawless record. Paladins can atone for sins and stains on their oath, especially ones undertaken in service to the greater spirit of their oath. The tenets of the Watcher's Oath state "never trust fiends or those who truck with them", which could be upheld. The paladin here certainly wasn't going to trust the goristro and its lackeys, and in opting for a Last Stand, they were arguably breaking the final tenet of their oath, Discipline, which commands them to be a shield against the horrors beyond the stars for as long as their minds and bodies hold out. Dying fruitlessly in a battle they knew they could not win makes them a poor shield indeed.
It wasn't unreasonable of the paladin in question to choose to die serving their oath (despite being a first-level novitiate that technically hadn't sworn the Oath yet :P), but it's also not unreasonable for even a sworn Watcher to seek to preserve their life and thus their chance to undermine the demon's plan when the odds are less stacked against them.
I do agree that they should have at least stuck to a firm 'no' and called the Demon's bluff. That way if they are still killed, it really is on the Demon.
You do make a good point on atonement, but to atone properly, one must normally be truly repentant and if it is all a cost-benefit analysis on your part, it is questionable if you really are repentant. The 'cost of doing business/greater good' approach is also one used in this discussion here quite a bit, however it really can be problematic.
The players could have handled it better, too, but players with the wisdom level to sort such things out well are really hard to find and should never be assumed by the DM. This is true even of really experienced players. Theoretical theology is a pretty deep rabbit hole (or Olympic mountain) to try to take on. Most people avoid it in the name of sanity and self preservation.
I'm not sure why the CR 17, 20 ft tall, 25 str Goristro with a troop of 30 cultists would need to bluff when faced with three opponents that were presumably armed with weapons and armour of presumably a fairly standard-issue appearance.
If anything it would be the paladins (presumably the chr bots) that would have needed to have tried the bluffing, and I'm not sure how they would have gone about it.
In many situations a Goristro may have a typical disposition to do away with the likes of the party and, with currently supplied knowledge, there seems nothing to say that the mighty Goristro would have had any reason to keep the group alive for a single six seconds longer than it needed to.
I think the main options were either to go for deception and pretend be ready to enter into a (hopefully) non-binding agreement (even if just to work out positioning for an impending fight) or to fight immediately and try to get in an extra surprise round of attack at this stage.
I assumed the bluff would be that the demon needs the PCs alive and thus will not kill them even if they refuse to comply. I'm not sure why the PCs would think that were possible though.
I guess the demon might have a purpose for keeping such goodly souls alive such as for a later scheduled ritual killing/torture or somesuch. Otherwise, the demon may have simply been requiring the performance of an action such as the one presented.
I think it might be a great bit of RP for potentially arrogant paladins to be so far in the belief of their plot armour destiny that they might even consider it likely that a demon might not kill them.
I guess the demon might have a purpose for keeping such goodly souls alive such as for a later scheduled ritual killing/torture or somesuch. Otherwise, the demon may have simply been requiring the performance of an action such as the one presented.
I think it might be a great bit of RP for potentially arrogant paladins to be so far in the belief of their plot armour destiny that they might even consider it likely that a demon might not kill them.
I'm sure it has a use for them. I'm not sure why the PCs would think it needed them specifically though, and needed them enough to keep them alive even if they refused to cooperate.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I will say this, if only for the sake of any future Oath of the Watchers or other 'Zero Tolerance' characters out there.
Being coerced into a devil's bargain is evil, yes. A character could decide that their greater oath - to protect the world from incursions by Others - was more important than maintaining a flawless record. Paladins can atone for sins and stains on their oath, especially ones undertaken in service to the greater spirit of their oath. The tenets of the Watcher's Oath state "never trust fiends or those who truck with them", which could be upheld. The paladin here certainly wasn't going to trust the goristro and its lackeys, and in opting for a Last Stand, they were arguably breaking the final tenet of their oath, Discipline, which commands them to be a shield against the horrors beyond the stars for as long as their minds and bodies hold out. Dying fruitlessly in a battle they knew they could not win makes them a poor shield indeed.
It wasn't unreasonable of the paladin in question to choose to die serving their oath (despite being a first-level novitiate that technically hadn't sworn the Oath yet :P), but it's also not unreasonable for even a sworn Watcher to seek to preserve their life and thus their chance to undermine the demon's plan when the odds are less stacked against them.
I do agree that they should have at least stuck to a firm 'no' and called the Demon's bluff. That way if they are still killed, it really is on the Demon.
You do make a good point on atonement, but to atone properly, one must normally be truly repentant and if it is all a cost-benefit analysis on your part, it is questionable if you really are repentant. The 'cost of doing business/greater good' approach is also one used in this discussion here quite a bit, however it really can be problematic.
The players could have handled it better, too, but players with the wisdom level to sort such things out well are really hard to find and should never be assumed by the DM. This is true even of really experienced players. Theoretical theology is a pretty deep rabbit hole (or Olympic mountain) to try to take on. Most people avoid it in the name of sanity and self preservation.
I'm not sure why the CR 17, 20 ft tall, 25 str Goristro with a troop of 30 cultists would need to bluff when faced with three opponents that were presumably armed with weapons and armour of presumably a fairly standard-issue appearance.
If anything it would be the paladins (presumably the chr bots) that would have needed to have tried the bluffing, and I'm not sure how they would have gone about it.
In many situations a Goristro may have a typical disposition to do away with the likes of the party and, with currently supplied knowledge, there seems nothing to say that the mighty Goristro would have had any reason to keep the group alive for a single six seconds longer than it needed to.
I think the main options were either to go for deception and pretend be ready to enter into a (hopefully) non-binding agreement (even if just to work out positioning for an impending fight) or to fight immediately and try to get in an extra surprise round of attack at this stage.
The Demon clearly needed them alive. Otherwise it would not have bothered bargaining at all and would not have had the cultists spare the party after they went down. So clearly it had no intent to kill them unless it was absolutely necessary for it to do so. Hence its threat was a bluff.
"The Demon demands, that we retrieve something for him from an ancient crypt, or die."
The Demon clearly wants something from an ancient crypt and indicates to the party that it wants them to get it. That's all we know.
I guess the demon might have a purpose for keeping such goodly souls alive such as for a later scheduled ritual killing/torture or somesuch. Otherwise, the demon may have simply been requiring the performance of an action such as the one presented.
I think it might be a great bit of RP for potentially arrogant paladins to be so far in the belief of their plot armour destiny that they might even consider it likely that a demon might not kill them.
They could also present the logic I was using earlier, that demons are not mere mortals and therefore are governed by different rules. If a mortal goes about killing other mortals, they are policed by mortals but if a divine being goes around killing mortals, one would expect that they would be policed by other divine beings. Otherwise the whole 'free choice' concept gets pretty pointless. You already are in post-apocalyptic times with demons roaming free terrorizing mortals.
This is based on the assumption that divine beings have something in parallel to the vegan society, calling other divine beings into account for killing, in this case, non-divine beings.
Other situations more involve the possible threat of an attempted retaliation rather than policing.
Gods support and enable paladins and clerics to slay 'evil'. A demon could support and enable its 30 cultists to slay paladins and clerics.
"The Demon demands, that we retrieve something for him from an ancient crypt, or die."
The Demon clearly wants something from an ancient crypt and indicates to the party that it wants them to get it. That's all we know.
We also know after the fact that the Demon had the cultists spare the PC's, revive them and try again with the ultimatum. And that this same Demon has at least 30 cultists that could instead be sent into that crypt to get whatever dingus the demon wants. Since it is sending the PC's instead of its fanatically loyal cultists, it follows that the PC's can do things the cultists cannot. Hence 'need'
Emphasis mine.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
"The Demon demands, that we retrieve something for him from an ancient crypt, or die."
The Demon clearly wants something from an ancient crypt and indicates to the party that it wants them to get it. That's all we know.
We also know after the fact that the Demon had the cultists spare the PC's, revive them and try again with the ultimatum. And that this same Demon has at least 30 cultists that could instead be sent into that crypt to get whatever dingus the demon wants. Since it is sending the PC's instead of its fanatically loyal cultists, it follows that the PC's can do things the cultists cannot. Hence 'need'
Emphasis mine.
It may be a want, it may be a need, we don't know.
What we know is that to fulfil this want/need, on a spectrum between paladins and clerics and cultists, characters fitting the specific description of these paladins and cleric fit the bill.
We know nothing about any time frame involved in getting the dingus from the ancient tomb but, on the fact that it's an ancient tomb, there's the possibility that time constraints for extraction are not pressing. Does the demon need the dingus urgently? We don't know.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I will say this, if only for the sake of any future Oath of the Watchers or other 'Zero Tolerance' characters out there.
Being coerced into a devil's bargain is evil, yes. A character could decide that their greater oath - to protect the world from incursions by Others - was more important than maintaining a flawless record. Paladins can atone for sins and stains on their oath, especially ones undertaken in service to the greater spirit of their oath. The tenets of the Watcher's Oath state "never trust fiends or those who truck with them", which could be upheld. The paladin here certainly wasn't going to trust the goristro and its lackeys, and in opting for a Last Stand, they were arguably breaking the final tenet of their oath, Discipline, which commands them to be a shield against the horrors beyond the stars for as long as their minds and bodies hold out. Dying fruitlessly in a battle they knew they could not win makes them a poor shield indeed.
It wasn't unreasonable of the paladin in question to choose to die serving their oath (despite being a first-level novitiate that technically hadn't sworn the Oath yet :P), but it's also not unreasonable for even a sworn Watcher to seek to preserve their life and thus their chance to undermine the demon's plan when the odds are less stacked against them.
Please do not contact or message me.
I think it was a fine bit of roleplay for the Paladins to fight it out. They may or may not know how powerful the demon is but doing the evil creature's bidding with the only threat being "or I'll kill you" basically leaves only one choice.
The GM becoming upset is on the GM. You cannot expect your players to do what you want all the time. You need to be prepared for them to do crazy whack-ass stuff. Even if the social contract calls for everybody putting in an effort to play along, throwing the party into a you must do this thing because I said so is poor play - especially if you give your players heat for not doing what you want them to do.
I think it is a case of new GM and new players like other folk have said.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
My problem with using atonement in this case is that it is a bit to close to metagaming. Atonement, in my eyes, is for when you realise after the fact that your actions were in contradiction with your oaths and vows as a holy warrior, not when you willingly commit a horrible act to save your own skin.
It would depend, in large part, upon the nature of a paladin's oath.
Many players still insist that a paladin swears their Oath to an empowering deity, and that paladins are basically more-martial clerics. if this is the case, then presumably the deity has a grand goal, plan, or design in mind, or at least an Objective they are empowering their new servant to accomplish. Whether or not the deity would prefer their servant to expend their life and their divine gift in battle with a demon far beyond their power, or would prefer their servant to preserve their life and their gift in the hope of fulfilling their oath later down the line is more down to the specific deity than to forum randos on the Intarwebs. The 'cost/benefit analysis' is very real - it cost the deity to empower their paladin, and that deity may not appreciate the paladin dying without accomplishing anything. Heh, what I do know is my favorite Holy Warrior stories are the ones where the Holy Warrior is canny, cunning, highly intelligent, and able to see where individual tarnishing acts can still be in service to the essence of their Code. And where they're perfectly willing to argue that point to a deity who may not quite fully grok how grey and messy the mortal realm is, from their throne in the Heavens.
Some players have adopted the 'new' Paladin ethos, where the oath is sworn to the universe itself and empowered by a Force rather than a deity. In a sense, the Oath is its own god, a Will without volition or persona, and it empowers those who align with its ideals. The tenets of the Oath are essentially a mortal interpretation of the ideals that drive that particular set of powers, but they're still just a 'best understanding' of the will of a force that defies easy mortal comprehension. In this case, in can be tricky in situations like the one described herein, where both actions available to the paladin break their Oath and they have no path to adhering to their tenets no matter what they do.
It's why the DMG has backed off on giving the DM tools/suggestions for punishing a paladin who tarnishes their Oath - a rigid, unbending, zero-tolerance Oath is extremely brittle and can be very easily manipulated by the paladin's enemies. After all, if this goristro knew the paladin was a Watcher? Who's to say it wanted the paladin to say 'yes' at all? If the paladin says no, then the demon is within his rights (as demons see it, anyways) to kill the paladin, and if the paladin says yes and then loses his powers? Well, that goristro has destroyed a Watcher before he was even a Watcher, and thus slain his enemy in the crib. It's a win/win for the goristro. If Evil can checkmate and eliminate a paladin through even the crudest of manipulations such as this one, then how do holy warriors such as paladins ever survive to become a threat to Evil's minions?
Please do not contact or message me.
Personally, I think it's more good role playing then metagaming. They may have realized what they were doing, but it could be role played as a "moment of weakness" where the character was not willing to risk there life for their oath. Then it makes a good opportunity for character growth. Then next time, the character has learned their lesson and dies for there oath or whatever.
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
I'm a firm proponent of Paladins are their deities Champion, the Oaths are only a way to serve the deity. I don't like how this edition is treating Paladins and Clerics as computer game characters, that's why I would prefer to have the rules for punishing Paladins in the DMG because now there is only one punishment and that's becoming an Oathbreaker.
Becoming an Oathbreaker isn't necessarily punishment. It's a character evolution. As for rules for punishing, the books being mostly silent on this means the DM can do whatever they think is most fitting. They can do that anyway, rule zero and all, but anything that gets codified in a rulebook becomes something of a straightjacket - "that's what the book says, so that's how you do it".
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I myself think this is a bad case of railroading I wonder where the train goes next, I agree though the PC's should try to escape or find a way to kill/destroy said demon which may be where said treasure is.
I'm a little late to the party with 10 pages of replies, but I'll say this: you did nothing wrong. Clearly, your party would rather die than make a deal with a devil and the DM should have figured this out from who you were playing or should have let you know what sort of characters would have worked for his game.
"It's what my character would do" is only a problem when it legitimises anti-social and disruptive behaviour. Anything else is just roleplaying and that's ideal as this is a roleplaying game. Your DM is inexperienced and that's not a crime, but you did nothing wrong.
While Oathbreaker can indeed be character development, and is allowed at our tables, it is still a way even the only way to do it using the rules. In 2nd I would first have taken away the highest spell slots, or the Paladin powers, if not repentant I would remove the Paladinhood permanently and you'd have a Fighter with worse attack options. A cleric would have had to search a new deity or dual class into something else. Another way would have been with a divine Geas. None of these things would have been fun. And I would never have put players into a position like the one given by OP. No rules means that DM's have no guidelines or margins to work within. This can and does lead to arbitrariness.
This, again, is a problem in this edition and not only in this case, but that's a whole other can of worms/discussion.
1) "An Oathbreaker is a paladin who breaks his or her sacred oaths to pursue some dark ambition or serve an evil power. Whatever light burned in the paladin’s heart has been extinguished. Only darkness remains." - by the rules, becoming an Oathbreaker is almost certainly a deliberate choice; it's not because of an accumulation of infractions or failures to live up to their oath, it's going over to the dark side. I suppose it's possible they make this choice because they were seduced or tricked, but really the Oathbreaker is the antipaladin, the Blackguard of old, not merely one who has fallen or forsaken their oath. They haven't just failed to do good, they seek to do evil. That's why it's not really suitable to go this route in order to punish a paladin character. It's a reward for doing evil, not punishment for not doing good.
2) I'm not sure why you're pointing out what you'd have done in a different edition if none of it would be fun. Having fun is the point of playing D&D. If it wouldn't be fun, don't do it.
3) The problem, such as it is, with the situation is that it happened between apparently an inexperienced DM and inexperienced players. Challenging paladins to stay true under adverse circumstances can be great. Moreover, even if hearing this demon out or pretending to go along with it would be considered a mark against the characters' faith and purity, I don't think it'd warrant anything like the options you mentioned above; to me those would only be justified by more and/or graver failures. I expect the DM had more or less the same considerations: doing something with the opportunity he got when all the players went with a faith-based character and maybe needle them a little bit, not break out the "you're the worst of the worst" hammer just for being in a tough spot.
4) That's hardly unique in D&D. What if the party gets tangled up with an NPC who doesn't abide by the standards of the party or what if another PC doesn't? I'm sure there might be consequences, but the rules don't spell out what the players should do in such a case. And the same goes for monsters, especially powerful ones, or NPCs that are antagonists in some way: if you don't want the only way to deal with them to be combat, then there are no rules for the other options you might want to give your players. There are mechanics, sure, but it's still arbitrary which of those you'd go with and how.
5) I don't think it's a problem. You made of point of saying this edition turns paladins and clerics into video game characters, well, I think codifying the rules too much would turn D&D into a video game. Being open-ended is a feature, not a bug.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
1) does it have to be black and white? To me the situation feels like it was set up to tie into the characters' faiths and, in the case of the paladin, their oath. Seems like a good thing to me.
2) not every part of a campaign is going to be equally fun for everyone, and I still assume the DM had a fun game in mind. They failed in that goal, but presumably their decision aimed at having fun. Nechaef lists a bunch of things he thinks are not fun. DMs can try to make something fun (and fail), but I doubt they'll do that by using things they don't think are fun in the first place.
3) my entire point was about the DM, not the players. Who IMO didn't have to think all that deeply to see they were outmatched. Apparently we disagree on that, and that's ok - our opinions don't matter anyway, only those of the people at the table. Your last suggestion sounds a lot like what happened too: whether the demon doesn't touch them at all or does but keeps them alive is functionally not that different.
4) not for everything, and my point is that guidelines sometimes get taken for strict rules.
5) This edition has "if you stray from the path of your oath there will be consequences" as well. It's pretty darn vague, as I like it, but it's there. There's the Oathbreaker atonement sidebar for instance, or the Ceremony spell.
And I don't give the party only two choices. I feel there are two likely possible outcomes, and whatever they choose to do should be informed by realizing this. They can fight, they can play coy, they can negotiate, they can try to escape, they can do what they want. Everything will have consequences though, and banking on the DM taking "the demon kills the PCs" off the table would have been a bit metagamey (to the players' credit, that doesn't seem to have been their rationale).
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm not sure why the CR 17, 20 ft tall, 25 str Goristro with a troop of 30 cultists would need to bluff when faced with three opponents that were presumably armed with weapons and armour of presumably a fairly standard-issue appearance.
If anything it would be the paladins (presumably the chr bots) that would have needed to have tried the bluffing, and I'm not sure how they would have gone about it.
In many situations a Goristro may have a typical disposition to do away with the likes of the party and, with currently supplied knowledge, there seems nothing to say that the mighty Goristro would have had any reason to keep the group alive for a single six seconds longer than it needed to.
I think the main options were either to go for deception and pretend be ready to enter into a (hopefully) non-binding agreement (even if just to work out positioning for an impending fight) or to fight immediately and try to get in an extra surprise round of attack at this stage.
I assumed the bluff would be that the demon needs the PCs alive and thus will not kill them even if they refuse to comply. I'm not sure why the PCs would think that were possible though.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I guess the demon might have a purpose for keeping such goodly souls alive such as for a later scheduled ritual killing/torture or somesuch. Otherwise, the demon may have simply been requiring the performance of an action such as the one presented.
I think it might be a great bit of RP for potentially arrogant paladins to be so far in the belief of their plot armour destiny that they might even consider it likely that a demon might not kill them.
I'm sure it has a use for them. I'm not sure why the PCs would think it needed them specifically though, and needed them enough to keep them alive even if they refused to cooperate.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
"The Demon demands, that we retrieve something for him from an ancient crypt, or die."
The Demon clearly wants something from an ancient crypt and indicates to the party that it wants them to get it. That's all we know.
This is based on the assumption that divine beings have something in parallel to the vegan society, calling other divine beings into account for killing, in this case, non-divine beings.
Other situations more involve the possible threat of an attempted retaliation rather than policing.
Gods support and enable paladins and clerics to slay 'evil'.
A demon could support and enable its 30 cultists to slay paladins and clerics.
Emphasis mine.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It may be a want, it may be a need, we don't know.
What we know is that to fulfil this want/need, on a spectrum between paladins and clerics and cultists, characters fitting the specific description of these paladins and cleric fit the bill.
We know nothing about any time frame involved in getting the dingus from the ancient tomb but, on the fact that it's an ancient tomb, there's the possibility that time constraints for extraction are not pressing. Does the demon need the dingus urgently? We don't know.