Now that ugliness is out of the way, please make sure to read this before responding. Context matters.
I have a player playing a vengeance paladin whom I told before he chose the character to play, that I would be strictly enforcing the oath requirements. I have also told all players that I have lifted certain prior restrictions I had on gameplay. Players can now play evil aligned characters and perform player versus player actions, among other things.
After a character death, the replacement PC had good reason to be angry at the vengeance paladin; the vengeance paladin had just killed what remained — after a battle with the fighting age occupants — of the PC's village.
The village in question was Yellyark in Tomb of Annihilation. If you know the adventure then you know how the vengeance paladin killed the remainder of the village. It was exactly as hilarious as expected :D
Now, nobody knew that this new PC would come from that village. It was a spur of the moment thing where I said that the player could, if she wanted to, make a goblin (it was a goblin village) PC. The PC was a baby that was sort-of adopted by the PC that just died, so it was fitting. And we even did a montage of him coming of age and training to be a monk while the other PC's were busy doing other stuff for a few days. It was all funny and fun... until they met up.
On discovering the actions of the vengeance paladin, the goblin PC decided to meter out... vengeance on him. It was a brief exchange, about half the hit points of the paladin and that was it. The paladin counterattacked but after missing and seeing that the goblin wasn't going to continue attacking, decided to stop attacking.
This is where it gets tricky. Wouldn't vengeance dictate that the paladin attack the goblin, even though vengeance dictated that the goblin attack the paladin? At the end of the day, the vengeance paladin killed the villagers because he saw it as a great threat and continued evil that would plague the good people of Chult if they were allowed to live. He had also just been freed from being kidnapped by the very same villagers, just before he was going to be tortured by fire ants and then roasted alive for a great feast. I feel his actions were totally in line with the oath of vengeance, right up until he stopped attacking the goblin.
The action was metagaming; he chose not to continue because this was a new PC. Had it not been a PC, the combat would absolutely have continued. But in terms of harmonious gameplay, it was probably the 'right' thing to do, despite it being out of character. With my prior caveat that I would strictly enforce the oath requirements, should I punish the metagaming and have the god temporarily (until atonement) deny his powers?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
This is all personal opinion and isn't really found in any books:
I could be in the minority here, but I think Player Harmony and the fun of everyone in the group outweighs any form of role-playing and meta gaming. To me, if your role-playing causes another player to lose joy in the campaign then you absolutely should reevaluate how you role-play.
I have always felt there there are more than one way to role-play the same character without those decisions being considered "out of character" AND without them harming the harmony of the table. You shouldn't fall into the trap of viewing only two extremes to a decision. There are oftentimes shades of decisions that fall between the two, many of which would still be inline with a character's ideals.
For example, while he is a Vengeance Paladin that holds to the ideal of punishing wrong do'ers, he didn't actually see the goblin do any wrongs (thus can't really punish what you don't see). Yea, the goblin attacked him, but it sounds like he interpreted that as grief and an attempt at avenging his family's slaughter, which the Paladin would have probably seen as a Just act in his own way. To me, it sound like the player showed a level of character depth that should be rewarded, not punished.
You shouldn't fall into the trap of viewing only two extremes to a decision. There are oftentimes shades of decisions that fall between the two, many of which would still be inline with a character's ideals.
Well, a paladin's oath is, by necessity and design, an extreme position, otherwise there would be no point in it and their powers wouldn't require any effort to maintain access to.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
Well, a paladin's oath is, by necessity and design, an extreme position, otherwise there would be no point in it and their powers wouldn't require any effort to maintain access to.
While I agree that a Paladin holds fast to an ideal, that doesn't mean an ideal is completely incapable of interpretations.
For example, can a Vengeance Paladin show Mercy? Well in its ideals it says "No Mercy for the Wicked"... And yet it says "...for the wicked". What happens if there is someone who is a 100% repentive of their actions and shows legitimate remorse? Or a young Goblin who is seeking to avenge their family? That Goblin's actions weren't 'wicked', in my opinion, and the Paladin had every right to show Mercy.
Furthermore it even describes "Ordinary foes might win my Mercy..." Is this goblin PC literally his sworn enemy? If not, then Mercy is withim Character as well.
Fight the Greater Evil. Faced with a choice of fighting my sworn foes or combating a lesser evil, I choose the greater evil.
No Mercy for the Wicked. Ordinary foes might win my mercy, but my sworn enemies do not.
By Any Means Necessary. My qualms can’t get in the way of exterminating my foes.
Restitution. If my foes wreak ruin on the world, it is because I failed to stop them. I must help those harmed by their misdeeds.
As much as an oath may indeed be quite binding, the 5e approach is that even then there is room for interpretation. I, for one, would have thought that the vengeance paladin would have been impressed by the vengeance of this new goblin PC. Also, noting the oath requirements above:
- fight the greater evil - is this goblin a 'sworn foe'? maybe not. - no mercy for the wicked - again - 'sworn foe'? still under debate - by any means necessary - not immediately applicable - restitution - again, is the goblin his 'foe'?
In my 'your vengeance is impressive' interpretation, I would not consider the goblin PC to be a sworn foe. Of course, I lack the context of the whole game. Nevertheless, that interpretation exists and could work.
I think it is a better approach to stop trying to thought-police your players and dictate how their character has to behave in a particular circumstance, no matter what the reason you believe they "should" behave that way for happens to be (alignment, an oath, prior events in game, what you think the character is 'about', etc.), and instead leave your players in charge of their characters' behavior. Full stop.
You can, if the player ever manages to find a way to do it, stop them from performing actions that are literally impossible for their character to be attempting - but any of this stuff where you are declaring a particular action to be meta-gaming even though the character could have plenty of reasons to do what they are doing (and the player definitely has a clear reason to choose the action) because it's not going the one way you thought up that it could have gone is a waste of time; either you are going to get the player to justify their action in-character and have nothing change except spending more time on that one detail, or you are going to end up forcing players at your table to meta-game even though that is what you are claiming you want to avoid (because a player having the thought "I can't do [action] because I know [information]... so I'll do the opposite." is just as much meta-gaming as the player having the thought "I will do [action] because I know [information].")
Hi Folks - different opinions on how to handle the situation are fine, however please don't talk down to other users. Please refer to site guidelines for further information.
In character, the paladin choosing to slay another humanoid without cause is an evil act. I don't see why it makes sense for the paladin to kill the goblin PC.
Mhm... The paladin killed the villagers because he saw them as whole as a great threat. A single villager is not dangerous, and therefore he has no reason to kill off the last survivor. Even after he got attacked, that was an action fueled by vengeance, and the paladin of all people should understand this feeling.
If you ever as a DM utter the words "That's not what your character would do", then you have failed as a DM. Its not you character, its his. You have to accept that as a DM.
^ Yes to this!!
At least not during the roleplaying session... If they are totally out of character you will probably want to speak with that player outside of the game. I'm sure the pally was just thinking of the other player and probably felt wrong to kill him off seeing how it's a new PC character and all...
But yeah,... for the situation in question... Does the paladin actually see this new Goblin PC "as a great threat and continued evil that would plague the good people of Chult if they were allowed to live"... as you put it, if not, then I don't see it as breaking his Oath... but if he see this Goblin PC as a threat then as a Vengeance pally he would totally smite him dead without mercy.
If you ever as a DM utter the words "That's not what your character would do", then you have failed as a DM. Its not you character, its his. You have to accept that as a DM.
^ Yes to this!!
At least not during the roleplaying session...
Generally, I agree. Though I have (quizically) asked "Would your character really do this?"
I don't do that as thought policing, however. I use it more to provide a pause in the scene to give my character a chance to think about the potential consequences. Typically it is more like a "Are you sure?" Kind of way.
Then once the player pauses and thinks about it for a moment and says "yes" or "no" do I allow the chickens to come home and roost. :-)
Nobody is 'thought policing' anyone. It's called consequences for actions. Unless you're the type of DM who thinks that the players should get everything they want and succeed at everything they do with no story repercussions, then calling my actions thought policing is actually rather offensive.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
Nobody is 'thought policing' anyone. It's called consequences for actions. Unless you're the type of DM who thinks that the players should get everything they want and succeed at everything they do with no story repercussions, then calling my actions thought policing is actually rather offensive.
I'm sorry my opinion, or the terminology I used to express it, has offended you. You being offended is not my intent.
However, I do not know a different phrase that appropriately communicates the situation your player is in; you are concerned not with the actions of the character, by with why those actions were chosen rather than other actions. Thus it is the player's thought process on arriving at their character's actions, not the actions of the character, that are being (for lack of a better term) policed.
Nobody is 'thought policing' anyone. It's called consequences for actions. Unless you're the type of DM who thinks that the players should get everything they want and succeed at everything they do with no story repercussions, then calling my actions thought policing is actually rather offensive.
Obviously I can only speak for myself, but I'm all for a character's actions having consequences.
I am just confused as to how the scenario you described requires such harsh consequences. He showed mercy to a goblin that was grieving over his loss and lashed out in vengeance against the source of their grief.
If anything, his mercy should be rewarded. That shows a level of complexity in his character's personality I'd wish some of my players possessed.
Also, I think it might be important communicate with your player the expectations both of you have in what it means to be a Vengeance Paladin. It sounds to me there might be a confusion between the tenants of the Vengeance Paladin and that of the Conquest Paladin.
While I do believe that pc actions should have consequences, I also believe that the flow of the narrative should not be disrupted nor the fun the players have. Especially when it comes to the Oaths of paladins, they can be a source of great drama if the story requires it. I think you have some cool opportunities in the future, which you may wreck for yourself if you "punish" the player now. Perhaps at a later date, when the paladin has become more close to the goblin you could push his buttons a little, perhaps when the goblin does something that makes him a "threat" either by action or inaction. Give the paladin a flashback to the moment where he showed mercy and let him question if he made the right choice.
I always feel that the pc's are more inclined to cooperate simply because they know they are PCs. Personally I'm fine with it. Especially when halfway an adventure a PC dies and there is no chance of resurrection, it can be tricky to find a natural way to integrate a new character in the party. I find it helpful that the other pcs are a bit more "open" in order to not disrupt the flow of the story/adventure so much. If the players went to paranoid and can't accept a new character "because their characters would not do that" then a player is being left out which is never a good thing.
"Punishing" might be a hard word, and I'd suggest never to punish a player, but their character. There's a slight difference, where the first sets up table-drama (which is NEVER a good thing) and the second also tells the player that he should remind himself that his choices matter and have consequences and also makes great stories.
I think the Paladin played their character perfectly. The Goblin was acting out of pure vengeance. Acting to seek vengeance is a motivation a Vengeance Paladin would hold in the highest regard, above law, god and even their own life. How can you punish a player for making their character respect the motivation they hold above everything in the world.
I would personally create signs that the paladins god is not pleased. Shield starts to crack. His holy symbol seesm weak and disadvantage seems to randomly affect his spells. At some point hint that his god is not happy through an NPC, dream, npc then maybe a quest appears that allows himself to redeem in front of his god. Will he learn his lesson? perhaps next time his god will punish him more severely.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If you're one of my players, bugger off.
Now that ugliness is out of the way, please make sure to read this before responding. Context matters.
I have a player playing a vengeance paladin whom I told before he chose the character to play, that I would be strictly enforcing the oath requirements. I have also told all players that I have lifted certain prior restrictions I had on gameplay. Players can now play evil aligned characters and perform player versus player actions, among other things.
After a character death, the replacement PC had good reason to be angry at the vengeance paladin; the vengeance paladin had just killed what remained — after a battle with the fighting age occupants — of the PC's village.
The village in question was Yellyark in Tomb of Annihilation. If you know the adventure then you know how the vengeance paladin killed the remainder of the village. It was exactly as hilarious as expected :D
Now, nobody knew that this new PC would come from that village. It was a spur of the moment thing where I said that the player could, if she wanted to, make a goblin (it was a goblin village) PC. The PC was a baby that was sort-of adopted by the PC that just died, so it was fitting. And we even did a montage of him coming of age and training to be a monk while the other PC's were busy doing other stuff for a few days. It was all funny and fun... until they met up.
On discovering the actions of the vengeance paladin, the goblin PC decided to meter out... vengeance on him. It was a brief exchange, about half the hit points of the paladin and that was it. The paladin counterattacked but after missing and seeing that the goblin wasn't going to continue attacking, decided to stop attacking.
This is where it gets tricky. Wouldn't vengeance dictate that the paladin attack the goblin, even though vengeance dictated that the goblin attack the paladin? At the end of the day, the vengeance paladin killed the villagers because he saw it as a great threat and continued evil that would plague the good people of Chult if they were allowed to live. He had also just been freed from being kidnapped by the very same villagers, just before he was going to be tortured by fire ants and then roasted alive for a great feast. I feel his actions were totally in line with the oath of vengeance, right up until he stopped attacking the goblin.
The action was metagaming; he chose not to continue because this was a new PC. Had it not been a PC, the combat would absolutely have continued. But in terms of harmonious gameplay, it was probably the 'right' thing to do, despite it being out of character. With my prior caveat that I would strictly enforce the oath requirements, should I punish the metagaming and have the god temporarily (until atonement) deny his powers?
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.
This is all personal opinion and isn't really found in any books:
I could be in the minority here, but I think Player Harmony and the fun of everyone in the group outweighs any form of role-playing and meta gaming. To me, if your role-playing causes another player to lose joy in the campaign then you absolutely should reevaluate how you role-play.
I have always felt there there are more than one way to role-play the same character without those decisions being considered "out of character" AND without them harming the harmony of the table. You shouldn't fall into the trap of viewing only two extremes to a decision. There are oftentimes shades of decisions that fall between the two, many of which would still be inline with a character's ideals.
For example, while he is a Vengeance Paladin that holds to the ideal of punishing wrong do'ers, he didn't actually see the goblin do any wrongs (thus can't really punish what you don't see). Yea, the goblin attacked him, but it sounds like he interpreted that as grief and an attempt at avenging his family's slaughter, which the Paladin would have probably seen as a Just act in his own way. To me, it sound like the player showed a level of character depth that should be rewarded, not punished.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.
Fight the Greater Evil. Faced with a choice of fighting my sworn foes or combating a lesser evil, I choose the greater evil.
No Mercy for the Wicked. Ordinary foes might win my mercy, but my sworn enemies do not.
By Any Means Necessary. My qualms can’t get in the way of exterminating my foes.
Restitution. If my foes wreak ruin on the world, it is because I failed to stop them. I must help those harmed by their misdeeds.
As much as an oath may indeed be quite binding, the 5e approach is that even then there is room for interpretation. I, for one, would have thought that the vengeance paladin would have been impressed by the vengeance of this new goblin PC. Also, noting the oath requirements above:
- fight the greater evil - is this goblin a 'sworn foe'? maybe not.
- no mercy for the wicked - again - 'sworn foe'? still under debate
- by any means necessary - not immediately applicable
- restitution - again, is the goblin his 'foe'?
In my 'your vengeance is impressive' interpretation, I would not consider the goblin PC to be a sworn foe. Of course, I lack the context of the whole game. Nevertheless, that interpretation exists and could work.
I think it is a better approach to stop trying to thought-police your players and dictate how their character has to behave in a particular circumstance, no matter what the reason you believe they "should" behave that way for happens to be (alignment, an oath, prior events in game, what you think the character is 'about', etc.), and instead leave your players in charge of their characters' behavior. Full stop.
You can, if the player ever manages to find a way to do it, stop them from performing actions that are literally impossible for their character to be attempting - but any of this stuff where you are declaring a particular action to be meta-gaming even though the character could have plenty of reasons to do what they are doing (and the player definitely has a clear reason to choose the action) because it's not going the one way you thought up that it could have gone is a waste of time; either you are going to get the player to justify their action in-character and have nothing change except spending more time on that one detail, or you are going to end up forcing players at your table to meta-game even though that is what you are claiming you want to avoid (because a player having the thought "I can't do [action] because I know [information]... so I'll do the opposite." is just as much meta-gaming as the player having the thought "I will do [action] because I know [information].")
Hi Folks - different opinions on how to handle the situation are fine, however please don't talk down to other users. Please refer to site guidelines for further information.
Site Rules & Guidelines || How to Tooltip || Contact Support || Changelog || Pricing FAQ || Homebrew FAQ
If you have questions/concerns, please Private Message me or another moderator.
Wary the wizard who focuses on homebrew, for he can create nightmares that you wouldn't even dream of
"It's what my character would do" is a bad thing when it gets in the way of fun. Metagaming isn't inherently bad and staying in character isn't inherently good. The point of the game is to have fun, and having one PC kill another is seldom fun.
In character, the paladin choosing to slay another humanoid without cause is an evil act. I don't see why it makes sense for the paladin to kill the goblin PC.
Mhm... The paladin killed the villagers because he saw them as whole as a great threat. A single villager is not dangerous, and therefore he has no reason to kill off the last survivor. Even after he got attacked, that was an action fueled by vengeance, and the paladin of all people should understand this feeling.
"Lawful Good does not always mean Lawful Nice."
Nobody is 'thought policing' anyone. It's called consequences for actions. Unless you're the type of DM who thinks that the players should get everything they want and succeed at everything they do with no story repercussions, then calling my actions thought policing is actually rather offensive.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.
While I do believe that pc actions should have consequences, I also believe that the flow of the narrative should not be disrupted nor the fun the players have. Especially when it comes to the Oaths of paladins, they can be a source of great drama if the story requires it. I think you have some cool opportunities in the future, which you may wreck for yourself if you "punish" the player now. Perhaps at a later date, when the paladin has become more close to the goblin you could push his buttons a little, perhaps when the goblin does something that makes him a "threat" either by action or inaction. Give the paladin a flashback to the moment where he showed mercy and let him question if he made the right choice.
I always feel that the pc's are more inclined to cooperate simply because they know they are PCs. Personally I'm fine with it. Especially when halfway an adventure a PC dies and there is no chance of resurrection, it can be tricky to find a natural way to integrate a new character in the party. I find it helpful that the other pcs are a bit more "open" in order to not disrupt the flow of the story/adventure so much. If the players went to paranoid and can't accept a new character "because their characters would not do that" then a player is being left out which is never a good thing.
"Punishing" might be a hard word, and I'd suggest never to punish a player, but their character. There's a slight difference, where the first sets up table-drama (which is NEVER a good thing) and the second also tells the player that he should remind himself that his choices matter and have consequences and also makes great stories.
Subclass: Dwarven Defender - Dragonborn Paragon
Feats: Artificer Apprentice
Monsters: Sheep - Spellbreaker Warforged Titan
Magic Items: Whipier - Ring of Secret Storage - Collar of the Guardian
Monster template: Skeletal Creature
I'm wondering what the poll results would be if there was a 3rd option:
I think the Paladin played their character perfectly. The Goblin was acting out of pure vengeance. Acting to seek vengeance is a motivation a Vengeance Paladin would hold in the highest regard, above law, god and even their own life. How can you punish a player for making their character respect the motivation they hold above everything in the world.
I would personally create signs that the paladins god is not pleased. Shield starts to crack. His holy symbol seesm weak and disadvantage seems to randomly affect his spells. At some point hint that his god is not happy through an NPC, dream, npc then maybe a quest appears that allows himself to redeem in front of his god. Will he learn his lesson? perhaps next time his god will punish him more severely.