The DM was likely flabbergasted by the actions of his player being a wangrod. Let's stop arguing over the actions of the paladin, and try to help get the DM some advice to fix this goat-screw.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
There could be some rival faction in the government that uses this trial as an opportunity to gain political power over the seated power. Maybe they strongarm, pay, or otherwise entice the party to interfere.
> Person definitely killed someone. > Trial is a sham.
IMO if A is true, B wouldn’t matter. Doesn’t matter if a trial is fair or not if the person definitely did the crime.
I don’t know why everyone is dunking on the Paladin with “they must make this choice because it says LG on their character sheet”. Alignments are dumb and if you are using them shouldn’t be reduced to “this is the only acceptable choice”.
The real problem here is you made a mistake, as DM, taking agency away from an unavailable player and put their character at risk. If I were you I would retcon the side quest and resume from where you were beforehand.
IMO if A is true, B wouldn’t matter. Doesn’t matter if a trial is fair or not if the person definitely did the crime.
That is demonstrably false. Even the guilty have rights to a fair trial, an impartial judge/jury, representation by a legal expert, and to be punished only to the extent the law provides, and no further. Guilty people in real life have had their convictions overturned on appeal for things like incompetent counsel, doctoring of evidence, and so forth. No one thinks their innocent, but all the legal forms must be followed or the conviction is considered invalid. This is what we mean by having a government by laws and not by people. The law has to be followed, whether the guy is guilty or not.
Also, absent a fair trial, how would it be possible to demonstrate legally that A is true? You literally can't.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
IMO if A is true, B wouldn’t matter. Doesn’t matter if a trial is fair or not if the person definitely did the crime.
And who decides if the person "definitely did the crime", if there is no fair trial? And which crime? And is it immoral?
If my security system picks you up stealing from my convenience store, what just happened? According to your logic, it doesn't matter if the police just swing by and toss your guilty ass straight into jail ( for how long)? So - what if you're stealing food to feed your hungry children, or medical supplies to help save someone's life? You have definitely still committed a crime - property damages against me, if nothing else - but are you as guilty as someone who knocks over my store for the money out of greed?
If you steal documents from my company and sell them to someone, you have committed a crime. Which one? Breach of trust if you work for me? Theft if you don't? High Treason, if I run a defense contracting company and your sold classified information to an Enemy Power?
And what if a corrupt government declares that you "definitely did the crime" because you're a social or political inconvenience to them? Still think that it "doesn’t matter if a trial is fair or not"?
And what do you think happens to a society where it's common knowledge that the powers-that-be play fast and loose with the legal system, and that it's fundamentally unfair based on expediency, or warped to take the considerations of some citizens as a higher priority than others? Whether that's actually true, or merely the common perception, what do you think happens? That's simple - people ignore the law & the justice system, because it's rigged against them, and take matters into their own hands. Does that sound familiar?
Guilt or Innocence is not a binary choice. The situation as it appears - even if it appears open-and-shut - is not always the situation as it is, and even if they are the same, the meaning and implications of it is not always immediately apparent.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
IMO if A is true, B wouldn’t matter. Doesn’t matter if a trial is fair or not if the person definitely did the crime.
That is demonstrably false. Even the guilty have rights to a fair trial, an impartial judge/jury, representation by a legal expert, and to be punished only to the extent the law provides, and no further. Guilty people in real life have had their convictions overturned on appeal for things like incompetent counsel, doctoring of evidence, and so forth. No one thinks their innocent, but all the legal forms must be followed or the conviction is considered invalid. This is what we mean by having a government by laws and not by people. The law has to be followed, whether the guy is guilty or not.
Also, absent a fair trial, how would it be possible to demonstrate legally that A is true? You literally can't.
Back in the day, if the King said you were guilty, you were guilty. That’s it. 🤷♂️
"One of the absent players has as part of the backstory, that he was responsible for killing Lord Nandar of Nightstone back in the day. "
Either they are happy to meta that the know it but not happy to bend a little as they know the DM is just trying to do some interesting filler for the week.
Or the character has told them in game, in which case why haven't they had a problem with traveling with a murderer before?
Either way feels like they are picking and choosing when to play "that is what my char would do." Which is fine if it is in game, but if it is putting people out as players/DM it is a dick move.
Edit: as for fixing it give the person captured a means of escape or talk the paladin about how can they be so sure that a) the people who took him are "the cops" b) he actually murdered an innocent c)doesnt deserve a fair hearing.
What did the other players do? Just went along with the paladin?
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
IMO if A is true, B wouldn’t matter. Doesn’t matter if a trial is fair or not if the person definitely did the crime.
That is demonstrably false. Even the guilty have rights to a fair trial, an impartial judge/jury, representation by a legal expert, and to be punished only to the extent the law provides, and no further. Guilty people in real life have had their convictions overturned on appeal for things like incompetent counsel, doctoring of evidence, and so forth. No one thinks their innocent, but all the legal forms must be followed or the conviction is considered invalid. This is what we mean by having a government by laws and not by people. The law has to be followed, whether the guy is guilty or not.
Also, absent a fair trial, how would it be possible to demonstrate legally that A is true? You literally can't.
This is why we need more details on the backstory. What we know is that the character is responsible for Lord Nandar's death. We do not know /how/ this is so. it could be a pure accident. We know that Lady Nandar's death was an accident as a rock fell on her. There could be extenuating circumstances in which the character is not guilty of murder.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
lets not have the paladin take all the blame here. The other 2 players are just as much at fault. I would arrange for the paladin and other players to stumble onto some sort of evidence that this is not a legitimate trial coupled with a prior suggestion of a vision for the paladin. Another option is for the captured player to petition the paladin to serve as his legal counsel where during the course of the trial it becomes apparent its a sham trial.
lets not have the paladin take all the blame here. The other 2 players are just as much at fault. I would arrange for the paladin and other players to stumble onto some sort of evidence that this is not a legitimate trial coupled with a prior suggestion of a vision for the paladin. Another option is for the captured player to petition the paladin to serve as his legal counsel where during the course of the trial it becomes apparent its a sham trial.
Oooooooh I like this idea as a fun and interesting way to kind of "force" the party to help. It seems perfectly reasonable that the judge might allow him to seek counsel to obfuscate the sham nature of the trial, knowing that no legal expert in town will take on the job, or if one does they'll simply make it easier to convict him. But a Paladin of a respected Order who happens to be in town would make perfect sense as a legal advisor in a medieval court.
Do you guys apply real world logic to your medieval magic setting?
You can magically force people to say the truth. To believe that such a society would waste time prosecuting or that there’s a chance it would be thrown out due to error is bogus
There would still be laws.
For example, we know that a spell can produce the truth, but another spell can force you to say anything the caster wants, true or false. There are spells like Friends, Suggestion, Charm spells, and the like. Would a judge know the difference between Zone of Truth and Charm Person, unless the judge is also a spell caster? Surely laws would be in place to handle this. Again, you'd need a legal proceeding with laws being followed. The OP clearly stated that the trial is a sham and was known to be a sham. Meaning that whatever protections are in place to prevent Charmed or Suggested witnesses, would not be followed. In a show-trial, the judge would just cast some sort of controlling spell on the accused and force him to admit guilt, and then the death penalty ensues. Surely laws would have been written to prevent that.
In my own campaign, based on the Roman Empire, it is against the law to use magic in the public square. The reason is that magic cannot be easily controlled or regulated by others, and even spell-casters may not recognize what spell each other is casting (it takes a skill check, per XGE), let alone non-spell users. The Romans therefore simply do not permit the use of magic spells in the case of trials, senate debates, and the like. A senator who was also a bard and was caught using bardic eloquence spells to try and persuade the senate or the emperor to due something would be executed. The Romans valued logical argumentation, and this value would not change, but probably be enhanced, by magic existing in the world. It would be seen as lazy, as "cheating," to just cast a spell to convince someone of your argument -- you were unable to marshal logic against them so you cheated. Nope, not allowed in my Roman campaign.
This does not mean a show trial might not still happen. Nor does it mean that someone might not get away with casting spells while nobody notices. But there are laws against using magic to accomplish testimony or debate in my campaign world. And I don't think I'm the only DM who runs it like that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
"Responsible for the death of..." could mean that the PC stabbed the Lord in the heart out of jealousy, perhaps because the PC loved Lady Nandar and found out that Lord Nandar had her killed or could be just because the PC was hired to kill the lord.
It could be that the PC was charged with the security of Lord Nandar, and because he was I'll, he had another slightly less capable person heading the security. "If only I wasn't sick, I could have stopped it."
Perhaps the lord had a severe food allergy that the PC was unaware of and she had some of that food served while the Lord came to visit. Perhaps she didn't even know that the food was laced with the allergen.
This is the reason why a fair trial would be needed, to find out what actually happened and to dispense justice as needed. It's even more important if the actual killer wasn't the PC, but a member of the tribunal who is trying to divert attention to te PC in order to continue working in the shadows.
"Responsible for the death of..." could mean that the PC stabbed the Lord in the heart out of jealousy, perhaps because the PC loved Lady Nandar and found out that Lord Nandar had her killed or could be just because the PC was hired to kill the lord.
It could be that the PC was charged with the security of Lord Nandar, and because he was I'll, he had another slightly less capable person heading the security. "If only I wasn't sick, I could have stopped it."
Perhaps the lord had a severe food allergy that the PC was unaware of and she had some of that food served while the Lord came to visit. Perhaps she didn't even know that the food was laced with the allergen.
This is the reason why a fair trial would be needed, to find out what actually happened and to dispense justice as needed. It's even more important if the actual killer wasn't the PC, but a member of the tribunal who is trying to divert attention to te PC in order to continue working in the shadows.
As such, give the player whose character is being held captive a temporary character (an NPC otherwise) who has knowledge of the situation and have them approach the party to inform them of the information. If the player was tired of the character, they could simply roll up a new one. If the player wasn't and would be willing to have some sort of "penance and a change of heart", then a Paladin would probably be on board with that.
Another option could be to have the PC escape, become an NPC for a while, have the player play a new character for a few sessions, have the Paladin wrongfully accused of something and railroaded through the system only to have his former associate come to save him despite the Paladin choosing to do the same to him.
"Responsible for the death of..." could mean that the PC stabbed the Lord in the heart out of jealousy, perhaps because the PC loved Lady Nandar and found out that Lord Nandar had her killed or could be just because the PC was hired to kill the lord.
It could be that the PC was charged with the security of Lord Nandar, and because he was I'll, he had another slightly less capable person heading the security. "If only I wasn't sick, I could have stopped it."
Perhaps the lord had a severe food allergy that the PC was unaware of and she had some of that food served while the Lord came to visit. Perhaps she didn't even know that the food was laced with the allergen.
This is the reason why a fair trial would be needed, to find out what actually happened and to dispense justice as needed. It's even more important if the actual killer wasn't the PC, but a member of the tribunal who is trying to divert attention to te PC in order to continue working in the shadows.
As such, give the player whose character is being held captive a temporary character (an NPC otherwise) who has knowledge of the situation and have them approach the party to inform them of the information. If the player was tired of the character, they could simply roll up a new one. If the player wasn't and would be willing to have some sort of "penance and a change of heart", then a Paladin would probably be on board with that.
Another option could be to have the PC escape, become an NPC for a while, have the player play a new character for a few sessions, have the Paladin wrongfully accused of something and railroaded through the system only to have his former associate come to save him despite the Paladin choosing to do the same to him.
i don't think punishing a player is the answer here
I agree. The DM's role shouldn't be to punish players. Characters suffering the logical consequences of their actions yes, should happen, and is not a punishment. But punishing players -- the DM shouldn't have to be like the school principal keeping you after class. If you're doing that as DM, something is very wrong.
"Responsible for the death of..." could mean that the PC stabbed the Lord in the heart out of jealousy, perhaps because the PC loved Lady Nandar and found out that Lord Nandar had her killed or could be just because the PC was hired to kill the lord.
It could be that the PC was charged with the security of Lord Nandar, and because he was I'll, he had another slightly less capable person heading the security. "If only I wasn't sick, I could have stopped it."
Perhaps the lord had a severe food allergy that the PC was unaware of and she had some of that food served while the Lord came to visit. Perhaps she didn't even know that the food was laced with the allergen.
This is the reason why a fair trial would be needed, to find out what actually happened and to dispense justice as needed. It's even more important if the actual killer wasn't the PC, but a member of the tribunal who is trying to divert attention to te PC in order to continue working in the shadows.
As such, give the player whose character is being held captive a temporary character (an NPC otherwise) who has knowledge of the situation and have them approach the party to inform them of the information. If the player was tired of the character, they could simply roll up a new one. If the player wasn't and would be willing to have some sort of "penance and a change of heart", then a Paladin would probably be on board with that.
Another option could be to have the PC escape, become an NPC for a while, have the player play a new character for a few sessions, have the Paladin wrongfully accused of something and railroaded through the system only to have his former associate come to save him despite the Paladin choosing to do the same to him.
i don't think punishing a player is the answer here
Not intended to be a punishment. If the story doesn't work doubt use it. That's why I gave a few of the other options. If the DM chose to capture the Paladin, there would have to be dialog for that scenario. The same remedy could be had for the player of the Paladin (a temporary character, possibly the same that was used by the other player). The intent is not to provide punishment but reconciliation between the characters. The Paladin could come to terms with the other character in other ways, but they'll need to find some common ground to be able to work together. Think Hobbs and Shaw on some level.
Likewise, there needs to be some dialog between the DM and the character who is being held. What happens if X happens? Y? Get a feel for where the player is at after apologizing for using the character as a subplot that didn't go the way the DM thought it would. This conversation should be first and then after a course of action is decided upon to resolve the issue for the player that was absent, then the conversation with the Paladin's player can take place to see how that reconciliation will take place if it's necessary.
I agree. The DM's role shouldn't be to punish players. Characters suffering the logical consequences of their actions yes, should happen, and is not a punishment. But punishing players -- the DM shouldn't have to be like the school principal keeping you after class. If you're doing that as DM, something is very wrong.
There's a part of me that would be quite tempted to have the paladin captured and charged with aiding and abetting a fugitive...since he adventured with the fugitive after all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The DM was likely flabbergasted by the actions of his player being a wangrod. Let's stop arguing over the actions of the paladin, and try to help get the DM some advice to fix this goat-screw.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
There could be some rival faction in the government that uses this trial as an opportunity to gain political power over the seated power. Maybe they strongarm, pay, or otherwise entice the party to interfere.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
> Person definitely killed someone.
> Trial is a sham.
IMO if A is true, B wouldn’t matter. Doesn’t matter if a trial is fair or not if the person definitely did the crime.
I don’t know why everyone is dunking on the Paladin with “they must make this choice because it says LG on their character sheet”. Alignments are dumb and if you are using them shouldn’t be reduced to “this is the only acceptable choice”.
The real problem here is you made a mistake, as DM, taking agency away from an unavailable player and put their character at risk. If I were you I would retcon the side quest and resume from where you were beforehand.
That is demonstrably false. Even the guilty have rights to a fair trial, an impartial judge/jury, representation by a legal expert, and to be punished only to the extent the law provides, and no further. Guilty people in real life have had their convictions overturned on appeal for things like incompetent counsel, doctoring of evidence, and so forth. No one thinks their innocent, but all the legal forms must be followed or the conviction is considered invalid. This is what we mean by having a government by laws and not by people. The law has to be followed, whether the guy is guilty or not.
Also, absent a fair trial, how would it be possible to demonstrate legally that A is true? You literally can't.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
And who decides if the person "definitely did the crime", if there is no fair trial? And which crime? And is it immoral?
If my security system picks you up stealing from my convenience store, what just happened? According to your logic, it doesn't matter if the police just swing by and toss your guilty ass straight into jail ( for how long)? So - what if you're stealing food to feed your hungry children, or medical supplies to help save someone's life? You have definitely still committed a crime - property damages against me, if nothing else - but are you as guilty as someone who knocks over my store for the money out of greed?
If you steal documents from my company and sell them to someone, you have committed a crime. Which one? Breach of trust if you work for me? Theft if you don't? High Treason, if I run a defense contracting company and your sold classified information to an Enemy Power?
And what if a corrupt government declares that you "definitely did the crime" because you're a social or political inconvenience to them? Still think that it "doesn’t matter if a trial is fair or not"?
And what do you think happens to a society where it's common knowledge that the powers-that-be play fast and loose with the legal system, and that it's fundamentally unfair based on expediency, or warped to take the considerations of some citizens as a higher priority than others? Whether that's actually true, or merely the common perception, what do you think happens? That's simple - people ignore the law & the justice system, because it's rigged against them, and take matters into their own hands. Does that sound familiar?
Guilt or Innocence is not a binary choice. The situation as it appears - even if it appears open-and-shut - is not always the situation as it is, and even if they are the same, the meaning and implications of it is not always immediately apparent.
Justice is never as simple as a rule book.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Back in the day, if the King said you were guilty, you were guilty. That’s it. 🤷♂️
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I'd be interested in how the paladin knows;
"One of the absent players has as part of the backstory, that he was responsible for killing Lord Nandar of Nightstone back in the day. "
Either they are happy to meta that the know it but not happy to bend a little as they know the DM is just trying to do some interesting filler for the week.
Or the character has told them in game, in which case why haven't they had a problem with traveling with a murderer before?
Either way feels like they are picking and choosing when to play "that is what my char would do." Which is fine if it is in game, but if it is putting people out as players/DM it is a dick move.
Edit: as for fixing it give the person captured a means of escape or talk the paladin about how can they be so sure that a) the people who took him are "the cops" b) he actually murdered an innocent c)doesnt deserve a fair hearing.
What did the other players do? Just went along with the paladin?
All posts come with the caveat that I don't know what I'm talking about.
Notice how well that worked out for Kings in the end, especially King Louis XVI.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Well, it worked for Kings, Emperors, and Pharos for thousands of years before that. 😉
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
This is why we need more details on the backstory. What we know is that the character is responsible for Lord Nandar's death. We do not know /how/ this is so. it could be a pure accident. We know that Lady Nandar's death was an accident as a rock fell on her. There could be extenuating circumstances in which the character is not guilty of murder.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
lets not have the paladin take all the blame here. The other 2 players are just as much at fault. I would arrange for the paladin and other players to stumble onto some sort of evidence that this is not a legitimate trial coupled with a prior suggestion of a vision for the paladin. Another option is for the captured player to petition the paladin to serve as his legal counsel where during the course of the trial it becomes apparent its a sham trial.
Oooooooh I like this idea as a fun and interesting way to kind of "force" the party to help. It seems perfectly reasonable that the judge might allow him to seek counsel to obfuscate the sham nature of the trial, knowing that no legal expert in town will take on the job, or if one does they'll simply make it easier to convict him. But a Paladin of a respected Order who happens to be in town would make perfect sense as a legal advisor in a medieval court.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Never mind. Have a feeling there’s no point.
There would still be laws.
For example, we know that a spell can produce the truth, but another spell can force you to say anything the caster wants, true or false. There are spells like Friends, Suggestion, Charm spells, and the like. Would a judge know the difference between Zone of Truth and Charm Person, unless the judge is also a spell caster? Surely laws would be in place to handle this. Again, you'd need a legal proceeding with laws being followed. The OP clearly stated that the trial is a sham and was known to be a sham. Meaning that whatever protections are in place to prevent Charmed or Suggested witnesses, would not be followed. In a show-trial, the judge would just cast some sort of controlling spell on the accused and force him to admit guilt, and then the death penalty ensues. Surely laws would have been written to prevent that.
In my own campaign, based on the Roman Empire, it is against the law to use magic in the public square. The reason is that magic cannot be easily controlled or regulated by others, and even spell-casters may not recognize what spell each other is casting (it takes a skill check, per XGE), let alone non-spell users. The Romans therefore simply do not permit the use of magic spells in the case of trials, senate debates, and the like. A senator who was also a bard and was caught using bardic eloquence spells to try and persuade the senate or the emperor to due something would be executed. The Romans valued logical argumentation, and this value would not change, but probably be enhanced, by magic existing in the world. It would be seen as lazy, as "cheating," to just cast a spell to convince someone of your argument -- you were unable to marshal logic against them so you cheated. Nope, not allowed in my Roman campaign.
This does not mean a show trial might not still happen. Nor does it mean that someone might not get away with casting spells while nobody notices. But there are laws against using magic to accomplish testimony or debate in my campaign world. And I don't think I'm the only DM who runs it like that.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
"Responsible for the death of..." could mean that the PC stabbed the Lord in the heart out of jealousy, perhaps because the PC loved Lady Nandar and found out that Lord Nandar had her killed or could be just because the PC was hired to kill the lord.
It could be that the PC was charged with the security of Lord Nandar, and because he was I'll, he had another slightly less capable person heading the security. "If only I wasn't sick, I could have stopped it."
Perhaps the lord had a severe food allergy that the PC was unaware of and she had some of that food served while the Lord came to visit. Perhaps she didn't even know that the food was laced with the allergen.
This is the reason why a fair trial would be needed, to find out what actually happened and to dispense justice as needed. It's even more important if the actual killer wasn't the PC, but a member of the tribunal who is trying to divert attention to te PC in order to continue working in the shadows.
As such, give the player whose character is being held captive a temporary character (an NPC otherwise) who has knowledge of the situation and have them approach the party to inform them of the information. If the player was tired of the character, they could simply roll up a new one. If the player wasn't and would be willing to have some sort of "penance and a change of heart", then a Paladin would probably be on board with that.
Another option could be to have the PC escape, become an NPC for a while, have the player play a new character for a few sessions, have the Paladin wrongfully accused of something and railroaded through the system only to have his former associate come to save him despite the Paladin choosing to do the same to him.
i don't think punishing a player is the answer here
I agree. The DM's role shouldn't be to punish players. Characters suffering the logical consequences of their actions yes, should happen, and is not a punishment. But punishing players -- the DM shouldn't have to be like the school principal keeping you after class. If you're doing that as DM, something is very wrong.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Not intended to be a punishment. If the story doesn't work doubt use it. That's why I gave a few of the other options. If the DM chose to capture the Paladin, there would have to be dialog for that scenario. The same remedy could be had for the player of the Paladin (a temporary character, possibly the same that was used by the other player). The intent is not to provide punishment but reconciliation between the characters. The Paladin could come to terms with the other character in other ways, but they'll need to find some common ground to be able to work together. Think Hobbs and Shaw on some level.
Likewise, there needs to be some dialog between the DM and the character who is being held. What happens if X happens? Y? Get a feel for where the player is at after apologizing for using the character as a subplot that didn't go the way the DM thought it would. This conversation should be first and then after a course of action is decided upon to resolve the issue for the player that was absent, then the conversation with the Paladin's player can take place to see how that reconciliation will take place if it's necessary.
There's a part of me that would be quite tempted to have the paladin captured and charged with aiding and abetting a fugitive...since he adventured with the fugitive after all.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha