TL;DR: Party members chose to abandon, rather than rescue, a PC from an impending death sentence.

I'm running SKT and two of my party members were going to be away for the last session, so I thought it'd be a good opportunity to drop in a little side quest for the remaining players. 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. To that end, I had his character picked up by mercenaries and delivered to a group of knights in the service of the surviving Nandars. I thought it'd be a quick, one-shot "follow the clues and go get yer buddy" scenario.

However, the LG paladin of the group decided, upon hearing the charges against his companion (murder of Lord Nandar and falsely accused of the murder of Lady Nandar who was actually crushed from above by a falling boulder), that he couldn't in good conscience go and kill a group of knights for simply discharging their sworn duty. However, he was also informed in no uncertain terms, that any legal proceedings would be for show and the end result was undoubtedly a death sentence. He still chose to walk away and brought the other two party members with him.

I'm now facing into next week's session, with a split party and one member held captive. I was going to try and have a brief, pre-session session with the player in question and give him the opportunity to Die Hard his way out of the tower he's being held in. But even in the event that he escapes, I'm concerned about how to knit the party back together given the bad blood (hopefully limited to characters and not the players) that may arise by his abandonment.

It definitely made for a more interesting scenario than I had planned as they spent half an hour kicking the morality of the situation back and forth as opposed to just straight up storming the castle.

Anyway, any suggestions on a better way to resolve my current predicament than I've laid out above, please feel free to share.

Thanks

I'd definitely not just whack the guy in the neck with an axe and be done with it, though it doesn't seem like you're planning for that. A character's death should really only come from bad rolls, or stupid decisions made by the player that has the character, not by other players/their characters. I'd definitely allow him to try and escape, or maybe have someone else help him, though I'm leaning more towards the former. Players feel better when they, instead of NPCs, accomplish things, after all. As for healing the rift between them, I wouldn't do anything. Some minor conflict in the party can actually be fun, as long as the players aren't actually angry with one another. If it gets to a situation where the players are angry, maybe take them aside and talk it over, and stuff. But character conflict is chill.

I mean, as long as its not stabbing each other in the night level of conflict. That's a little more problematic. But as long as it doesn't come to blows, it should be fine.

I question the paladin as being Lawful Good, or heck even Lawful Neutral. If he was (reliably) informed that any trial would be a show-trial -- show-trials are not lawful. They in fact are the opposite of lawful. I agree that the paladin should not have just gone off and killed the arresting knights, but IMO, any paladin worth his salt would have showed up at the trial and demanded that the legalities be properly followed. No lawful good character should let his colleague be subjected to what he knows is a rigged trial.

As for how to resolve things, I would make sure the captured player is able to escape (make it hard but not impossible) and let him get back to the company and then, I guess, let 'em RP it out and see what happens.

You *might* have a "breaking of the fellowship" moment on your hands here... if so then I would just say "OK guys let's start a new party and try to make one that doesn't break up this time." Unless most of them stay together and the one who doesn't wants to make up a new PC.

I like BioWizard's approach.

I think the central questions is: how does the Player feel about this?

One option I might privately offer the Player, were I in your boots, is that their Character is retired, for now, and turned into an NPC. A creative DM should be able to come up with reasons why the Character is condemned, but not actually killed.

Then - as an NPC, make them the villain in an upcoming Adventure arc. Give the Player the opportunity to control the BBEG at the final showdown.

I mean - come on! - a hero unjustly abandoned by his companions? That's a super-villain origin story right there! :D 

This is a bit of a copout, and I don't know if it will fully work because I don't know your Paladin's Oath, but you could always give them a prophetic dream with their God. Not like a, "I command you to go back and save your friend", but something that prioritizes the fact that the trial is rigged and someone is there all alone. Maybe a reminder that fighting and killing isn't the only way to solve problems.

If I were in this situation, I would run them through a vision of going through a similar trial. They've certainly killed at least one person in combat at this point... just pick one of the more memorable enemies they've faced in the past, then have them experience being put on trial for that death. Something where the judge dismisses all context, the jury is made up only of other enemies the party has faced, and nothing they say or do allows them to escape. 

I like both Vedexent's and Transmorpher's approaches -- good ideas there.

Obviously it was not cool to just go capture a player while they were away.

Question on my mind, did he murder Lord Nandar in cold blood, is he a "murderer" or was it self defense?  

Depending on that I would perhaps bring in an NPC that can clear his name.  Perhaps that NPC is getting everyone freed even if your paladin refuses to help. 

He said it was a false accusation:  It sounds like the character didn't kill Lady Nandar, but is going to be executed for it.

It's too late to tell the DM, not to do this because he doesn't know how the players are going to react.  I'm assuming that his lesson is learned.  I do have concerns about the paladin though.  What is his oath?  It had better not be redemption.  I'd also really struggle with the LG alignment of allowing to someone be executed for a crime they did not commit.  That's not LG either. 

I'd consider member having other members of the paladin's order break the PC out of jail or otherwise contest at the trial turning it into a not-show trial and return him to the party, then express their disappointment in the stain to the honor that the paladin has brought on their order by failing this clear test of his oath.  I might assign him a quest of penance as well.

OP didn't state exactly why the PC killed Lord Nandar, but in the original description they did use the phrasing "Responsible for Killing Lord Nandar", rather than "murder" or "assassinate", which I take to mean that it wasn't like the character killed this Lord in cold blood, but without further context I can't really say for certain. The only thing we know for certain was that the PC was not responsible for the death of Lady Nandor, but is still being charged for her Murder regardless of evidence to the contrary.

You're right, I got confused with Lord and Lady Nandar.  Still though, the paladin player is being a jerk letting the other member of the group get screwed over.  Crap like that is why people hate paladin players.  The social contract of the game sometimes requires you to hop on the railroad a little bit, and the paladin's putting the DM in a real tough spot and he damned well knows what he's doing.

Crap like that is why people hate paladin players.  The social contract of the game sometimes requires you to hop on the railroad a little bit, and the paladin's putting the DM in a real tough spot and he damned well knows what he's doing.

There are two separate issues here.

The first: why people hate paladin players. First, not all paladins are LG. Second, as I have pointed out above, a lawful character would not sit by and watch as the law is being ignored with a show-trial. Show-trials are the opposite of lawful, because they ignore the law in favor of a pre-determined result. The law would provide a real opportunity for the accused to prove his or her innocence. This was a poorly-RPed paladin -- the player is either misinterpreting what it means to be lawful (never mind good) by allowing the show-trial to proceed without interruption. Or else he has confused authoritarian power with the law. Colville has a good discussion about this: might makes right is chaotic, not lawful. The lawful concept is that the law is greater than any one person, and therefore law, not might, makes right. The paladin is behaving in a chaotic, not lawful, fashion, but allowing the authority to ignore the law and exert power without checks and balances.

The second: hopping on the railroad. I agree, and I would argue that this paladin's player, in addition to behaving as a chaotic neutral rather than lawful good character, has also acted with poor sportsmanship. The players all knew that this was supposed to be a side-quest, kind of a one-shot to keep them all going while the missing player was out. Leaving that player's character to be executed is showing poor sportsmanship. You know this plot is only happening because Joe can't make it tonight. So go along with it, which lets you all have a fun session and roll some dice in the mean time, and when Joe gets back, we return to our regularly scheduled adventure. Any reasonable player should recognize this and be willing to bend a little bit to go along with that. Not doing so is being a poor sport (and a lousy friend, if the missing player or the DM, or both, happen to be your friends).

if I were the paladin player, I'd have agreed to try and break him out, provided nobody was killed.  That seems like a reasonable balance for me, personally between the RP aspect of not wanting to "do what my character would do" and being a jerk to my DM and party in what's clearly an improvised situation, with a desired outcome.

EDIT: that doesn't really help the DM get out of this pickle that his paladin has left him in.  Perhaps someone who's "in the know" as to what happened to the Lord and Lady Nantar helps him to escape.  A harper agent perhaps has information that a member of the knights who serve the Nantars is /really/ responsible for what happened, and while they are not in the position to unmask the traitor, they are not willing to allow someone to be executed unfairly.  More details of the character's backstory and the manner of Lord and Lady Nantars' demise might be helpful to lawyer our way out of this.

Let me add my two cents to the whole "A lawful good character wouldn't have acted like this" thing. The player did what they did because they were attempting to be lawful and good. Why would it be different for the paladin? Why are the players intents and the paladin's perceived as being different? If the player thought it was the right thing to do, so did the paladin. You can't just say "A lawful good person wouldn't do this". People make mistakes all the time. Good people perform evil acts, lawful people perform unlawful acts, etc. Also, the alignment does not make the character, the character makes the alignment. A person does not do good and lawful acts because they are lawful good. No, a person is lawful good because they do(or attempt to do) good and lawful acts. No one is defined by their alignment, and alignment is fluid.

Lawful isn't allowing someone to be executed in a show-trial.  It's certainly not good.

Quote from crzyhawk >>

Lawful isn't allowing someone to be executed in a show-trial.  It's certainly not good.

 Again, mistakes can be made. And alignments are defined by characters, characters aren't defined by alignment.

That's not a mistake.  That's the paladin being a jerk.  There is NO way he didn't know what the DM was trying to improvise.  It's unacceptable.

Quote from crzyhawk >>

That's not a mistake.  That's the paladin being a jerk.  There is NO way he didn't know what the DM was trying to improvise.  It's unacceptable.

Metagame knowledge is not important here. The player, and by extent, the paladin, acted in such a way that they thought was both lawful and good. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks of it. In the paladin's mind, their act was just.

Metagame knowledge is not important here. The player, and by extent, the paladin, acted in such a way that they thought was both lawful and good. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks of it. In the paladin's mind, their act was just.

Actually, it is important here. D&D is a game. You play it with your friends around the table or on Zoom or something. You are well aware, as a player, that one of the friends is missing and the DM has planned a quick one-shot this week so as not to say "Let's call the whole session off without Joe being here." As player, you walk into it knowing this, knowing that the session probably wasn't planned out in as much detail as a normal session. Knowing it is not part of SKT because it is being done due to Joe being absent. As a player, common courtesy demands that you curtail your immersive RP of your character just a smidge so that you can help the DM make the session work for everyone. Not doing that isn't being a good RPer. It's being a wangrod. See Matt Colville's video on the subject for a definition of the term.

I'm a dedicated RPer, but I do not hold with players ignoring the realities of the gaming table and of the human interactions around that table, in the name of RP. It's in poor taste, and I for one wouldn't want to play with someone who insisted on acting like that.

Quote from BioWizard >>

I'm a dedicated RPer, but I do not hold with players ignoring the realities of the gaming table and of the human interactions around that table, in the name of RP. It's in poor taste, and I for one wouldn't want to play with someone who insisted on acting like that.

Agreed.

To (mis?)quote Matt Colville:

Player: Well, it's just what my Character would have done!

DM: Well, your Character is being a wangrod and ruining our fun.

It's the DMs job to step in when it gets to that point. In my experience, if the DM is fine with the players' actions, whether they be good or not, the players will feel as if their actions are justified, and will most likely assume that the DM has a plan. If the DM had said "Do you really want to condemn [player]'s character to certain death while they aren't even at the table", I'm sure we wouldn't be having this conversation at the moment.