Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Robert_Ir_Danth 09-28-06, 09:30 AM	Hi guys. I have a quetion? My Silver flame paladin exorcist was in a dungeon, suddenly our party found a girl of the brelish noblity and the dectection says that she was good. In that moment a Rouge in our party steal a amulet that she have an my paladin note it. So I say "I'm ofereing redemption to you, revert your evil act?" then she saig "no..." so I atack she with a empower/enervation spell (my pal/sor learned a lot in karrnath...XD ) cause I know that it weak she but no kills even if i got a critical hit.(3 negative levels ) So I ask again "revert your evil act?" seh said "no...", so I a attack again... Critical (6 levels + the last =9 levels) then she acept that return the amulet. Now my party is saying "You are out of control..., a paladin won't do that...etc.." But I say: what will do a silver flame paladin if you give him a enervation? And if your sword is more deathly than your spells what you will use to offer redemption to a friend? A huh?... The questions that you have about the obcure nature of my pal its about one year playing and when you clean a church of corruption some stick to you (krosen its death) so i know that i sounds abberrant but what can i do.
DarkWarriorKarg 09-28-06, 10:23 AM	I'm guessing English isn't your first language... I'm having difficulty understanding... You play a Silver Flame Paladin/Sorcerer/Exorcist of the Silver Flame. You discovered a prisoner, a yound Brelish noblewoman. She had an amulet. It was stolen by your party's rogue, also female. You offered the party rogue a chance of redeeming herself. She refused You used enervation, a temporary effect, in order to "curse" the rogue (losing 6 levels) She again refuses to hand it back You hit her again with Enervation (total -9 levels) She finally gets the point and hands the amulet back to its rightful owner. Do I understand your sequence correctly? I'm not going to wonder how your palladin ended up with enervation. But you either had a stupid rogue, a bad player or both. Hanging around palladins DOES constrain one's overt actions. But the situation should not have ended up this way, unless intra-party confrontation was planned.
Robert_Ir_Danth 09-28-06, 10:39 AM	sorry my englsh i realy bad, but that is the secuence an the enervation... ummm ask my master...lol. But the question is, the actions of my pal are good or not?
Gurv 09-28-06, 12:33 PM	Paladins can't detect good. They can detect evil. So all you know is that the Brelish girl isn't evil...you don't know that she is good. Just because someone is playing a rogue does not mean that they have to steal things every time they meet someone. That is stupid. Even if the rogue isn't evil, no paladin should associate with someone like that. They should either arrest them, or refuse to deal with them. Enervation is not an evil spell. There is no rule against paladins using it (aside from, "wtf? Why does your paladin have it?"). The fact that it uses negative energy, would heal an undead it was used against, etc...well, roleplay that however you like. Many paladins would have issue with such a spell, evil descriptor or no. I think that using a life-draining spell is kind of out-of-character for most paladins. Since your victim was a friend who was merely stealing, I think there might have been other ways to deal with the problem. Asking her to return it, forcing her to return it, intimidating her into returning it, dealing nonlethal damage, requesting the others in your group to take your side, etc. The list goes on and on. What you did wasn't wrong. It was just the last thing you should have attempted, rather than the first.
Robert_Ir_Danth 09-28-06, 01:10 PM	ummm, aaa, she wasnīt my friend she ally us in that dungeon. And enervation dosen't kill at first atemp so it was a very good tool.
Salla 09-28-06, 01:13 PM	I think the use of lethal force (Enervation CAN kill if you slap on enough negative levels) for a nonlethal offense was overkill. I'm generally of the opinion that stealing is Chaotic, rather than Evil (but CAN be), because you can steal for the right reasons (see: Robin Hood). In this case, it seems like it was just simple greed rather than maliciousness. Well, greed and stupidity. Mercy is an integral part of justice (IMHO), and really, you should probably have been able to overpower him without resorting to that level of offense. Heck, you could have grappled him or used a disarm to snatch the amulet out of his hand and return it, then give the rogue a stern talking-to. Above table, you might want to remind the rogue that randomly stealing things is a great way to sow party distrust, and if the entire party feels they can't trust one of their own teammates not to steal their stuff in the middle of the night, it would be perfectly in-character for them to tell the rogue (specify, very clearly, the CHARACTER, not the PLAYER) to take a hike.
Kreistor1 09-28-06, 02:25 PM	Were I playing a paladin in the same situation, yes, I'd have made certain the amulet was returned. Would I have gone lethal? That depends on the paladin's character and the era they are playing in. In the middle ages, yeah, go lethal. In more modern eras, no it is inappropriate.
yossarius 09-28-06, 02:42 PM	While I agree with what others have said here (Salla, I think, put it best in the second paragraph), a it also depends on your character's take on the Silver Flame as a religion. If your paladin is a "fire & brimstone" type, that is, an evangalist rather than one of those types of paladins that do as little as possible in the name of their lord, you might have been right on. I'm not saying that this is what an ideal paladin would have done. If anything, the heavy-handedness of your actions stray outside the bounds of lawful good behavior. What you did was basically hit the rogue over the head when she didn't meet your definition of a good guy. In my mind, that flirts with a chaotic good alignment, showing a lot of shoulder along the way. I wouldn't say the way you played the character was "out of control." More like excessive. If you were my player, I would say that, while the paladin didn't exactly commit an evil act, he certainly commited a chaotic one, which to me is just as bad. I would say that, at the very least, the rouge is owed an in-character apology (I'm not saying you should actually apologize to the player, just something mentioned in game-play "Lady Oddessic offers you a sincere and honest apology." Or whatever.)
Sir_Brakus 09-28-06, 04:49 PM	Hello gentlemen. I'm a game mate of Robert, and perhaps I can tell you what haapen: after a really hard battle inside a dungeon, I (a true paladin, a saint, and a truly warrior of the flame) hear a cry inside a cage. the prisoner was a beautiful half elf girl, who is part of the noble family in breeland. me and robert discover that she was a good person, and I help her (the usual, cure wounds, water, food, a coat to cover her...) she had a jewl around her neck, ans suddenly, it dissapear. robert can read minds, and he discover that tha thief was a rogue who was our ally in battle these day. I didn't notice anything until the rogue star to feel bad... and robert was talking to her saying things like: 'you cannot do such a thing here. revert the evil you made' and so on. he was using a enervation spell on her (yes, a paladin with enervation, able to drain levels and yes, I cannot believe it either). when the rogue finally return the jewel, and the games was over, the players and the master star a discussion about if the action was or was'nt good. the master says that it wasn't a good act, and now robert has to pay for his actions. my paldin try to finsih the trouble with gold and job for the rogue, but she only wants an apology... robart wants to know what do you think... it was a good or a bad act? (and before you ask, our master is a REALLY free mind when is time to talk about alignament)
Robert_Ir_Danth 09-28-06, 05:01 PM	Aligments?? I havenīt kill inocent kids for power... well evil is evil and if I can't change it to good I must destroy it...XD and Brakus its so inocent. Paladin of freedom rocks :rimshot: :fight!: & :mage: Its better.
Kreistor1 09-28-06, 05:55 PM	the master says that it wasn't a good act Then this should have been made clear at the time of the act, not a judgement after the fact. The paladin is an expert on good and evil because he has to be. If the player's idea of good and evil does not match the DM's, then it is the job of the DM to inform the player during play. That way the paladin loses his alignment because he willingly chose to disobey his code, not accidentally disobeyed his code.
eehamburg 09-28-06, 06:01 PM	Just because you play a paladin doesn't mean that you are a paladin in real life. What I mean by this is that you can't possibly be expected to know how the paladin is supposed to act to every situation because you aren't one in real life. Therefore, if your DM tells you something after the fact that you did something that was not meeting the Paladin's code, then this should not be held against you. It should have been discussed during the playing session where you would have had a chance to change your mind or your actions to better fit what you and your DM think would be right for the Paladin. Cooperative gaming. It works. Just my :twocents:
Robert_Ir_Danth 09-29-06, 09:02 AM	Umm well Tonight is session lets see what happen and Iīm gonna tell you what my master says. Silver flame Rulez.