Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Mechades 07-30-07, 02:27 AM	Currently, my D&D group is running the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil adventure. I'm playing a paladin of St. Mara, a goddess I made up myself, with DM approval. The other players are a changeling rogue, a half celestial barbarian, a cleric of Pelor, a druid, and a wizard. The situation is this. The rogue has the personally of an excitable kid sister, and a bit of a kleptomaniac. She sees something she might like, she takes it, not out of malice, but its simply her nature. She has been caught several times pickpocketing the cleric, because "she" (the cleric) is mean to her. All this lead up to a confrontation between the two, where the cleric slashed the rogue with her sickle after the rogue refused to give up a couple of potions she found, and failed her sleight of hand roll. Afterwards, the barbarian took the rogue aside (IC), and had a talk with her. Meanwhile, I argued with the cleric, stating that while the rogue was at fault, her crime is overshadowed by the cleric's attack on a comrade in arms. The paladin is disappointed with the rogue, and has said as such, but he is more upset with the cleric. The DM spoke with me later, and said that unless something changes, my alignment will switch to netural good, as I am not upholding the lawful aspect of my paladin. He feels that I have done nothing to enforce the law when the rogue has stolen, other then "look at her with disappointment." I feel that my paladin is still acting within his alignment. While the rogue did steal, several times, the cleric's attack was in his judgment a far more serious crime. The rogue doesn't know any better, and I felt IC that since the barbarian talked to the rogue, that would help solve the problem. If the rogue continues to steal, then progressively the paladin will get harsher with her. But at this point in time, he's more interested in "redeeming" her, with compassion and kindness. So, what am I to do? I feel that my paladin's actions are well within lawful good, but my DM feels he's being neutral good.
Stormbrand 07-30-07, 02:40 AM	My guess is that the issue is not the rogue vs cleric, my guess is that this has taken place where the law is (there is no 'law' in place when invading an evil temple...). If so, then the rogue has stolen from other people as well. The issue with the cleric probably just brought this to light. So do more to stop the rogue from stealing in general. Take steps every time you return to civilisation.
calronmoonflower 07-30-07, 03:12 AM	Lawful doesn't mean follow the law. It means consistency in behavior. Lawful good means that you think right and wrong can be written into a code. It doesn't mean that you automatically force you're own moral views on others. Talk to your dungeon master and explain that you shouldn't be required to enforce the law as you are not a cop and they forcing your own moral views on others without regards for the circumstances falls more into lawful neutral behavior than lawful good. Also ask the dungeon master if he really wants you to turn both the cleric and the rogue into the local guard for theft and assault with a deadly weapon? Also ask what the response would most likely be?
kelvinaw273 07-30-07, 03:37 AM	Sounds like the Paladin should be taking the rogue to one side and explaining some things, maybe offering her rewards for NOT stealing anything rather than punishment if she does. Trying to instill in her a sense of discipline is a Lawful act, and should be appreciated (even if it fails). Otherwise, you are playing the compassionate, lead-by-example paladin very well; it's nice to see Paladins played properly now and again.
Mechades 07-30-07, 04:23 AM	My guess is that the issue is not the rogue vs cleric, my guess is that this has taken place where the law is (there is no 'law' in place when invading an evil temple...). If so, then the rogue has stolen from other people as well. The issue with the cleric probably just brought this to light. So do more to stop the rogue from stealing in general. Take steps every time you return to civilisation. Yes, I think that is part of the issue as well. The rogue has tried to pickpocket the paladin as well. He caught her, they had a chat, and she hasn't tried it again. The only reason the cleric is being targeted is because she has a negative attitude towards the rogue, which is not help by the stealing. However, a good part of the time, the rogue has done these things without the paladin's awareness, so he has no real basis to judge the rogue, other then the cleric's word, whom he already is a bit at odds with. She is slightly...arrogant is the nice word for it, and pushy when it comes to extolling the virtues of her god, as well as "hinting" to the other PCs to donate when we visit her temple... Lawful doesn't mean follow the law. It means consistency in behavior. Lawful good means that you think right and wrong can be written into a code. It doesn't mean that you automatically force you're own moral views on others. Talk to your dungeon master and explain that you shouldn't be required to enforce the law as you are not a cop and they forcing your own moral views on others without regards for the circumstances falls more into lawful neutral behavior than lawful good. Also ask the dungeon master if he really wants you to turn both the cleric and the rogue into the local guard for theft and assault with a deadly weapon? Also ask what the response would most likely be? I agree, but unfortunately I think my DM feels paladins are cops in a sense, though I don't know why. I also think he would feel that in this case, I should be forcing my views, since the rogue is breaking the law. Sounds like the Paladin should be taking the rogue to one side and explaining some things, maybe offering her rewards for NOT stealing anything rather than punishment if she does. Trying to instill in her a sense of discipline is a Lawful act, and should be appreciated (even if it fails). Otherwise, you are playing the compassionate, lead-by-example paladin very well; it's nice to see Paladins played properly now and again. I was thinking of doing that, but as the barbarian did pretty much that after the confrontation, I felt it would be redundant to do it again, though I suppose now I may have been in error not to have done something more then "look at the rogue with disappointment" and said as much in a little talk. And thanks, I appreciate that. It always irked me when I see paladins played in the oppesite light. Arrogant, judgmental, basically "I'm a paladin and what I say is the absolute and unbreakable law and truth/my way or a smite" bull. That screams blackguard more then paladin, to me. *shrug*
Kouk 07-30-07, 04:31 AM	Be glad your DM warned you! People always have difference of opinions relating to Paladins, you should discuss your views (as you have said here) and compare them with the DM's views on Paladins, and work out some code of conduct. Point out that your Paladin is not actually aware of most of the stealing, and that you pretty much agreed with how the Barbarian handled things. Also you might stress that gods are different, and maybe your St. Mara whatever is more compassionate in general.
Mechades 07-30-07, 04:41 AM	Be glad your DM warned you! People always have difference of opinions relating to Paladins, you should discuss your views (as you have said here) and compare them with the DM's views on Paladins, and work out some code of conduct. Point out that your Paladin is not actually aware of most of the stealing, and that you pretty much agreed with how the Barbarian handled things. Also you might stress that gods are different, and maybe your St. Mara whatever is more compassionate in general. I am, I was just a little shocked and confused when he did. I've played a paladin before with him DMing, and that went without a hitch... except for the fact that one of the party members was a necromancer who cared for nothing except power. And the fact that that paladin agreed to owe a demon a favor in return for saving a small village amount of people from the dungeon of a crumbling castle:mymy: I was sure I was going to fall for that.... And yeah, my current paladin's goddess is a goddess of good, honor, and sacrifice. She's basically the Goddess of Martyrs, heh. Not fanatics, but people who are willing to give up everything, even their life or chance at happiness, to ensure the welfare/survival of others.
Callix 07-30-07, 04:42 AM	Arguing that attacking someone is the lesser crime to filching a potion is not very lawful. Also, unless the cleric has judicial powers in addition to her divine ones, she is not legally able to mete out punishment. As such she is not allowed to attack the rogue. If the area is lawless, the rogue broke no law either, so what's your DM's beef? Personally, I think the cleric should be sliding towards LN, not you towards NG. Attacking people who filched your stuff with deadly force? Not really a good act, now is it? If you really want to push it, you may have prevented a murder, so you have upheld the law in a very real way by stopping it from being broken. If the DM doesn't want the rogue to go unpunished, punish her later. You need her at her best for the temple. Maybe she can atone for her actions by deastroying the temple. Maybe not, but this should be dealt with when you're all safe at base. You should definitely not lose your class powers for not having enough stick.
draco1119 07-30-07, 08:52 AM	Here's an idea: Play a Paladin of Freedom and pimp-slap the Cleric for forcing her views on others. :cool: The best part is that you could then worship Pelor but be outside the Cleric's jurisdiction. :P
Ecalsneerg 07-30-07, 09:17 AM	Firstly, ask your DM that if he was a PC in a party with a Paladin, does he want the Paladin's alignment forced on the rest of the party. his would lead to a party acting Lawful Good for fear of the Paladin. In your party, this would mean the Barbarian loses Rage. The Paladin doesn't act like a policeman. Indeed, he can get help to fulfil his aims. The barbarian talking to the rogue flls under this. I'm also assuming this means the Barbarian player is either roleplaying drastically beyond mental stats (which I doubt severely), or hasn't done the usual idiocy of all mental dump stats.* The cleric was wrong for fighting the rogue. That's probably neutral, since they'd commited a crime. Don't think it's evil. You haven't broken the lawful aspect, since you allowed the barbarian to deal with the rogue, while you dealt with the cleric fighting a party member, a chaotic act. *: You have listen and survival as class skills! Seriously, even 12 Wis and a Human Barbarian taking track as his bonus feat allows Barbarians to be more than "Dur... me smash." Or take a high Cha and Intimidate people! [/irrelevant rant]
Varia 07-30-07, 09:33 AM	Er, actually in a number of ways you bleeping well ARE a cop. Not all cops are the same, mind you, so you have some flexibility as to what specific style you adopt (compassionate example is fine for instance), but you ARE a cop, annointed by GOD, no less, in personality at least, and, in some societies, in actual authority too. Paladins are not just another class. Emulate the classic superheroes as your rolemodels. What would Superman do? Or Spiderman, or WonderWoman, or whoever you chose. And I do mean a superhero, not an antihero. Wolverine does not count. :P
Grumman 07-30-07, 10:27 AM	I would have accepted either action by the paladin, either protecting the rogue from further physical punishment or supporting the cleric's actions (since I doubt the cleric would have done anything lethal). I just think you need to make sure your DM knows what your character's code of conduct is, so that he understands which sort of response is more appropriate for this particular paladin. The cleric PC is similarly without fault, in my opinion. Just because Pelor is neutral good doesn't mean that he has to let a thief walk all over him. The rogue's player is in the wrong for creating a character who steals from her "allies". At the very least, they should have created a character who would always give the items back, even if not confronted about it.
PandaDragon 07-30-07, 11:01 AM	Heres what you do ask the DM what you must do, as in actions you must take to keep your alinment LG, if the DM doesn't have an answer to this problem ask how you're suposed to handel it then. This I belive is the major down fall of the Paladins is not that the player(some times it is but not in this case) but the DM says "if you don't know what X equals how can you be a Paladin?" If your DM doesn't know/say/tell you what the coures of action you should take is how should you as the player know what to do in this type of situation. I relise this sounds like railroading but its more putting an unfair question back on the DM. If the DM can't answer it why should you?
DrMorganes 07-30-07, 11:30 AM	Currently, my D&D group is running the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil adventure. I'm playing a paladin of St. Mara, a goddess I made up myself, with DM approval. The other players are a changeling rogue, a half celestial barbarian, a cleric of Pelor, a druid, and a wizard. The situation is this. The rogue has the personally of an excitable kid sister, and a bit of a kleptomaniac. She sees something she might like, she takes it, not out of malice, but its simply her nature. She has been caught several times pickpocketing the cleric, because "she" (the cleric) is mean to her. All this lead up to a confrontation between the two, where the cleric slashed the rogue with her sickle after the rogue refused to give up a couple of potions she found, and failed her sleight of hand roll. Afterwards, the barbarian took the rogue aside (IC), and had a talk with her. Meanwhile, I argued with the cleric, stating that while the rogue was at fault, her crime is overshadowed by the cleric's attack on a comrade in arms. The paladin is disappointed with the rogue, and has said as such, but he is more upset with the cleric. The DM spoke with me later, and said that unless something changes, my alignment will switch to netural good, as I am not upholding the lawful aspect of my paladin. He feels that I have done nothing to enforce the law when the rogue has stolen, other then "look at her with disappointment." I feel that my paladin is still acting within his alignment. While the rogue did steal, several times, the cleric's attack was in his judgment a far more serious crime. The rogue doesn't know any better, and I felt IC that since the barbarian talked to the rogue, that would help solve the problem. If the rogue continues to steal, then progressively the paladin will get harsher with her. But at this point in time, he's more interested in "redeeming" her, with compassion and kindness. So, what am I to do? I feel that my paladin's actions are well within lawful good, but my DM feels he's being neutral good. Sounds familiar.... lemme see... **rummages through his library of fantasy novels** Ah, yes, here we are. Point your DM to the original Dragonlance series of novels: Dragons of Autumn Twilight, Dragons of Winter Night, and Dragons of Spring Dawning. Tell him to pay special attention to the interaction between the kender Tasselhoff Burrfoot (the party's rogue, who sounds suspiciously like your party's changeling rogue) and Sturm Brightblade (the party's paladin). Specifically, you're spot on. As far as your paladin is concerned: your DM really needs to stop and think for a moment. A single act is NEVER enough to warrant an alignment shift. Ever. As you said, an attack on a comrade is a more serious matter than an attention-deficit rogue forgetting to mention a couple of potions. That said, perhaps the entire table needs a little sit-down to discuss the intricacies of adventuring together. Specifically: withholding treasure and/or stealing from party members is NEVER an OK thing to do - even if such activity could be described as "in character". More specifically: being "in character" is never a good justification for asshattery. To put a fine point on things: the rogue needs to tone it down. Then you and your DM need to determine what, precisely, your paladin's code of honor means specifically. Write it out. Give three examples of each point (three is always a good number for examples). Have your DM post in the What's a DM to Do forum if he would like some input. Better, have him simply peruse the last 14 days worth of posts in What's a DM to Do AND What's a Player to Do. I'm sure he'll find enough reading on paladins, honor codes, and how to properly deal with them to keep him busy for most of the afternoon.
Phrennzy 07-30-07, 11:55 AM	Right away I would sit down with the DM and write up your paladin code, so you know how to address multiple situations and don't end up with needing an atonement. Or just switch to cleric and be done with it. And why is it that rogues are always kleptomaniacs? Why don't we ever see cleric kleptos? Or clerics following the moral code of a paladin?
Max Octavious Xavier 07-30-07, 11:59 AM	Summary of my post; yes, you are acting more NG than LG (IMO) The real problem is the rogue (and possibly the rogue's player) I would have accepted either action by the paladin, either protecting the rogue from further physical punishment or supporting the cleric's actions (since I doubt the cleric would have done anything lethal). I just think you need to make sure your DM knows what your character's code of conduct is, so that he understands which sort of response is more appropriate for this particular paladin. The cleric PC is similarly without fault, in my opinion. Just because Pelor is neutral good doesn't mean that he has to let a thief walk all over him. The rogue's player is in the wrong for creating a character who steals from her "allies". At the very least, they should have created a character who would always give the items back, even if not confronted about it.Oh, you are so gonna be flamed. Not by me, I agree with you. No, by those who use "but it's what my character would do" to excuse all sorts of antisocial actions. But I won't derail this thread with a rant about it. Currently, my D&D group is running the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil adventure. I'm playing a paladin of St. Mara, a goddess I made up myself, with DM approval. The other players are a changeling rogue, a half celestial barbarian, a cleric of Pelor, a druid, and a wizard. The situation is this. The rogue has the personally of an excitable kid sister, and a bit of a kleptomaniac. She sees something she might like, she takes it, not out of malice, but its simply her nature. She has been caught several times pickpocketing the cleric, because "she" (the cleric) is mean to her. All this lead up to a confrontation between the two, where the cleric slashed the rogue with her sickle after the rogue refused to give up a couple of potions she found, and failed her sleight of hand roll. Afterwards, the barbarian took the rogue aside (IC), and had a talk with her. Meanwhile, I argued with the cleric, stating that while the rogue was at fault, her crime is overshadowed by the cleric's attack on a comrade in arms. The paladin is disappointed with the rogue, and has said as such, but he is more upset with the cleric. The DM spoke with me later, and said that unless something changes, my alignment will switch to netural good, as I am not upholding the lawful aspect of my paladin. He feels that I have done nothing to enforce the law when the rogue has stolen, other then "look at her with disappointment." I feel that my paladin is still acting within his alignment. While the rogue did steal, several times, the cleric's attack was in his judgment a far more serious crime. The rogue doesn't know any better, and I felt IC that since the barbarian talked to the rogue, that would help solve the problem. If the rogue continues to steal, then progressively the paladin will get harsher with her. But at this point in time, he's more interested in "redeeming" her, with compassion and kindness. So, what am I to do? I feel that my paladin's actions are well within lawful good, but my DM feels he's being neutral good. Just some questions to think about. I don't need answers, I just want to provoke thought. Was it just 1 attack, or was the cleric attacking the rogue to try to kill her and had to be held back by the paladin? Does the cleric heal the rogue? Is the rogue a child, not just childlike? Why would a group run around with someone who steals from them? How long has this been going on? Why does the rogue not know any better? Does she just steal valuables, or does she just as often steal "shiny" but not really worth anything stuff? In Character I do think the paladin is playing more NG than LG because this is a continuing problem. You're interested in "redeeming" her, good. But how long are you going to take? It sounds like multiple characters have told her multiple times that stealing is not right and yet she continues to steal. Not only that, but she refused to return the goods once she was caught, that says (to me anyway) that she does know better. It sounds like the cleric has been suffering more than most and is the victim here. That is where your compassion should be. If you have true compassion for the rogue, she should be left somewhere where she will be away from temptation. How compassionate is it to eat in front of someone who is starving? Out of Character IMO the rogues player is taking advantage of the unspoken rule, "accept other players characters into the group". Some character quirks are funny, once. Some are funny for awhile, but few are fun forever. I'm fairly sure it was funny/cute the 1st time she stole something, but eventually it gets boring/unfunny/whatever. The PLAYER needs to be told that this aspect of her character needs to change. If it is just a quirk, she will agree. If she says "but it's what my character would do" you know it's the player thats the problem and not the character. My current group has a similar problem. Our halfling rogue has kleptomania and will often take "the shiny". However, he (the player) does not steal from the group. Still, such a problem could lead to group problems in the future (say we are trying to talk with some npc's and he tries to pick their pockets), so I basically asked the player to start toning it down so he doesn't cause problems. Ah, yes, here we are. Point your DM to the original Dragonlance series of novels: Dragons of Autumn Twilight, Dragons of Winter Night, and Dragons of Spring Dawning. Tell him to pay special attention to the interaction between the kender Tasselhoff Burrfoot (the party's rogue, who sounds suspiciously like your party's changeling rogue) and Sturm Brightblade (the party's paladin). Specifically, you're spot on.I was thinking the same thing, the rogue is playing a kender. However, refusing to return the potions was where she crossed the line. A kender would return them. "Oh, I was just holding them for you" would have been the line.
Caelic 07-30-07, 11:59 AM	Another point to consider: does your Paladin have the right to take the law into his own hands and mete out punishment? Does he have the right of even low justice, let alone middle or high justice? It's entirely possible that if he takes the Cleric's route and starts pulling out his sword when the Rogue breaks the law, he will also be breaking the law--a possibility which I think you (the OP) have already spotted and your DM may have overlooked.
Mechades 07-30-07, 03:09 PM	Summary of my post; Just some questions to think about. I don't need answers, I just want to provoke thought. Was it just 1 attack, or was the cleric attacking the rogue to try to kill her and had to be held back by the paladin? Does the cleric heal the rogue? Is the rogue a child, not just childlike? Why would a group run around with someone who steals from them? How long has this been going on? Why does the rogue not know any better? Does she just steal valuables, or does she just as often steal "shiny" but not really worth anything stuff? In Character I do think the paladin is playing more NG than LG because this is a continuing problem. You're interested in "redeeming" her, good. But how long are you going to take? It sounds like multiple characters have told her multiple times that stealing is not right and yet she continues to steal. Not only that, but she refused to return the goods once she was caught, that says (to me anyway) that she does know better. It sounds like the cleric has been suffering more than most and is the victim here. That is where your compassion should be. If you have true compassion for the rogue, she should be left somewhere where she will be away from temptation. How compassionate is it to eat in front of someone who is starving? Out of Character IMO the rogues player is taking advantage of the unspoken rule, "accept other players characters into the group". Some character quirks are funny, once. Some are funny for awhile, but few are fun forever. I'm fairly sure it was funny/cute the 1st time she stole something, but eventually it gets boring/unfunny/whatever. The PLAYER needs to be told that this aspect of her character needs to change. If it is just a quirk, she will agree. If she says "but it's what my character would do" you know it's the player thats the problem and not the character. You make valid points, and I agree with you somewhat. The cleric only made one attack, which was a point in her favor. But the cleric has also made herself the victim. The only reason the rogue refused to hand over the potions was that the cleric, whom she doesn't like, due to previously mention attitude problems on their part, essentially gave an order to the rogue, to whom she has made clear to previously that she doesn't like her and feels, I believe, a bit superior towards. This sparked, basically, the rogue in her child like manner, to say "No!!!". The paladin understands this, and while doesn't approve of the rogue's actions, disapproves of the cleric's even more, since she is a cleric, a servant of Pelor, and because of which, he holds her to a bit of a higher standard, in his own thoughts. And as for reasons behind her behavior, she doesn't know any better. From what I gather, this is how she's lived her whole life, as a thief and guttersnipe, and she doesn't know of any other way to act. Thus, the paladin feels that she could be something more, if she's "shown a better way" As for the rogue's player, she has explained that this is basically how her character is right now. She has a habit of playing characters that tend to grow, in some shape or another, throughout the campaign, so OOC, I'm not really worried about this being a persistent problem. Also, this incident happened a couple sessions ago (we play once a week, so two weeks have gone by). The DM didn't say anything that evening when we finished up, and it kinda caught me off guard when he said this to me a couple days ago. Also, in our last session, the rouge refrained from taking anything, so the paladin assumed the problem was settled, and that since the barbarian talked to the rogue, nothing more needed to be said. That's what sorta confused and caught me off-guard me. I thought the problem was over or laid aside.
AvalancheRider 07-30-07, 07:09 PM	Your DM is totally right. You're tolerating the behavior of a thief. Being upset with the cleric for the attack makes sense, but the tone you should have taken was "I know the rogue is frustrating and idiotic, but please try to refrain from assaulting her." Furthermore, stealing from a friend because "they're mean" is borderline evil behavior. You may be on the verge of losing your Paladin abilities just for putting up with traveling with said rogue.
Kreil 07-30-07, 07:18 PM	I belive that it is your duty to stop the rouge from stealing, however your not responsable for everything everyone else does. Now to deal with the cleric, thats easy. you need to defend the rouge and stop either from fighting each other.
Zarron 07-30-07, 07:24 PM	Is the rogue really being a "kleptomaniac" if she is stealing useful things from people she doesn't like? Or has she sweet talked the Paladin into buying her bull?
Mock26 07-30-07, 07:25 PM	A lot depends on whether or not the paladin is aware of the thefts. A lot also depends on the beliefs and tenents of your deity, and on the specifics of your paladin's code.
AvalancheRider 07-30-07, 09:23 PM	A lot depends on whether or not the paladin is aware of the thefts. A lot also depends on the beliefs and tenents of your deity, and on the specifics of your paladin's code.There are no lawful deities that condone theft "because someone was mean to you" since that's a fundamentally chaotic action.
Prator_the_Legendary 07-30-07, 09:52 PM	In the paladin's place, I would verbally reprimand her every time I caught her stealing. Repeated offenses would earn her a slap on the wrist, a sound spanking, time-outs, and finally the loss of her TV priviledges for a week. After that, it's time to seek therapy.
Mock26 07-30-07, 10:18 PM	There are no lawful deities that condone theft "because someone was mean to you" since that's a fundamentally chaotic action. There are no lawful dieties that you know of! To quote the original post: paladin of St. Mara, a goddess I made up myself, with DM approval. We don't know what is condoned and condemend by this particular deity. I was merely seeking clarification.
AvalancheRider 07-31-07, 06:40 AM	We don't know what is condoned and condemend by this particular deity. I was merely seeking clarification.If they condone theft "because someone was mean to you" then they're not a lawful deity. Such behavior is spiteful, vindictive, and against the moral laws of every religion since the dawn of time in the real world. You could justify the behavior as being chaotic neutral, neutral evil, or chaotic evil and that's it. It's the caveat "because someone was mean to you" that makes this true; knowing the motivations of the thief makes it infinitely easier to place the theft into the alignment grid.
Infernostrider 07-31-07, 06:49 AM	redeeming her is fine, but since she has had several attempts at stealing from the cleric, its time for more progressive action. Next time the rogue steals (from ANYONE) and the paladin character is aware of it/finds out later, punish him. He'll hate you for it, both character and player, but you have to do your job and uphold the laws/rules. how you punish him is up to you, but dont exact physical torment upon him unless he has done so to another partymember deliberately
AvalancheRider 07-31-07, 07:19 AM	redeeming her is fine, but since she has had several attempts at stealing from the cleric, its time for more progressive action. Next time the rogue steals (from ANYONE) and the paladin character is aware of it/finds out later, punish him. He'll hate you for it, both character and player, but you have to do your job and uphold the laws/rules. how you punish him is up to you, but dont exact physical torment upon him unless he has done so to another partymember deliberately...I was reading your signature and noticed that top line about the taverns. I had to think about it for a little bit, but then I realized that my first campaign started on the Fifth Level of the Nine Hells in a torture chamber, haha. :P
Khadmus 07-31-07, 08:07 AM	In the paladin's place, I would verbally reprimand her every time I caught her stealing. Repeated offenses would earn her a slap on the wrist, a sound spanking, time-outs, and finally the loss of her TV priviledges for a week. After that, it's time to seek therapy. Listen to Prator the Paladin. I believe that, given the other's viewpoints on the matter, you should crack down on theft a little. I, personally, however, see no fault with your actions. Your paladin lets thievery slip under his nose. Worse crimes have been condoned by paladins who retained their powers.
Max Octavious Xavier 07-31-07, 01:42 PM	...I, personally, however, see no fault with your actions. Your paladin lets thievery slip under his nose. Worse crimes have been condoned by paladins who retained their powers....She has been caught several times pickpocketing the cleric, because "she" (the cleric) is mean to her...The paladin is disappointed with the rogue, and has said as such, but he is more upset with the cleric. ... 1 or 2 acts maybe, but this is a pattern of unlawful behavior which the paladin has reacted to by saying he is "disappointed with the rogue". He has taken no other actions that the OP has told us about. Instead this happened; Yes, I think that is part of the issue as well. The rogue has tried to pickpocket the paladin as well. He caught her, they had a chat, and she hasn't tried it again. The only reason the cleric is being targeted is because she has a negative attitude towards the rogue, which is not help by the stealing. However, a good part of the time, the rogue has done these things without the paladin's awareness, so he has no real basis to judge the rogue, other then the cleric's word, whom he already is a bit at odds with. She is slightly...arrogant is the nice word for it, and pushy when it comes to extolling the virtues of her god, as well as "hinting" to the other PCs to donate when we visit her temple... I was thinking of doing that, but as the barbarian did pretty much that after the confrontation, I felt it would be redundant to do it again, though I suppose now I may have been in error not to have done something more then "look at the rogue with disappointment" and said as much in a little talk.Now, paladins are only human (or in D&D, whatever :)) and can make mistakes. Not taking the clerics word about a rogue the paladin had previously caught because he didn't like the clerics attitude would qualify. I would say this might be part of why the DM decided to give him a warning. Also, this incident happened a couple sessions ago (we play once a week, so two weeks have gone by). The DM didn't say anything that evening when we finished up, and it kinda caught me off guard when he said this to me a couple days ago. Also, in our last session, the rouge refrained from taking anything, so the paladin assumed the problem was settled, and that since the barbarian talked to the rogue, nothing more needed to be said. That's what sorta confused and caught me off-guard me. I thought the problem was over or laid aside.Unlike Spiderman, I usually think of the perfect quip, the next day. Maybe he wanted to think about it before he made a call. At least he gave you a warning 1st, giving you a chance to change and/or talk to him about it.
DaidojiTaidoru 07-31-07, 02:08 PM	Afterwards, the barbarian took the rogue aside (IC), and had a talk with her. This is the odd part. The Barbarian handled it right? Why does the Paladin need to handle it again? Now if the Barbarians attempt failed then you have to step in and help out, but it sounds like their little talk worked. (At least as far as your spot rolls are concerned.) I don't see how trusting your companions isn't Lawful. Maybe you should ask if theres some other reasons he has for thinking you're more Neutral then Lawful.
Garret Lightfoot 07-31-07, 03:11 PM	I see nothing wrong with the Paladin's actions and wish I knew more players who played Paladins this way instead of the stereotypical Paladin. You could have been a bit more proactive in this situation, but no person is perfect. This was a MINOR error of judgement, nothing worthy of loss of your Paladin mojo. I personally find that most people who play the Stereotypical Paladin are more worthy of that as they tend to overstep boundaries a lot more often and make much bigger mistakes in my experiences.
kalyb 07-31-07, 04:12 PM	What I want to know is what the rogue generally does when she steals from the cleric. Does she steal it, then give it back later as a prank? Does she immediately sell it and keep the profit? Does she offer to replace the stolen item if she does get rid of it? When you said she steals from the cleric because the cleric is mean, I assumed you meant she stole something, and when the cleric noticed, she usually gave it back. This time she refused because of the cleric's tone. Is this correct?
Mechades 07-31-07, 07:21 PM	What I want to know is what the rogue generally does when she steals from the cleric. Does she steal it, then give it back later as a prank? Does she immediately sell it and keep the profit? Does she offer to replace the stolen item if she does get rid of it? When you said she steals from the cleric because the cleric is mean, I assumed you meant she stole something, and when the cleric noticed, she usually gave it back. This time she refused because of the cleric's tone. Is this correct? Usually,the rogue is caught in the act, before she's taken something. What happened this time is she found a couple potions on a dead enemy, and tried to sleight of hand them. Failing this, the cleric saw her, and demanded she give up the potions, without an explanation, such as, "others could have more use for them" until afterwards. The rogue would have have given them over, I feel, if the cleric had made that point, seeing how the paladin was by the wall, banged up to hell from standing in a doorway to prevent about 12 undead from entering the fight. But since the cleric and rogue had the prior issues before them, and provided no reasoning, and since the rogue is a bit self-centered at this point in her character development, she refused, which lead to the incident.
loaba 07-31-07, 07:41 PM	You've got the right of it, your DM doesn't. Explaine to him what will happen if he forces you to foist your morals and opinions on the party. Also, as has been said, you're not a cop and these are your adventuring friends. It's not your place to force them to do anything. Again, congrats on having a good handle on a Paly's attitude.
Mechades 07-31-07, 07:47 PM	You've got the right of it, your DM doesn't. Explaine to him what will happen if he forces you to foist your morals and opinions on the party. Also, as has been said, you're not a cop and these are your adventuring friends. It's not your place to force them to do anything. Again, congrats on having a good handle on a Paly's attitude. Thanks :) And to answer the questions about my Goddess and her tenets, I've posted her profile on the Deities and the Planes forum. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=13259072#post13259072 here's the link
Grumman 07-31-07, 08:06 PM	Usually,the rogue is caught in the act, before she's taken something. What happened this time is she found a couple potions on a dead enemy, and tried to sleight of hand them... So you're saying that she wasn't pickpocketing from the cleric? That changes things significantly.
Mock26 07-31-07, 08:21 PM	If they condone theft "because someone was mean to you" then they're not a lawful deity. Such behavior is spiteful, vindictive, and against the moral laws of every religion since the dawn of time in the real world. You could justify the behavior as being chaotic neutral, neutral evil, or chaotic evil and that's it. It's the caveat "because someone was mean to you" that makes this true; knowing the motivations of the thief makes it infinitely easier to place the theft into the alignment grid. The term lawful is open to interpretation according to the rules. I'm just trying to verify the facts with the original poster. Also, in my opinin, the best way to answer a lot of paladin questions is to know their code of conduct and the beliefs/tenents of their deities.
AvalancheRider 07-31-07, 10:07 PM	The term lawful is open to interpretation according to the rules. I'm just trying to verify the facts with the original poster. Also, in my opinin, the best way to answer a lot of paladin questions is to know their code of conduct and the beliefs/tenents of their deities.It's not so open to interpretation that "theft from someone who is supposed to be your friend" could ever fall under lawful.
Mock26 07-31-07, 10:28 PM	It's not so open to interpretation that "theft from someone who is supposed to be your friend" could ever fall under lawful. Sure it could.
loaba 07-31-07, 10:55 PM	There is a difference between the laws of the land and the Lawful alignment in D&D. While it is true that stealing would be against the law in almost any civilized country, it doesn't mean that Lawful character in D&D wouldn't steal. The OP is trying to lead by example. The other players are playing their characters accordingly. If allowed to RP this out, it could a lot of fun for all involved. What the DM needs to do is ease up on the Paly, or risk creating an LG monster.
AvalancheRider 08-01-07, 09:02 AM	There is a difference between the laws of the land and the Lawful alignment in D&D. While it is true that stealing would be against the law in almost any civilized country, it doesn't mean that Lawful character in D&D wouldn't steal.Actually, it does. Violating another person's trust in order to get vengeance for them "being mean" is fundamentally chaotic. Do I need to list the reasons? 1. You are breaking a bond of trust. (Definitively chaotic.) 2. You are harming someone you are supposed to be allies with, making them less effective at fighting alongside you. (Definitively chaotic.) 3. You are committing an act of vengeance that far outstrips the original crime against you. (Could be either chaotic or evil behavior.) Under no circumstances would a lawful good person ever condone theft from an ally, whether they've "been mean" or not. A lawful good person could steal from an enemy or evil individual under the right lawful paradigm (perhaps an "agent of karma" paradigm, for example).
Mechades 08-01-07, 01:42 PM	While I agree with you, I must reiterate that the cleric has never trusted the rogue from the onset. She's always had something to say about the rogue that was somewhat snide, and thought the paladin wasn't there at the time, the rogue was actually forced into the party by the cleric when she was caught following them out of curiosity. The cleric even made the suggestion of branding the rogue so that we could always tell it was her(since she's a changeling and assume a different appearance at will). This is what prompted the rogue to start trying to pick the cleric's pocket. And this is the interaction that the paladin has noticed. I understand that condoning her behavior is not lawful, and my paladin doesn't. It's just I feel that even as a paladin, I would still be somewhat less harsh with the rogue, and feel that she was mostly attempting to defend herself in the only way she knew how. Again, he doesn't condone the behavior, and will reprimand her if it happens again, but in this circumstance, neither party was in the right, the cleric was simply less so.
AvalancheRider 08-01-07, 02:41 PM	While I agree with you, I must reiterate that the cleric has never trusted the rogue from the onset. She's always had something to say about the rogue that was somewhat snide, and thought the paladin wasn't there at the time, the rogue was actually forced into the party by the cleric when she was caught following them out of curiosity. The cleric even made the suggestion of branding the rogue so that we could always tell it was her(since she's a changeling and assume a different appearance at will).Well, in that case I don't see how a Paladin could justify traveling with these people. The cleric is evil (branding sentient creatures? Sounds a little like slavery to me) and the rogue is chaotic.
Mechades 08-01-07, 03:49 PM	Thats the thing though. They all are not perfect, but they're not irredeemable. If they were like this all the time, he'd have left long ago. In fact, he'd probably have reported the cleric's behavior to the Temple of Pelor. But since these are isolated to particular circumstances, he's willing to work past them in order to set his companions on the right path. He'd be negligent in his duty as a paladin if he didn't.
Garret Lightfoot 08-01-07, 03:56 PM	While I agree with you, I must reiterate that the cleric has never trusted the rogue from the onset. She's always had something to say about the rogue that was somewhat snide, and thought the paladin wasn't there at the time, the rogue was actually forced into the party by the cleric when she was caught following them out of curiosity. The cleric even made the suggestion of branding the rogue so that we could always tell it was her(since she's a changeling and assume a different appearance at will). That cleric is truly acting well outside his alignment and is well on their way to evil. When you talk to your DM about your conflicting views on a Paladin's code be sure to bring this issue up. Ask them to talk to the cleric's player. And be prepared to smite the cleric or lose your paladin mojo if the problems with the cleric don't improve. And be sure to tell the DM that if things don't improve you will have to do this and explain your reasoning throughly so that the DM knows and won't try to punish you.
AvalancheRider 08-01-07, 03:58 PM	Thats the thing though. They all are not perfect, but they're not irredeemable. If they were like this all the time, he'd have left long ago. In fact, he'd probably have reported the cleric's behavior to the Temple of Pelor. But since these are isolated to particular circumstances, he's willing to work past them in order to set his companions on the right path.Well, if I was mostly a good person, but there were a few isolated incidents where I raped someone (which branding someone is worryingly similar to), I think it would be a paladin's duty at that point to at least turn me over to the authorities. I can see how the rogue may be redeemable, though.
Man in the Funny Hat 08-01-07, 10:18 PM	1) you and your DM have differing opinions on alignment and behavior. A paladin PC is involved. Is ANYONE surprised at this? Talk to the DM NOW (since you didn't before) and have a SIGNIFICANT conversation on the subject. For that matter the entire table should be in on it as it affects them EVERY BIT AS MUCH as the paladin. Give a little and expect to get a little consideration back. It's just roleplaying - nobody is shooting for a masters degree in philosophy here. Concentrate on having fun and let the rules rot if they get in the way. 2) Paladins have a hard row to hoe. It is NOT a casual choice for roleplaying if there's going to be any real attention paid to roleplaying. It requires occasionally being a stick in the mud, a killjoy, and a cop, if not actually judge/jury/executioner. You have higher standards and accept that others can't and won't measure up. For that matter YOU might not always measure up but you should always be trying. You also want them to be like you are - but you know that they won't. Yet they must ALWAYS be encouraged to try. That's part of why you're there - to be the shining example that they can aspire to. Yet again, compassion and kindness only get any paladin so far. YOU CARRY THAT SWORD FOR A REASON - BECAUSE USING IT IS WHAT YOU DO. Theft, whatever the motivation, is NOT something to just say "tsk tsk" about and shake your finger at, especially when it is shown and known to be a chronic behavior. While your only specific stricture is against hanging around with evil people that doesn't make everything else just on the other side of that line okay. 3) The flip side of Lawful alignment is not CRIMINAL or unlawful - it's chaos. Theft among those who are supposed to be friends and compatriots is no less serious than theft from strangers - but it ISN'T supposed to be handled as a matter of reflexively turning in your friend to the constables and prosecuting. Lawful alignment behavior is NOT measured by how strictly and faithfully you administer city, county, and national legal codes. It's about a belief in a philosophy of ORDER as opposed to chaos. Laws and police and court systems are thus generally seen as proper and beneficial, but they are not even close to being the be-all/end-all of lawful alignment. 4) There is an unwritten understanding that PC's are supposed to WANT to live and work together for the long term. While inter-character tensions and even violence can be fun and interesting they are for those games where the players are up to and agree to the roleplaying challenges and consequences that entails. Otherwise, players should be going out of their way to MINIMIZE if not eliminate ALL frictions between characters. Certainly any statements like, "I'm just being faithful to my character," and, "I'm only roleplaying," are NOT excuses for ones PC being an irritant, or ones self being a genuine ass. Your group now have an in-game "roleplaying" situation where characters are drawing blood. Open, unapologetic violence and fights to the death are the next step. You go there NOT just at the peril of your own PCs, but at the peril of EVERYONE at the table having to live with the consequences in-game. The players whose characters would now have to choose up sides in the PvP showdown DID NOT BARGAIN FOR THIS. You are an ass if you force that choice on them just to pat yourself on the back for your "faithfulness" to the "true spirit" of your character. That means that the rogue PLAYER should be rapped upside the head for any further exacerbation of the situation. The cleric PLAYER should similarly be thwapped for continued use of violence upon their PC's supposed "freinds". And as a shining example paladin your PC should be kicking BOTH their asses for letting petty objections get to this point. And for placing your character into the position where the basic roleplaying expectations of your class dictate that you're not going to be able to work with EITHER of their PC's because of their actions, you get to smack both players. You have a playing group that is heading for grim times indeed unless you all sit down and get some basic understandings talked out amongst yourselves. There is blame a-plenty to go around here but that is NOT your concern anymore. Your concern is to collectively decide just where you want to allow all this to lead and either move away from it or let the chips fall.