Should the paladin tell the sheikh the truth or not? I'd love to move the game in that direction but my character is CG so that's not exactly on my agenda. I just think it is what the paladin should do. I won't try and railroad him OOC, but it's what I would do if I was playing a LG person.
Any ideas?
The paladin can also tell the literal truth, but not the whole truth. "Your son was being controlled by the cultists for their nefarious schemes." (truth; it's just not MAGICAL control) "In the ensuing battle, they killed him." (truth; if he had not been working for them, we would not have died). Also called The Jedi Truth.
"Your son was being controlled by the cultists for their nefarious schemes." (truth; it's just not MAGICAL control) "In the ensuing battle, they killed him." (truth; if he had not been working for them, we would not have died). Also called The Jedi Truth.
Or give even less detail: "Your son died in a fight with cultists. He fought bravely, but eventually was killed. There was nothing we could do."
That aside: I agree that the best thing would probably be to have someone else do the talking - the Code of Conduct says the Paladin shouldn't lie, but he doesn't necessarily have to speak at all.
Finally: Paladins lose their abilities if they commit an Evil act or become Chaotic. I don't see why a Paladin couldn't tell a lie this time, especially in the service of Good, so long as he atoned and/or ensured the Sheikh learned the truth at a later time.
If I was playing the paladin I would have to at least discuss it with the party before we went in to speak to the sheikh.
As it is, I'm playing a CG mercenary who is trying to toadie up to the sheikh, so I'll be the one trying to brush over the fact that he looked like a hedgehog after I'd emptied my quiver into him...
*Edit!*
It might not hurt to have a non pally tell the guy what happened, and then omit the details of who dealt the final blow...use the logic that it might hurt the man too much to see the killer of his son so the pally should wait outside. Then say that the man forgives the paladin and understands his actions but would still not like to see him in the future because it'll remind him of the loss of his son...which will obviously hurt him.
The paladin was down to 0 hp at one point as well, I think it was the sheikh's son who almost killed him. So self-defense would probably be a good defense.
Thanks
.Originally posted by Entropy_Judge
"Your son died in a fight with cultists. He fought bravely, but eventually was killed."
:D
Not only is this the perfect solution, I would even go further and suggest it is the correct answer from a LG viewpoint! Minimizing the pain felt by the father, giving him reason to be proud of his son is the very epitome of what being an honorable character (the paladin is case in point) is about!
FSBDavy salutes Entropy_Judge.
:D
Not only is this the perfect solution, I would even go further and suggest it is the correct answer from a LG viewpoint! Minimizing the pain felt by the father, giving him reason to be proud of his son is the very epitome of what being an honorable character (the paladin is case in point) is about!
FSBDavy salutes Entropy_Judge.
I have to say that this is still deceptive. It'd be like cheating on my wife but only telling her "I had coffee with a friend from high school." Technically true, but it leaves out the most important part.
If the Sheik found out later that his son had been part of the cult, which means that the son might have influenced other members of the royal family, the Sheik might be very angry that the party didn't mention it. I know that if my hired goons didn't tell me that my son was planning to kill me and that he'd had the chance to brainwash my still living-daughter into working against me, I'd have those goons' favorite external organs in a vice.
When you swear before a court of law, you promise to tell "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." If I were playing a LG character, I would insist that the Sheik be told the absolute truth, with my judgment of the situation and any detail I could conjure as important. If the rest of the party wasn't ok with that, I'd do it anyway and offer to go alone so they could avoid any consequences of the Sheik's wrath.
It takes a lot of guts to play a LG character. The righteousness of your actions won't always be determined by the outcome, but by the action itself. Jedi Truth is helpful but much less righteous than it appears in a world of doppelgangers, illusions and suggestion.
I know that if my hired goons didn't tell me that my son was planning to kill me and that he'd had the chance to brainwash my still living-daughter into working against me, I'd have those goons' favorite external organs in a vice.
I may be reading too much into the OP, but he does say "our sheikh," which - to me - means that he's their clan head, rather than their employer.
It takes a lot of guts to play a LG character. The righteousness of your actions won't always be determined by the outcome, but by the action itself.
No. That's the sort of thinking that makes Paladins so damn-near impossible to play. Remember that ordinary LG people aren't bound never to lie, cheat, etc. Playing LG, in the natural course of things, will not seriously differ from NG or CG in most cases. In most cases, your stereotypical 'good cop' will be LG (or LN); as gets repeated so very, very often whenever alignment comes up: it is not a straitjacket. Moreover, outside of Paladins (and preferably Clergy), you need not be an exemplar of your chosen alignment. Harrison Ford's character in Force 10 from Navarone, for example, is probably CG (may be LG), but he's still a freakin' nasty jerk to nearly everyone in the movie.
Let the paladin do the talking and he tells the truth. The shiek's son was gung-ho part of the cult the party was sent to fight. The son attacked the party along with the other cultists. The party defeated the cult, and in the process the shiek's son was killed.
The shiek will obviously become saddened upon hearing this news. The shiek will need time to grieve.
Playing a paladin is just not that hard. The moment there is a conundrum on whether to lie, the answer is obvious - don't lie! The problem here is not the paladin but the OP's chaotic character who is a coward against the truth. He's the one who needs to keep quiet and get over it.
That the son died fighting with determination and with valour in the face of danger and death. Of course, you tell him that you guys murdered him, but mentioning what you observed to be the redeeming qualities of his son would be the most Lawful Good thing to do too.
These things are why I never played a Paladin in 3.5.
And there is a reason there has never been a conclusion to this argument: People have different beliefs in morality and will never agree about anything.
If you believe that telling a lie is bad, then don't lie. If you think it is a gray area, then feel free to lie if you think it could do good. I don't think it has to be any harder than that.
This is not really even a question about game mechanics. It's a philosophy question. I only have confidence that you will not find a "correct" answer from us.
If you sent the cops to find your runaway son and they had to kill him, for whatever reason, you would expect the truth.
I'd love to move the game in that direction but my character is CG so that' not exactly on my agenda.
This I find odd, almost as if you feel the CG alignment restricts your choices, and you cannot enact something that you want to - the character might not perform a good act because that would mean (shock, horror) doing something honourable or telling the truth?
Everyone has their own reading of alignments of course. My reading of CG (compressed) is "do what feels like the good thing to do, and ignore any person, rule or dogma that tells you otherwise". So if I were a CG caharacter in a similar quandary, I'd tell the sheik, maybe not directly, and maybe without reference to how these things should be done in polite society - but I'd tell him none the less.
I'm also not sure why you post on a forum with suggestions of what another player should do with their character on the basis of their alignment. Has the Paladin's player asked you for advice? If not, let them play their own character, and you play yours.
Heck, that might even be a major plot hook right there that will fall away if you don't tell him.
This I find odd, almost as if you feel the CG alignment restricts your choices, and you cannot enact something that you want to - the character might not perform a good act because that would mean (shock, horror) doing something honourable or telling the truth?
I'm probably LG personally playing CG, so yes, it would be a restriction, and I'm having difficulty keeping my mouth shut OOC as to how a paladin should act. I guess I should let someone else play their character but wondered about throwing it open to the floor. If I was in this situation I would collect proof that the sheikh's son was a cultist and present it to the sheikh alongside the body. But that proof was not forthcoming and I wondered about playing CG - whether it would allow me to tell lies to get us out of this situation when we all know we killed him in self-defense - but the sheikh might not see it that way.
Everyone has their own reading of alignments of course. My reading of CG (compressed) is "do what feels like the good thing to do, and ignore any person, rule or dogma that tells you otherwise". So if I were a CG caharacter in a similar quandary, I'd tell the sheik, maybe not directly, and maybe without reference to how these things should be done in polite society - but I'd tell him none the less.
Feel like doing this personally then. In my ideas good characters would fess up. CG characters might be allowed to obfuscate or conceal difficult details, and I looked for proof that he was a cultist but couldn't find anything; I don't want to upset the sheikh by saying I killed your son but I don't want to lie like the rest of the party want to.
I'm also not sure why you post on a forum with suggestions of what another player should do with their character on the basis of their alignment. Has the Paladin's player asked you for advice? If not, let them play their own character, and you play yours.
Good point. We were discussing what to do when we had to stop. The paladin wanted to clean out the cult HQ before returning to the sheikh so that took us to the end of the session before we came up into the open from the underground temple.
I don't know why but I wanted to discuss it. I'm torn between what I think as a person (tell the truth) and what my character might do. The general feeling was that we needed to give the body back to the sheikh but sweep why he was dead under the carpet. The party is scared I think of the sheikh. My character tried to look for proof that the man was a cultist to make sure his father believed that we hadn't just killed him in cold blood but in self defence.
As for cowardice, yes, I guess so. My character is loosely based on Arnold Rimmer from Red Dwarf, but a bit nicer: he's a well-connected mercenary, hence his loyalty to the sheikh, high charisma (sorcerer/fighter, 3.5e), but he's a bit lacking in the wisdom/empathy department. As a mercenary he is loyal to anyone hiring him and I want to try and wean him out of that over the course of the adventures.
The sheikh has hired us btw. But as the local ruler and a generally benevolent character - as he appears to us anyway - we respect him and my character would be anxious to please his employer.
Sorry for posting it. Though I wouldn't tell the other player how to play his character, perhaps I was wondering just what I should do.
As for cowardice, yes, I guess so. My character is loosely based on Arnold Rimmer from Red Dwarf.
Cool
Actually I guess a Rimmer-like character might simply push the Paladin forward at some inopportune time! Make it happen IC, not OOC . . .
I'm sure that character could think of one or two other ways to get the information to the sheik as well, if the group sticks with the same plan and you do really feel strongly about it. Take care not to get into too much trouble over it though!
I suppose so.Rimmer in the end-scene of "Holoship" (Season V episode 1) did the right thing as regards Nirvanah Crane, so there is always hope for him ;).
I think we will discuss it in character next week anyway. So thanks
.1) The Sheikh (sp?) could either be greatful that the players have told the truth. Knowing full well what it might mean.
2) Or, if told the truth, he may take it exceptionally hard and not want to know the real "truth" as he sees his son with jaded eyes. In this light, the players would at least be imprisoned, quite possibly sent to the executioner.
3) If the truth is concealed to save face. The Sheikh would likely thank the PC's for their efforts and business would continue on as usual.
Enter plot twist. Sometime later the Sheikh uncovers the real truth, whether by a guilty paladins hands or by some other means. This has earned the ire of the Sheikh now.
-------
Those are just some possibilities.
-------
As an interesting side note, I came across my second edition "Complete Paladins Guidebook" and it has some very pertinent things to say regarding these type of situations.
A paladin always tells the truth as he knows it. He may decline to speak or choose to withhold information, but he will never intentionally mislead anyone, even his enemies. He may ask permission not to answer a direct question, but if pressed, he'll tell the truth (however, he may frame his answers in such a way as to withhold vital information). Though a paladin doesn't make promises lightly, once he gives his word, he always keeps it.
Examples:
• Sir Geffen has been captured by an evil army. The commander demands to know the whereabouts of the paladin's companions. Sir Geffen says nothing.
"My spies inform me that your colleagues plan to arrive at King Relhane's castle by dawn tomorrow,'' says the commander. "Is this true?''
The commander's information is accurate, but Geffen remains silent.
"If you say nothing, I will conclude that I'm correct.''
"You may conclude whatever you wish,'' says Geffen.
• Prevost, a young companion of Sir Geffen, asks about his performance on the battlefield yesterday. Sir Geffen believes that Prevost fought ineptly. "With your permission,'' says Geffen, "I prefer not to answer.''
"Please,'' insists Prevost. "I want to know.''
Geffen looks him in the eyes. "Very well. You allowed an opponent to escape. You dropped your sword at a crucial moment. Your performance was poor.''
Prevost glowers at Geffen, then angrily stomps away.
• Prevost, a young companion of Sir Geffen, asks about his performance on the battlefield yesterday. Sir Geffen believes that Prevost fought ineptly. "With your permission,'' says Geffen, "I prefer not to answer.''
"Please,'' insists Prevost. "I want to know.''
Geffen looks him in the eyes. "Very well. You allowed an opponent to escape. You dropped your sword at a crucial moment. Your performance was poor.''
Prevost glowers at Geffen, then angrily stomps away.
I feel examples like this one are kind of not quite right. They imply that a paladin will tell the truth in a harsh, noneducational manner. They contribute to the stereotype of the paladin as a ja***ss who is called good without actually showing pity or empathy.
I feel examples like this one are kind of not quite right. They imply that a paladin will tell the truth in a harsh, noneducational manner. They contribute to the stereotype of the paladin as a ja***ss who is called good without actually showing pity or empathy.
But, how is that any different from well, anybody that tells the truth. You are always going to have people that will sugar coat it, and others who will be brutally honest.
Since Paladins tend to treat honesty with high regard. I don't think, in general, that they will beat around the bush just to make you feel better. In other words...
Don't ask the question if you don't want the answer.
I feel examples like this one are kind of not quite right. They imply that a paladin will tell the truth in a harsh, noneducational manner. They contribute to the stereotype of the paladin as a ja***ss who is called good without actually showing pity or empathy.
It could also been seen as the correct type of "tough love" to make someone truly try harder (just as important as learning), especially in the context of knightly tales. It's a re-enactor's quote - as opposed to medieval with modern phrasing which is how most of us play.
Personally, I don't go for affectations like this, partly because I cannot talk like a 12th-century Englishman, but also because everyone has to be on the same page and making the same cultural translations. It's hard work. We just assume the translations happen in-character if it's at all important.
There are no shades of grey here. How the sheikh reacts is now in his hands. The paladin has an obligation to tell the truth. The only thing he can do about it is to try to make it more palatable.
Integrity.
(The above is a slightly modified version of a war story my father told us about a Banzai charge and the peasant soldier who refused to die. The kid was swiss cheese by the time he went down for the final time. They buried him with his commander's sword and wrote something similar about his courage and dedication on a makeshift headstone. The message requested a funeral worthy of Japan's finest warriors for him.)
Our party contains a paladin.
A-yeah, there went my other hand. Now both of my hands are at my face in a dreaded double facepalm.
We found out our sheikh's son is working for evil cultists and we killed him while fighting them (he attacked us). We now have to return his body to the sheikh. We are obviously considering lying to the sheikh about the death of his son and how it happened.
Should the paladin tell the sheikh the truth or not? I'd love to move the game in that direction but my character is CG so that's not exactly on my agenda. I just think it is what the paladin should do. I won't try and railroad him OOC, but it's what I would do if I was playing a LG person.
Any ideas?
I would see the paladin as having an obligation to the truth over someones feelings, especially to his lord. He would show sympathy to the sheikh, but would not lie. I always saw lawful good as uncompromising morality, even when the cost is painful.
Of course that is just my view of the lawful good alignment, and I would not rule lying about it to be cause for an alignment shift or any other such consequences, especially if the rest of the party wanted to do it.
I may be reading too much into the OP, but he does say "our sheikh," which - to me - means that he's their clan head, rather than their employer.
I don't see your point as it relates to the question at hand.
No. That's the sort of thinking that makes Paladins so damn-near impossible to play. Remember that ordinary LG people aren't bound never to lie, cheat, etc. Playing LG, in the natural course of things, will not seriously differ from NG or CG in most cases.
If any one alignment is indistinguishable from any other, then you have a toothless rule that you can safely ignore. This standard applies to any rule that simply does not matter enough to make a difference.
In most cases, your stereotypical 'good cop' will be LG (or LN); as gets repeated so very, very often whenever alignment comes up: it is not a straitjacket.
This is a fallacious strawman argument and assumes that I am making a claim that I am not.
I do not propose that every character will do absolutely everything completely in line with their alignment at all times and cannot deviate. This is untenable.
I am making the completely reasonable assumption that when the OP is asking a question about alignment, they want an answer that predicts actions based on alignment. I have done so. My claim was "The LG action to take, in this situation, would be to do XYZ." My claim was not "Every single LG character must do XYZ or they're not really LG."
Suggesting that someone deviates from alignement in a particular situation is reasonable when someone is asking advice that doesn't hinge on alignment. I feel that in this case, alignment is what the OP is concerned about.
Moreover, outside of Paladins (and preferably Clergy), you need not be an exemplar of your chosen alignment. Harrison Ford's character in Force 10 from Navarone, for example, is probably CG (may be LG), but he's still a freakin' nasty jerk to nearly everyone in the movie.
Being a nasty or nice person has nothing to do with alignment. Evil characters can be polite and charming, good characters can be jerks and vice versa.
I feel examples like this one are kind of not quite right. They imply that a paladin will tell the truth in a harsh, noneducational manner. They contribute to the stereotype of the paladin as a ja***ss who is called good without actually showing pity or empathy.
I find this kind of feedback highly educational and I hold those who give it in the highest respect. I cannot trust "nice" people who won't tell me when I've done badly. Dishonestly for the sake of nicety is dishonesty for fear of social rejection, which does no good at all for the person asking for feedback
An overly sensitive pupil does not imply an undersensitive teacher. The fault in this situation lies squarely on the dummy who demanded but couldn't handle the whole answer.
"You can't handle the truth!"
I don't see your point as it relates to the question at hand.
Primarily, that they would not be 'hired goons,' but rather trusted members of the clan.
If any one alignment is indistinguishable from any other, then you have a toothless rule that you can safely ignore. This standard applies to any rule that simply does not matter enough to make a difference.
Here I'll admit that I should have clarified my position. The response was specifically against the claim that LG is somehow much more difficult to play than any other alignment - were that true, it would actually hold true for *all* the Lawful alignments. The three Goods are all Good - however (my interpretation of the alignments), the Lawful believes that the group/whole is more important than any one person, the Chaotic believes in the freedom of the individual, and the Neutral doesn't particularly care - whichever promotes the greatest Good. For example, if the OP did not contain a Paladin (who have a stricture against lying), a LG person might withhold the information that the Sheikh's son was a member of the cult in order to gain more support and to protect the society as a whole; conversely, a CG person might tell the truth about the son's affiliation for reasons of personal honor (not being beholden to someone for lying) or so the Sheikh isn't being 'forced' into an action.
This is a fallacious strawman argument and assumes that I am making a claim that I am not.
It wasn't intended to be - although I'll admit I'm no longer sure *what* I'd intended by it.
I do not propose that every character will do absolutely everything completely in line with their alignment at all times and cannot deviate. This is untenable.
I am making the completely reasonable assumption that when the OP is asking a question about alignment, they want an answer that predicts actions based on alignment. I have done so. My claim was "The LG action to take, in this situation, would be to do XYZ." My claim was not "Every single LG character must do XYZ or they're not really LG."
Fair enough, although that people are debating over whether or not (or how!)
to tell the Sheikh ought to prove that even when we know the circumstances, it's rather hard to do so.
Being a nasty or nice person has nothing to do with alignment. Evil characters can be polite and charming, good characters can be jerks and vice versa.
... I think that was the point I was trying to make, in conjunction with something else I'd said. Honestly don't remember at this point. Probably made sense to me when I wrote it, but it's drawing a blank right now.
I find this kind of feedback highly educational and I hold those who give it in the highest respect. I cannot trust "nice" people who won't tell me when I've done badly. Dishonestly for the sake of nicety is dishonesty for fear of social rejection, which does no good at all for the person asking for feedback
An overly sensitive pupil does not imply an undersensitive teacher. The fault in this situation lies squarely on the dummy who demanded but couldn't handle the whole answer.
Doppelganger's problem seems to lie more in the delivery than in the fact that it was delivered. I too would prefer someone be blunt, but the paladin in the example really did seem to be rude for the sake of being rude.
There is a fine line between being blunt and being rude, and it may grower thicker or thinner depending on the thickness of the person's skin that is being spoken to.
Yes
If someone in my technical team makes a mistake, our boss will say bluntly "You suck!" . . . but he treats himself the same way, and does it with a sense of dry humour. This is a modern version of the same thing.
If instead he said "You wrote poor code, and did not think about it properly, you need to improve." it would have the same meaning, but the lack of humour, and the out-of-character phrasing would make it rude(r).
Phrasing, expectations and culture are big components here. Which is why I don't buy into the method actor approach (i.e. "I'm going to act and speak how I think a True Knight would have done.") unless the group has enough guidance (e.g. it was fun for 7th Sea and Legend of the 5 Rings, and we didn't take it too seriously).
Doppelganger's problem seems to lie more in the delivery than in the fact that it was delivered. I too would prefer someone be blunt, but the paladin in the example really did seem to be rude for the sake of being rude.
People by and large will read more into what a person says than what was meant. Sometimes they don't understand their inflections or body language. Perhaps they haven't spent enough time around them to know that they don't have a sense of humor.
Personally, I don't read the example of the Paladin and the companion as anything but blunt truth. And where as it might have bruised the companions ego a bit, he will probably go back to the paladin and ask how to improve.
What he said was blunt and straight to the point.
Geffen looks him in the eyes. "Very well. You allowed an opponent to escape. You dropped your sword at a crucial moment. Your performance was poor.''
It certainly could be constured as rude, and there could be better ways to put it. But the flip side of that is it could have been much worse, not taken any consideration as to how it made another feel.
Example
Geffen looks him in the eyes. "Very well. You were a complete moron, and allowed an opponent to escape. I've seen monkeys handle weapons bettter than that, You dropped your sword at a crucial moment. Your performance was worse than a bard with a broken guitar and a head cold.''
That, in my opinion is rude and uncalled for.
Example
Geffen looks him in the eyes. "Very well. You were a complete moron, and allowed an opponent to escape. I've seen monkeys handle weapons bettter than that, You dropped your sword at a crucial moment. Your performance was worse than a bard with a broken guitar and a head cold.''
That, in my opinion is rude and uncalled for.
To continue my angle on this, this second example has dropped any pretense of phrasing in some "authentic" style, so has to be interpretted by any reader in a modern context.
Example: Anyone seen the "Armstrong and Miller" sketch show with the street-talking RAF pilots? One of the reasons it is funny is the complete mismatch in speech style.
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwNQf08Kxsw
To continue my angle on this, this second example has dropped any pretense of phrasing in some "authentic" style, so has to be interpretted by any reader in a modern context.
Example: Anyone seen the "Armstrong and Miller" sketch show with the street-talking RAF pilots? One of the reasons it is funny is the complete mismatch in speech style.
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwNQf08Kxsw
Pretty funny link.
I'm not entirely convinced that the first example was some sort of "authentic" attempt either. It might have been more grammatically correct (I'm certainly not an english major so, I'm uncertain if it is or not). And not as succintly said, but it doesn't suggest a "period" type of speaking.
Pretty funny link.
I'm not entirely convinced that the first example was some sort of "authentic" attempt either. It might have been more grammatically correct (I'm certainly not an english major so, I'm uncertain if it is or not). And not as succintly said, but it doesn't suggest a "period" type of speaking.
Yes, you are probably right.
However, the way a lot of people talk "in character" makes me think of this (and smile). Including me - I'm no method actor. Acting is hard, improv acting even more so, and attempts to pull it off during RP don't necessarily improve the game for me.
As an interesting side note, I came across my second edition "Complete Paladins Guidebook" and it has some very pertinent things to say regarding these type of situations.
A paladin always tells the truth as he knows it. He may decline to speak or choose to withhold information, but he will never intentionally mislead anyone, even his enemies. He may ask permission not to answer a direct question, but if pressed, he'll tell the truth (however, he may frame his answers in such a way as to withhold vital information). Though a paladin doesn't make promises lightly, once he gives his word, he always keeps it.
This makes me feel somewhat better, so thanks.
Being a nasty or nice person has nothing to do with alignment. Evil characters can be polite and charming, good characters can be jerks and vice versa.
We were discussing this the other day OOC at a mutual friend's BBQ (the players relaxing together). We decided that an evil character could act good but eventually his thoughts would show through in his actions and give him away. Regardless, history and fantasy is littered with charismatic, superficially good people who either go rogue or are rogue. The CoC as regards politics forbids me from mentioning someone who I believe is a case in point and whose recent rather erratic behaviour is to me proof of his less-than-benign intentions and mental state.
As for being blunt or not, I participate on eBay's forums, and every day we get people who are breaking the law when selling. I am usually one of the bluntest posters there and my LG bluntness occasionally gets me called rude, but I'm taking the stance that if someone there is breaking the law then I cannot stand by and let them do it. Someone CG for me would be the reverse, more lenient on the actual rules/laws being broken so long as the person was acting in the best of sentiments otherwise.
I think my mercenary's alignment might have to be revisited as I am thinking a mercenary is more likely to be somewhat more lawful than chaotic; he is however a sorcerer which limits his alignment IIRC. He may tend more towards NG if I can't be straight out lawful.
Thanks all, you've been really great.
EDIT - classic videos ;).
We decided that an evil character could act good but eventually his thoughts would show through in his actions and give him away
That's something else, actually. Dracula, for example, is extremely polite, charming, whathaveyou. He never, however, acts "good." Likewise, Harrison Ford's character I brought up earlier never acts "nice," but is always "good."
That's something else, actually. Dracula, for example, is extremely polite, charming, whathaveyou. He never, however, acts "good." Likewise, Harrison Ford's character I brought up earlier never acts "nice," but is always "good."
Your sins will always find you out ;).
Oh yes, totally stole it.Now, that doesn't mean you can't pick you setting. Ask the sheik for some privacy, so only you, the party, and he are talking. Let him hear the news and then inform him that if the cultists could get to his son, someone else just as close could be a problem too. Allow him to grieve, in private, but also respect the sheik's love of his son enough to let the sheik decide how to tell his people and subordinates about his son. You only duty is to tell the sheik, not everyone, especially not in an open forum. It is a family matter thus the father should be the first to know, and know everything. If the DM decides that you should be punished for telling him by making the sheik angry or spiteful... well. That is the cost of doing what is right, even when it is not easy.
Our party contains a paladin. We found out our sheikh's son is working for evil cultists and we killed him while fighting them (he attacked us). We now have to return his body to the sheikh. We are obviously considering lying to the sheikh about the death of his son and how it happened.
Should the paladin tell the sheikh the truth or not? I'd love to move the game in that direction but my character is CG so that's not exactly on my agenda. I just think it is what the paladin should do. I won't try and railroad him OOC, but it's what I would do if I was playing a LG person.
Any ideas?
Most paladins have a high charisma, and a good wisdom. This paladin is also Lawful and Good. If I were roleplaying him, I might say something like:
"My liege, your son has fallen in battle. I would prefer not to dwell on this unfortunate turn of events."
If pressed, I might say:
"My lord, I honorably suggest that your memories of your beloved son are more important than the details of his death."
However, if pressed (or ordered), to me, any lawful good person would normally tell the complete truth about such an incident. As a paladin, you should be able to present such information compassionately (if desired), since you are probably charismatic, but I think a paladin would be honest. In addition, most paladins are wise, so they might be able (perhaps with an Insight check) to figure out the most compassionate way of telling the sheik. Perhaps the sheik would be terribly embarrassed and distraught about sullying the memory of his son, so he might prefer such information to be shared in confidence.
On the other hand, as the son WAS a cultist, there is also something to be said for warning the sheik, or even admonishing him if you feel that his indulgent parenting or personal immorality led to his son being seduced by a cult.
Also, given that in most game worlds, powerful rulers like Sheiks often have access to Raise Dead rituals, it might be VERY IMPORTANT to let him know his son was a cultist before he raises him from the dead and gets a dagger in the back for his trouble.
Off the top of my head, some Good and Unaligned gods which could have paladins that might be able to lie: Garl Glittergold, Avandra, Corellon, Melora, The Traveler.
My gut feeling is that Kord would want honesty. I'm unsure about the Raven Queen.