Party attacked by cultists while exploring ruins

Smite the bastard. He's CN so it was only a matter of time anyway.

Yeah, 100% this.

Alignments aren't even the issue here, the paladin's code is. Thief just committed a heinous act and the paladin is honor, duty, and morally bound to introduce him to the Law Arm of the Law (His mace.....and possibly dick, but not applicable here).

The gods might be disappointed with the pally for not seeing that coming or not stopping it if there was clearly warning, but he probably shouldn't be in trouble. He'd probably feel pretty guilty about it, though, at least until the thief has no remaining unbroken fingers.

Also, unless the thief's player did that for a really good reason and you're ok with it, smack him upside the head for being a douche.

This to a degree. If you make an oath to a god, be damn sure of the wording.

Paladin is dishonoured, he needs to avenge himself on the thief and make penitence for his own failure/stupidity.

The god would demand he bring the rogue to justice. I might also ban that rogue player from chaotic alingments, but that's pretty situational.

The Paladin promised he wouldn't get hurt and obvious that oath was broken. Why would the thief punished? The cultist attack THEM and performing self-defense.

Theif attacked a defencless target under the protection of the palli. Palli should render the customary punishment of the land for murder.

>self defense
>on a surrendered man
>who has just given you needed information
>after the battle

Reading is hard and this user is dumb.

Is english a second or third language for you?

>Lelrandumb character does something dumb that fucks with another player, perfectly knowing he's going to end up in a situation where either in-party fighting ensues or the other PC takes it like a bitch.
>Of course he's CN.
>Of course this is D&D.
>Of course alignments are involved.

Even when I am forced to play D&D or one of its clones I immediately single out everyone that writes "CHAOTIC NEUTRAL" on their sheet and get ready to fuck them.

It's inevitable, it will happen, they will do something so dumb that will fuck the party, possibly the entire campaign. You had to expect this, you had to be prepared, you had to pre-emptively chain the CN fucktard to a fucking wall and leave him there until you fulfilled your oath. It's your fault for having allowed this to happen.

Fuck everyone that plays CN characters, they're worse that those that play CE, at least the latter you can see from a mile away, but those CN imbeciles always somehow manage to fool some gullible idiot into trusting them.

The thief had no reason to believe the cultist information or that he wouldn't betray the party down the line. For all we know the thief could had been looking out for the group.

At least CE can be fun in evil or morally ambiguous campaigns, CN is just the "I make no commitment whatsoever to anything" alignment

In MY setting, god speaks directly into the paladin's mind at the moment the thief draws his blade, and tells him the shitstain must have his head cloven. It matters not to god whether it is before, during or after the deed, or even that either of them is successful, for intent is paramount in god's eyes. When all is done, concerning the rogue, the cultist must also be slain, though mercifully through drowning. The cultist is then taken into god's arms to be done with what will.

Before any of this dumb shit, of course, I would have explained to the players how gods and alignment and stuff works, and made sure they knew what they were getting into.

>Also, unless the thief's player did that for a really good reason and you're ok with it, smack him upside the head for being a douche.

This. If someone's has good reason to not want to let the Cultist live and they play the kill well then don't sic the party on each other.

The paladin can only make oaths for himself, not others.

Unless the Theif could come up with a good reason (Hidden blade he was going for, ect. Or a pass on deceive to lie that he was) I would have made the paladin roll a willpower test to not attack the thief with lethal intent.
A failure results in the PC being under the GM control until the end of combat (One of them dead/incapacitated.)
A Pass results in the Paladin ignoring the need to dish out punishment, however the paladin now has HUGE penalties to all Willpower and Combat tests until he preforms a redeeming deed. (Whilst attempting such Redeeming/Heroic deeds penalties would be not as great)

He'll probably just get a slap on the wrist. It's no biggie, he can't control what other people do.

He should have sworn:

> "I swear that *I* will do you no harm if you surrender."

Still defenseless, still murder.

This. This is pretty much the end result.

>paladins
>sneaky half oaths.

Sure is fuckin' degenerate up in here.

And he also killed an unarmed, surrendered man in cold blood.

I know you are playing devil's advocate, but no matter what, the thief was wrong to trod on the paladin's toes, and will now get the belt for it.

That's what Sense Motive is for. The cultist has little reason to lie if he's getting a deal, and even if the Rogue was suspicious it would be better to wait until you can get him alone to intimidate and interrogate him, or at least make it seem like an accident.

There's plenty of ways the Rogue could do that without just stabbing him in the head.

Of a man who could had possibly end all life.

Does the thief not deserve a chance to defend himself in a trial? It is not as if he harm another party member. This is a group effect not "The Paladin and his lackeys".

Just like the trial he gave the cultist?

Paladins are lawful good, not boy scouts. If they witnessed the crime, they can generally punish the crime.

This Paladins can detect evil and have to be Lawful good. They can function as Judge, Jury, and Executioner, because if they screw up or absue it they won't be a Paladin anymore.

If the Thief killed the Cultist because he couldn't be trusted, the same applies to the Thief.

Thief should be punished, though Paladin is not actually in trouble with his god for simply trying and failing to uphold a promise.

This. The Paladin doesn't need to harm the Thief right now. He doesn't even need to complain about the Thief's actions right now. The party's top priority is thwarting the evil before them, to protect the innocents these cultists would endanger.

After the dungeon has been cleared, the Paladin should show up in the Thief's room in the middle of the night, drag him out of bed to wake him up, then put him in a headlock and quietly ask him how he enjoys being powerless, with his life in the Paladin's hands. He should ask the Thief if he deserves mercy when he denied it to the cultist. He should ask the Thief if he considers himself any better than the villains they are fighting to defeat. The Paladin should give the Thief enough breathing room to answer.

Even if the Thief goes as far to say he loves killing, that he does whatever he wants and can't be controlled, or that he'll kill the Paladin for doing this, the Paladin shouldn't kill the Thief. At worst, he should knock him out and hand him over to the town guard - and he should only do that if the Paladin is completely sure that the Thief would jeopardize their mission. If the Paladin thinks the Thief will change his ways, or at least play along well enough for them to finish the quest, he should let him go and simply say that he will be watching the Thief's actions.

Sometimes you have to work with sketchy adventurers for the greater good. Saving innocents is more important than saving repentant villains. However, a Paladin should not (and cannot be expected to) work with people who would do more harm then good. If the Thief can't be trusted, is legitimately evil, or is dangerously unpredictable, the Paladin should not be expected to work alongside him.

Yes, he is obligated to punish the thief.

I'd mostly agree, but after the adventure's over, I'd wake the thief with a bucket of water in small hours of the day and drag his ass to the center of a ring. Have another of the party watching with a bow or a spell ready.

Read the thief the list of his crimes. Many can be forgiven. Theft, lies and such are crimes that a man can redeem through just and righteous actions and saving the land certainly counts. Murder of a prisoner, whom the paladin had given his word to protect however? That must be met with justice.

If the thief is indeed repentant, then the paladin will have to see to it that he does indeed repent and redeem himself, either under the paladin's watch, or those who can be trusted in his stead. If he is unrepentant however, then paladin and the thief will fight. A small shield and hand weapon each and no armour. The gods will see justice done. A life must be answered with a life, or its worth.

A paladin is an arbiter of what is good and right and just. The guards do not need to be involved, because the paladin is a moral authority with the right and ability to judge and dispense justice and mercy alike. He is not an executioner, but he is a being who can and should see to it that justice is done. In battle, the murderer's duplicitous ways are nothing before a paladin's righteous strength and purpose and blow by blow, justice will be delivered and the sinner's shield and armour of lies, trickery, deceit and betrayal laid low.

Paladins shouldn't make oaths they can't guarantee.

That's pretty much oath #1.

The oath isn't
>I will keep you from all harm.
It's
>I will do all I can to keep you from harm, so long as you are honoring your parole.

>That's pretty much oath #1.
Oath rule #1, rather.

For someone who is LG it is the intent of the oath that matters, not the exact wording. That would be LN, LE if they actively abused the wording.

Oh and make sure the thief KNOWS a reckoning is coming. It needn't come soon after said warning, but make sure that he is clearly told, "You will answer for your crimes." Then he is afforded every possible chance to change his ways and none can say he was not given the chance for just leniency or mercy, but only that he scorned both.

It's one thing if your oath is designed to be a paper tiger if it becomes inconvenient, it's quite another to make sure you aren't writing checks your ass can't cash.

Paladins (at least in the versions I've played) were wisdom based spell casters. They should know better.

Something similar happened in my game. It was a town guard who was mildly crooked (simply asking for a pittance "tax" to enter the town) who the players wantonly slaughtered, except for one player who denied their chaotic stupid. He's the only player now who isn't a known murderer across the island, and not expected to pay 2000 gold before leaving the island.

LG Pally then raises his righteous mace high above the gm's head and smites him for allowing a CN thief where the PC is obviously being a sack of shit and intended on it from the beginning.

You have to trust someone before they can betray you, sounds like op's party got what they wanted and intended to split from the cultist

IMO he wouldn't fall, and isn't required to do penance ... but he would perform penance anyway, that's what makes him a paladin.

I also don't necessarily think the paladin would punish the thief. Some might, but it was essentially the paladin that made a mistake so others might not (and the latter sort is much more conducive to an enjoyable game for all concerned).

That said, if the paladin continued to knowingly use this trick in the future then some gods might certainly take a dim view of it.

The paladin wouldn't fall; he did nothing wrong. Your thief is a shit roleplayer and confirmed That Guy, though. He's probably about to get his shit stomped by the paladin.

Has anyone done this? I can't see this ending well for the party.

PvP time.

>thief takes a step if not outright beomes chaotic evil
>paladin commences smiting/takes the rogue prisoner

>it's the Paladin's fault that some asshole decided to take a... I mean: to be a dick and kill the surrendering enemy

Wew lad

Yes, anons, yes, we've demonstrated several times over that you are smarter than the paladin's player. Happy?

Perhaps the rogue has a legitimate reason to not spare the cultist. Maybe a party member died to this cult, maybe this cult has been manipulating peoples lives for centuries, mayhaps his entire family has been enslaved by said cult.

Sure, the paladin can be pissed, but maybe the rogue has a legitimate reason to want to kill all whitey.

>letting a goody two shoes paladin do the interrogating
>dragging a cultist, a person who belongs to a cult, with you, and trusting he won't betray you once he get's the slightest opportunity
>making retarded oaths

As someone who only comes to Veeky Forums to shitpost - who would win if the paladin turned on rogue and the two had to clash? Not who "should" win, but who would probably win.

The Paladin is at least obligated to say "What the fuck, bro?"

if the rogue doesn't have surprise, probably the Paladin.

this. I think the two may fight about it but put it aside to finish the mission.

His penitence would be not allowing the rogue to participate in interrogation ever again.

The paladin made an oath on his honer to protect him. The thief breaks this oath before the paladin has time to react.

What happens is purely dependent on the paladin's god, as ultimately, the paladin failed to protect the cultist. However, this oath is only tied to the paladin's honor, rather than any actual oath out there from any god. So the only case in which the paladin would fall would be one where his god REQUIRES him to have impeccable honor at all times, in which case, a duel to the death, or even simple vengeance might be required on the Paladin's part in killing the thief to repent for this.

In all other aspects, however, while the paladin's honor is sullies, and he may or may not be inclined to redeem that honor with a little mono 'e mono, I see nothing fall-worthy about the Paladin's oath. It was broken by someone close to him betraying him on his words with no input on the Paladin's part. It was essentially beyond the Paladin's powers of foresight to expect someone being lolsorandumbXD and killing off what was originally already on the chopping block.

Up to you, DM.

I once experienced a similar situation
>party consists of human paladin, dwarf fighter, elf monk and elf mage me
>on a quest to stop the mad goddess from fucking up the world
>to enable us to interact with her, I conduct a ritual that binds her to a girl
>ritual succeeds
>dwarf goes "This ends now", while paladin want's to heal her
>paladin's god whispers to him that he must stop the dwarf, because the god won't let a mortal kill another god
>monk, in true neutral fashion, withdraws, as either outcome will stop the world from falling apart
>I side with the dwarf, because killing the goddess for a fragment of her god powers was my plan all along

>Thief is going to get raped
hopefully metaphorically otherwise paladin falls anyways

Paladin in outright combat, Rogue with prep time.

>mercifully through drowning

Whether or not the paladin falls depends on how the paladin reacts to this IMO. If the paladin doesn't display at least some anger/guilt/what the fuck man-ness about this, then yeah, he's not a pally anymore. I feel like there should be some form of ultimatum coming up where he punishes the rogue in some form (forces the rogue to do some form of atonement/throws his ass in jail or out of the group/kills him in honorable fight to the death).

The paladin should not be ok at all with this situation. To all you fuckers who said "the paladin should've said *I* won't hurt you" would've become anti-paladins immediately in my game. Doing shit like that is the stereotypical villain meme. Say you'll protect some guy for whatever reason, then have you're lackey kill him. "I never said HE wouldn't kill you! Muahahahahaha!"

>Rogue with prep time.
Implying your typical player knows what to do with his prep time.

>Be CG Half-Elf Warder, worship Gorum
>Find myself in front of CE minotaur antipaladin of Gorum
>We both know there's only one way out of this: One-on-one duel
>Battle rages on, trading blows as our blades meet each other in honorable combat
>Mfw the fucking wizard decides to kill of the antipaladin that I needed one more round to finish just because he couldn't be bothered to wait
>Mfw the antipaladin gave me a disappointed look in the eyes just before dying.
I swear if that game hadn't died as shortly after as it did due to DM IRL issues, I'd have gotten back to the dastard.

Not per this exactly, but I had a ranger that had issues with the party's pyromaniac of a sorcerer. She burned down one too many things that innocent folk could have used and crisped a few too many enemies that had already turned tail to run. I ended up shooting her with a poison that knocked her unconcious and dragged her out into the woods. Let them wander about aimlessly for a full day and night before tracking them down again. Mentioned how quick things would fall apart for her if the party decided that her shenanigans had gotten out of hand and she wasn't worth protecting. Sorcerer was decidedly more thoughtful after that.

Rational lawful deity? The deity would send a message - maybe a lower-ranking messenger or in a dream - saying that the Paladin shouldn't swear like that unless he could actually guarantee it. Also suggest that he makes the Thief see the error of his ways.

Irrational lawful deity? KILL THE HERETIC.

Any nonlawful deity? "Son I am disappoint."