Be a lawful good paladin

What if the paladin turns Oathbreaker?

>literally just ask my god what i should do
You seem to have confused paladins with clerics and warlocks there, friendo.
Part of the original design of the paladin was making tough moral choices in the face of adversity. Back then a paladin was only Lawful Good and was supposed to act in a way that upholds goodness. Thus:
>What do you do?
Not ask a bunch of random anons on Veeky Forums for their input, but act upon good and (if morally applicable) lawful intentions.

I'm not sure. I guess that's up to him to either uphold or break the oath.

It is only human to make mistakes.

Have friend help to destroy the lich then decide what to do with him afterwards.

>edgy libfaggot dms like to make pallys fall as some sort of attack on white people and constantly present no win situations where they fall no matter what

D&D had objective good and evil. you just cast a spell to find out. of course if white guilt wasnt so prevalent in dms then you wouldnt have to tiptoe around every situation

@52753294
ummmm. no sweetie, how about you go have a tantrum over in your playpen

Exhaust any and all resources to save friend up to and including begging my god for aid.

I play Paladin's as super niceguys who consider the safety and wellbeing of others as being above their own, and I don't think any of the Paladin's I've ever played could really stomach the idea of someone being tricked into this sort of situation.

And no, the kindhearted idiots wouldn't have considered the possibility that the friend was lying and would have defended them against the other Paladin.

>being this triggered
Maybe you should have a glass of water and lie down?

Yeah, there's objective morality in D&D, and the paladin is the authority on what constitutes Good. Most of the time, being put in a bad situation doesn't mean your GM is trying to make you fall. They're just giving you the interesting choices you obviously want if you choose to play a paladin.

>our party rescues some starving peasants
>bring them back to a tavern to feed them
>my character offers one of the female peasants pottage in exchange for sex
>bring her up to my room where she tries to use a paralyzation spell so I wouldnt take advantage of any starving peasants
>it fails and I promptly cave in her skull with a mace
>my party is angry at me for defending myself
who was in the wrong here?

Both, 20%(you)/80%(her).
Couldn't you use "Detect Magic"?
It's what I use for sorting out nymphs, shapeshifters, and succubi.

I've played as a paladin in a 2e game under a DM like this. I nearly fell three times because he was a cunt about morality, but I talked my way out of two and the rest of the players thought the third was bullshit:
>Told an illusion of a lich that he was an abomination before the god of holy light, but this was "lying" because illusions are made of light
>Ran down goblins that were fleeing from a raid on a schoolhouse, but they were "unarmed opponents" because they weren't pointing their weapons at anyone
>Didn't attack a fellow party member for taking a captured goblin as a follower because I had just justified fighting evil for running down the other goblins
>@
I don't know why that made me laugh, but it did.

I assumed she was just a normal peasant.

Suggest a Zone of Truth.

Why were you trying to take advantage of the peasants that way? That seems pretty wrong regardless of the self defense thing.

So your dm was that guy?

whats this new "difficult choices" meme for paladins? people play pallys to be a handsome chap who genocides orcs so all the stacies in the world can live happily ever after

fighters are the gritty realism of war class. pallys just laugh at difficult choices and burn the ugliest group

In the end, all you did was defend yourself, against a (magically) armed opponent.
I see nothing truly wrong with that.

I offered pottage in exchange for companionship, it was a simple and voluntary transaction that no one needed to accept.

The only right post.

Were they not going to get to eat otherwise? because giving that "choice" to starving peasants still seems pretty ethically sketchy in that case.

>whats this new "difficult choices" meme for paladins?
It's existed for as long as the paladin class has. It wasn't until 3.5e where paladins were re-styled as crusaders that the theme of them talking to their god appeared.
>people play pallys to be a handsome chap who genocides orcs so all the stacies in the world can live happily ever after
Orcs are inherently evil and chaotic, so this is fine.
>pallys just laugh at difficult choices and burn the ugliest group
Yes, orcs and the undead are indeed disgusting creatures.

Wow, another situation to make a paladin fall. Those never happen.

Anyway, first off who is this random paladin who appeared. How do he know your friend is a thrall and you yourself didn't?

Second, tell him you party is going to go kill the lich. If he says that your friend must die, tell him you will cut him down yourself if he doesn't give his all to cure his curse. If he still insists on it, ask if a paladin should believe in mercy. If yes, then why is he refusing to give mercy to someone who is clearly regretful and who wants to change.

>Offer food to a starving group of people
>Only if one of them sleeps with you
>I dindu nuffin
>Even though people will kill and do horrible things to others when hungry enough

You both were in the wrong.

They had already all been given a bowl of pottage by a generous party member, I offered additional food.

>If you want to eat, you have to get on my dick
I mean, yes, technically, submitting to coercion is "simple and voluntary," and you don't NEED to accept.

If the lich is destroyed, a greater evil will be avenged and justice will be served in a better way. Without the lich's influence, the thrall might be saved. It is immoral not to try.
Course of action is to lead the thrall to a temple, make the clerics there magically compel him to divulge any information regarding the lich, leave the thrall under clerics' protection, destroy the lich. My god has shown me a clear path, paladin. What is your response.

>taking advantage of people
You sir is a dick.

you have good opinions user

Paradox

Well, still makes your character look like sort of a douche, but could be worse.

You (an adventurer) I'm guessing had enough money for a metric fuck-ton of pottage. They (filthy peasants) needed to work hard daily for their bowl.

It's like offering a hobo $20 for a blowjob behind a Walgreen's, yeah technically it was a choice, but it was a choice that favored you heavily.

The sexual component only makes it worse considering the order of your greentext:
>bring them back to a tavern to feed them
>my character offers one of the female peasants pottage in exchange for sex

You, a comparitively wealthy person lead a bunch of starving people to a place where food was freely available under the assumption that you would buy them food only to find out that they would have to exchange sex for food.

It's a dick move no matter which way you cut it, mostly because it's exploitative.

But then again, it's equally likely you're just shitposting.

This poster

I hadn't seen
It makes it less awful, certainly less exploitative, but the idea you offered nourishment for something that people not normally in the sextrade would find unappealing at best and slightly traumatic at worst is still a dick move. I think your party was right to be pissed off, I certainly would have been.

>Chaotic neutral wizard promises to enchant the party's weapons if they throw them into a hole and come back the next day
>They come back the next day and the wizard has indeed enchanted the weapons, but the enchantments either don't buff the weapon or grants the buff situationally, such as +3 damage against left-handed goblins during the full moon
Are the players justified in wanting to kill the wizard?

I mean, all the wizard is really guilty of is wasting their time. I don't think that's normally a capital offense but maybe it's different where they are.

The thrall's player might not like roleplaying eating prison gruel for the next few weeks, and he's likely to overpower the clerics and defile the temple in the Lich's name. Better to bring him along and keep him under close supervision while you kick the Lich's ass. With two paladins along for the ride it should be no problem to keep a watch on him at night unless the NPC doesn't want to come for some reason.

No, they aren't at all justified for trying. The wizard offered them enchantments for free, and gave them enchantments for free. Situational buff is better than a curse, which is what they could have just as easily gotten.