If the monster is evil, then smite will work, even with gauntlets or fists. Repeatedly. That is one of the Paladin charms.
Even if the monster is not evil, and requires the use of the unholy longsword, worst that can happen is the bestowal of a temp negative level until the Paladin drops it (or more likely, destroys it). Though admittedly, killing one creature to save another seems pretty crass to me, the monster does have a right to its life too. And you can still grapple for sub-dual without trying to kill outright.
I would never hold a Paladin responsible for picking up the only available weapon and using it if it was the only way, short of divine interference. Which, when you think about it, should have been the first thing tried, prayer to the deity for deliverance, then advancing with fists anyway, having faith that the deity would deliver them both from threat. That is a good opportunity for role playing.
Although, maybe the monster, having eaten the Paladin after a self sacrificial death, would simply find its own way out, being sated, and leave the civilian alone?
If you want to get basic though, the sword is just a tool, it's the use that determines the 'evilness' of the act. The alignment simply means it's a better weapon for someone who has a similar evil alignment who can then use it to commit more evil. Using the evil weapon to commit an act of good would be ironic, and good symmetry. Especially if the weapon ends up destroyed due to the alignment conflict with the usage, just like a Paladin ends up 'destroyed' when he commits an act of evil, until atonement, if possible (yes, some acts have no forgiveness).
The situation is obviously contrived. How did the civilian get there, and how long was he there? How did this monster end up trapped in the room in the first place if the civilian could enter, and then how did the Paladin find a way in as well? Just not a very believable situation. Seems like people always try and put a Paladin into a situation that has no resolution, forgetting that the obvious transparency of the setup renders the Paladin blameless. If there is nothing that can be done, how can you be held responsible? Doctors try to save patients all the time, but no one charges them with murder when they die after all other attempts fail. And in all likelihood, the Paladin is the next target, and if he can't save a civilian, he's dead meat anyway, so may as well go for a heroic sacrifice.
The situation is obviously contrived. How did the civilian get there, and how long was he there? How did this monster end up trapped in the room in the first place if the civilian could enter, and then how did the Paladin find a way in as well? Just not a very believable situation.
Easy: They are all in a dungeon pit. probably got there through the big bad's trap door of doom. It's a classic situation.
Though admittedly, killing one creature to save another seems pretty crass to me, the monster does have a right to its life too. And you can still grapple for sub-dual without trying to kill outright.
There is nothing in the paladin's code about pacifism, respecting life or bloodshed. People need to stop sticking their own amendments into the paladin code.
In fact, the code encourages the paladin to punish those who harm or threaten the innocent.
If MY Paladin was in that situation... he would use the sword, kill the Demon and then self-impose a cleansing/purification for himself and the weapon.
Here's a question...
Does he KNOW that sword is evil? My Paladin is pretty Skill poor and wouldn't be able to spellcraft the unholy on it...
Detect Evil would 'probably' detect it... but why is the paladin detecting evil on random weapons when there's a demon there threatening an innocent?
Personally, I'm in the camp that the unholy already HAS a penalty associated with it... and Paladins are allowed to have 'temporary alliances' with evil to defeat greater Evil.
If he uses the sword to kill the Demon, I don't think his god would object. If he continues to use it as his standard weapon, THEN there might be an issue... But this situation doesn't sound like a falling to me.
She's definitely not someone who's bonding with the weapon in any particular way, so using her as a model is kind of a stretch.If you're changing the appearance of the weapon, I'd say you're bonding with it.Or you're just trying to find a way to stomach having to lug the dammmed (literally) thing around. She doesn't seem to be the type to go in for combat at all if she can avoid it. In fact even in combat, she's not likely to use the weapon at all for good reason.
Edit: read her wiki entry. It seems more likely the reason that the weapon's appearance is changing is that Shelyn is winning the battle to free the souls trapped within. When she first had it, it nearly had all of the 100 souls it needed to transform itself into a new god of destruction. Since then, she's freed almost all of them, by sponsoring adventures on great quests of good.
She's definitely NOT bonding with it.
I'd say the act of redeeming something requires a bond of some sort.
And Shelyn loves to bond and always gives it her best shot when reasonable.
Also, it's her favored weapon.
Shelyn is winning. That glaive is being changed for the better, even as it remains a long work in progress.
Just like her attempts to save her brother.
Good shouldn't be impotent at doing good. And Shelyn is damn good at good.
This actually reminds me of a background NPC for my campaign setting. During a rather big war that involved planar entities and the material plane, the main protagonist in the legend wandered across a band of devils who had been waylaid by some demons. The leader of that band of devils -- a powerful erinyes -- was nailed to a giant stone slab by an unholy sword that was wielded by one of the demonic officers, who left her there more or less crucified and unable to escape. She hadn't died yet due to her fiendish resilience.
The protagonist could best be described as a Paladin (and is statted out as such in my notes). When he found the erinyes, he saw that she suffered immensely. However, it wasn't in his nature to strike down someone who was so helpless. He decided to give her mercy that she likely wouldn't have given to him, and gripped the blade and began to pull it out of the stone. Now being an unholy sword, it burned him on a deeper than physical level (ouch, negative levels), but despite the pain he pulled her free. When he did, it screwed up the magic in the sword and cleansed it (this sword later became his primary weapon). The erinyes was both too confused by his act and too weak to attack him; and would likely have been killed for her failure in battle anyway; so she oathed her service as his slave as the one who gave her life back to her. The legend splits in two directions depending on whom you ask in the campaign (some say he turned down her offer of indentured slavery but allowed her to come with him of her own will, where he redeemed her and she taught his wife secret magics unknown to mortals; while another said he merely released her from her vow of slavery and the idea caused her to flee into the far realms in her confusion).
The sword actually has become an artifact in the campaign setting. It was said to have been the only thing that remained after his final battle (he ended up martyring himself against a demon lord, who like most balors, tend to have a nasty surprise when they are killed). Only the sword remained in the crater. It has since been lost to history.
========================================================================
Put me down for a vote that no, there is nothing that says using a magic item with an evil aura is an evil act. Likewise, if someone casts a spell on a Paladin that has an Evil descriptor, or temporarily causes the Paladin to radiate as evil, he doesn't fall then either.
Evil acts are very clear in D&D/PF. You must hurt, oppress, or kill others (preferably for yourself). Simply wielding an unholy weapon does not do that any more than wielding a holy weapon. The Paladin of course takes the negative levels for wielding it.
It might bug people, but there's actually nothing stopping a Paladin from being decked out head to toe in Demon Armor, and covered in Unholy weapons, apart from the extreme negative levels that it would bring.
Speaking of corrupting weapons; if I had to trust an evil sentient weapon to anyone, it would sure as heck be a Paladin. Strong will saves + Divine Grace means Paladins are the absolute least likely to ever fall under the influence of even the most Egocentric of magical items.
This may seem a bit off topic (apologies), but: Do any GM's out there, ever try to really, and I mean REALLY, tempt a Paladin off of his alignment? By tempt, I mean offer substantial rewards, in the form of xp, magical gear, permanent ability stat boosts, replacement feats/skills/class abilities, etc., despite the fact that this may be unbalancing with regard to the other PC's?
One problem I think the GM/PC dynamic has with regard to Paladins, is that we all feel the Paladin should be tested. Should have to make hard choices. Should have to feel conflicted about his code. It's good drama. It's good storytelling. Mechanically, there is really never a good reason for the Paladin to give into temptation, without an incredibly ridiculous payoff. But, it seems, in the interest of fairness, the best we've all come up with are these contrived situations to "trap" the Paladin into making impossible, conflicting decisions.
Just my two cp...
Well, the thing is... it's easy to tempt a Paladin. He's surrounded by temptation each and every single day that he lives by his Code. He wants to take the Assassin Guild's gold and look the other way. He wants to assault, humiliate, or even murder the Bard that's been slandering him in court. He wants to take solace in the arms of the courtesan when he has been away from his wife for too many long years.
A Paladin's got all of the same temptations as the rest of us.
It's not very easy at all to tempt a Paladin's player. The player rolled a Paladin because he wanted to play a Paladin. He's not going to be interested in not playing a Paladin.
So if you want to create dramatic tension from the Paladin's Code, the trick isn't to make the Paladin choose between following the Code and not following the Code. The trick is to take two parts of the Code, two principles the Paladin has sworn to live by, and force him to choose between them. Make him choose between mercy and justice. Make him choose between truth and obedience. Make him choose between valor and compassion.
And then, instead of stripping him of his powers for making the best decision in an impossible choice... play out the consequences. Reward him for sticking to the part of the Code he chose by showing him the Good he's done-- and then show him the consequences of sacrificing the other virtue.
If he chooses mercy over justice, show him the bandits who have reformed, who have become citizens or even heroes, because of his positive example. And then show him the victims of the bandits who returned to their evil ways. If he chooses justice over mercy, show him the people whose lives and livelihoods have been restored and then show him the innocent people whose lives have been ruined because they relied on the villain.
If he chooses truth over obedience, show him his superiors ruined and much of their good works undone by the revelation. If he chooses obedience, watch his superiors slide further down the slippery slope in the name of the greater good.
If he chooses valor over compassion, or compassion over valor, show him the lives he's saved versus the lives he could have saved.
You don't torment a Paladin by taking away his powers. You torment a Paladin by making him wonder if he deserves them.
Personally, I think it would be good if there were a fallen paladin class you switched to if you broke the code - with differing class features, so the character has still lost their holy knight abilities but has access to new options. Using the discipline and focus they learnt as a paladin without being so tightly constrained. That way, you could play out that kind of story without suffering extreme mechanical punishment. Playing a paladin who is overcome by the injustice of some legal situation and walks away from the code requires a pretty firm commitment to story over effectiveness, as things currently stand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To touch evil, take a negative level to save an innocent from evil, that is good! Selfless good, give that man a holy wafer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way I see it, wouldn't it actually be a good act to take that object of evil and, against it's very core principles of existence, use it to save an innocent? He takes the pain and suffering (negaive levels) that the blade will inflict on him and still stands strong for all that is good an just. Sounds like epic song material to me, not like a reason to atone...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the thing is... it's easy to tempt a Paladin. He's surrounded by temptation each and every single day that he lives by his Code. He wants to take the Assassin Guild's gold and look the other way.
Um, why would the Paladin want to take the assassin guild's gold?
He wants to assault, humiliate, or even murder the Bard that's been slandering him in court.
Um, what? I've been slandered before, and I've never wanted to assault or murder anyone. Though humiliation isn't necessarily evil (exposing someone as a fraud is humiliating but likely something a Paladin might be expected to do if the fraudulence is hurting people).
He wants to take solace in the arms of the courtesan when he has been away from his wife for too many long years.
Ironically, adultery is not an evil in D&D, but it's insensitive and probably pretty chaotic. Paladins don't fall for chaotic acts though. Only if his alignment shifts from it (and if you're 90% lawful and 10% chaotic, you're still Lawful).
A Paladin's got all of the same temptations as the rest of us.
Apparently "the rest of us" includes people who do not feel or think anything like I do. I suppose that's expected though. I've never claimed to be normal or even sane. :\
It's not very easy at all to tempt a Paladin's player. The player rolled a Paladin because he wanted to play a Paladin. He's not going to be interested in not playing a Paladin.
Less interested in playing an NPC warrior.
So if you want to create dramatic tension from the Paladin's Code, the trick isn't to make the Paladin choose between following the Code and not following the Code. The trick is to take two parts of the Code, two principles the Paladin has sworn to live by, and force him to choose between them. Make him choose between mercy and justice. Make him choose between truth and obedience. Make him choose between valor and compassion.
And then, instead of stripping him of his powers for making the best decision in an impossible choice... play out the consequences. Reward him for sticking to the part of the Code he chose by showing him the Good he's done-- and then show him the consequences of sacrificing the other virtue.
+1 to this good sir.
If he chooses mercy over justice, show him the bandits who have reformed, who have become citizens or even heroes, because of his positive example. And then show him the victims of the bandits who returned to their evil ways. If he chooses justice over mercy, show him the people whose lives and livelihoods have been restored and then show him the innocent people whose lives have been ruined because they relied on the villain.
Very interesting. Thanks for this.
If he chooses truth over obedience, show him his superiors ruined and much of their good works undone by the revelation. If he chooses obedience, watch his superiors slide further down the slippery slope in the name of the greater good.
Nice plot device.
You don't torment a Paladin by taking away his powers. You torment a Paladin by making him wonder if he deserves them.
Well I don't want to torment a Paladin... O.o
========================================================================
The best Paladin fall I've ever seen comes from Warcraft III. Arthas Menithil slides -- slowly -- down the path of evil. Not because he touched an evil sword (he was lost by the time he actually acquired Frostmourne) but because of a gradual descent into evil, where in some cases he was blinded by his own own code, until his heart was twisted. His code twisted in a sense of bitterness and his motivations slowly changing without him realizing it.
D&D does not tell those kinds of stories though. Not without house rules or people ignoring the mechanics. Half of it is obvious because every few days there's a post made by a GM who wants to make the Paladin fall because he didn't jump in front of a cart to save a puppy. Or because the Paladin killed an orc who attacked him instead of acting like a pacifist. Or asking if just holding or using an item makes a Paladin fall (be that item poison or a +2 unholy longsword).
I partially blame the system. Paladin corruption does not work because mechanically because there is no sense of corruption. It's an on/off switch. Other systems emulate slow corruption better. The Unearthed Arcana taint system is a better example of a system that slowly corrupts something. Same with Star Wars d20, which has a slow system of corruption before a character "falls to the dark side". Someone does not simply do one bad thing and take the plunge; which in turn makes it easier for them to take the plunge.
For example, Paladins auto-lose their powers the moment they willingly commit an evil act. That basically means Paladin players will be keen to avoid it. But let's pretend for a moment that there was some sort of (elegant) taint system in place. At first they will feel confident that they aren't falling. They'll preform an evil act. A little one. It'll be empowering. It works. So next time, they need to do something, so they mull it over and end up taking the evil way again "because it's what we must do". However, it slowly goes from being something that you do as a last resort and becomes your first resort. Somewhere, the Paladin's eyes grew dark and cold. Gone is his mercy. It's easier to beat information out of underlings. Gone is his charity. You'll use the money for better purposes anyway. Gone is his honor. It's easier to lie and you're naturally so good at it.
When the Paladin is too far gone, he will be the last to know. When he has his iron clad fist gripped tight around those he was trying to protect, he will be the last to hear their pleas. When he glares at those who are in his way, he will be the last to see their tears. When he butchers the survivors so they cannot follow for their own vengeance, he will be the last to smell their blood. And he will be the last to see that the most virtuous thing that his rage, his desire, and his ambition has killed...was himself.
EDIT: I have .
For example, Paladins auto-lose their powers the moment they willingly commit an evil act. That basically means Paladin players will be keen to avoid it.
That was really my point.
Let us suppose that after defeating the monster in the OP's example, the Paladin discovers that the innocent is carrying an extremely powerful and valuable relic, one that he would never willingly part with. A Paladin, his controlling player knowing the consequences of murdering, or even stealing from, the innocent, would never even consider it.
Now, replace the Paladin with a good-aligned "any-other-class-in-the-game", and this becomes a very, very tempting situation. I'm not saying every other PC would give in to temptation. Far from it, in fact. What I'm saying is that they would be tempted, while a Paladin will not.
So, instead of offering temptation, we create these contrived situations to try to place the Paladin in an impossible conflict of interests.
I really appreciate and respect Viktyr Korimir's answer to this quandary:
And then, instead of stripping him of his powers for making the best decision in an impossible choice... play out the consequences. Reward him for sticking to the part of the Code he chose by showing him the Good he's done-- and then show him the consequences of sacrificing the other virtue.
But, I would still like to know:
Have any DM's found a good way to tempt a Paladin to abandoning his code? And how much of a "reward" would you have to offer?
Easy crusader, through good story-telling you make the good guys seem like the bad guys, and the bad guys seem like the good. If they get swept up in the moment, that the good guys are ars*holes, they can make all sorts of odd actions.
So, instead of offering temptation, we create these contrived situations to try to place the Paladin in an impossible conflict of interests.
I wouldn't say it's all that contrived. The issue over whether or not to execute the defeated villain after his surrender is a natural consequence of living in a world where villains do surrender-- which is, to say, any realistic world. And the thing is, this isn't the obvious choice for a Paladin that people make it out to be, because it isn't murder. It is the lawful and arguably righteous implementation of justice by an agent empowered by the gods themselves to mete it out.
People think it's stupid because they get their ideals of 'heroic' morality from comic-book superheroes and Saturday morning cartoons... and the thing is, the morality of those works is deliberately overly simplistic-- because, for decades, they were legally required to be.
I'm not saying the Paladin should behead every bandit king and necromancer he defeats in battle, because that's as overly simplistic and unsatisfying as its opposite. I'm saying he should always think about it, because innocent lives are on the line and justice is as Good as mercy. It's a hard decision and it should be treated as a hard decision.
You don't get dramatic tension out of easy decisions. You only get them from hard decisions, and the only way to make moral decisions hard decisions is by leaving them ambiguous.
You used an 'Unholy longsword' as your example, which is a weapon infused with unholy power. If something hurts you when you just touch it because you're good... that's pretty evil.
I think it might be more appropriate for the paladin to choose to use hand-to-hand and his faith as his/her weapons. While maybe not the best course numbers wise, I think it makes more sense RP wise.
I say the Paladin needs to use it, but has to eat the negative levels, then, should he win, must see the evil item destroyed.
Shouldn't the Paladin try and redeem the weapon?
You used an 'Unholy longsword' as your example, which is a weapon infused with unholy power. If something hurts you when you just touch it because you're good... that's pretty evil.
Maybe it just . . . hurts so good?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man I see a lot of names I miss seeing on the forums in this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah. : (
Q.Q
|
Use the sword, it won't cause the paladin to fall.
Inaction WOULD be an evil "act" here since the paladin is putting their fear of falling above the life of an innocent.
Then once you're out of there take that sword to someone who can enchant it and make it a redeemed weapon and keep it as a sign that good ALWAYS triumphs in the end.
along the same note, would UMD'ing a scroll of shadow projection be similar