Paladin has to be lawful good to retain his abilities. There was a lot of stories and discussion about paladins falling to evil, but how to make a paladin fall to chaos? Any ideas?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
actually, paladins are so built to combat evil rather than Chaos, that I have the feeling their alignment on law is not a priority feature but a leftover from a prior epoch when Lawful was regarded as the epitome of Good, which itself was a leftover from back when alignment was only between law and chaos.
Paladin has to be lawful good to retain his abilities. There was a lot of stories and discussion about paladins falling to evil, but how to make a paladin fall to chaos? Any ideas?
Freedom. If others are restricted by law and suffer from it, the paladin might enter a conflict between freeing them and keeping to the local law.
Let's say the clichee party thief rogue was caught pickpocketing and the penalty was quite harsh - years of jail. Now he is a pain in the neck, but the paladin still feels responsible for him. And, worse, he knows the party will need the rogue's skills when challenging the local rogues thieves guild.
There are solutions without falling here, but that's true for most situations. At least the temptation of a prison break exists...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's really hard.
Paladin's don't need to respect local laws at all.
The "lawful" part of being a Paladin is about having a personal code and keeping it. If a paladin enters Cheliax and Cheliaxian law said the paladin had to kill an innocent for entering the country you can guarantee the paladin wont be doing it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unjust or overly tyrannical laws. A paladin doesn't get to disregard any law.
It should be noted, however, that Paladin's can commit Chaotic acts without falling. The paladin code says they fall only when they perform evil acts. As long as their alignment doesn't change the occasional Chaotic act is fine.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say the Paladin is expected to be lawful in most ways. It's just that good is allowed to trump law on all accounts. To fall to chaos, you'd need to be chaotic for non-good reasons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A paladin that becomes disillusioned with government and the laws of people is very possible. After all, people are known to do some pretty messed up stuff to eachother, and often the law is made so that the higher ups can get away with it, oppressing the people, or the law simply lets bad people slip through the cracks due to the way faulty the systems work. If robin hood was a paladin-like holy knight before returning from war (I think that's the background in robin hood stories?) then on returning and becoming an outlaw its conceivable that under pathfinder rules he would have "fallen" to become the iconic CG character we all recognise him as.
As far as pathfinder goes, the ex-paladin archetype that was just released seems very "chaotic neutral" in nature, being all about vengeance and vindictiveness. (Even if it doesnt explicitly say the archetype is for chaotic characters.) So it could be a good example of what you're describing for those wishing to RP a character fallen in this exact manner.
Paladin has to be lawful good to retain his abilities. There was a lot of stories and discussion about paladins falling to evil, but how to make a paladin fall to chaos? Any ideas?Freedom. If others are restricted by law and suffer from it, the paladin might enter a conflict between freeing them and keeping to the local law.
Yep! I'm about to Moral Quandry the heck out of one of my Lawful Good groups (3/4 anyway.) They'll be asked to help guard a cart of what turn out to be slaves in order to establish trade for the city. They are bound by the laws not to investigate it, but are duty bound to probably free them.
It pits their lawful side against their good side, which will probably earn them some kind of interesting character trait/flaw. There is the chance they'll find an ideal solution (free the slaves and repair relations with that clan, and also convince the town that the trade relations could be established another way or something.)
[Note: I probably won't cause them to fall unless they do something very bad here]
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Umm, to become Chaotic in allignment means you have become Dedicated to Chaos. Choosing, in a specific case, that Freedom outweighs Order, for the Greater Good, does not make you Chaotic. Deciding that Freedom always outweighs Order in every case, even if you believe it is always for the Greater Good, does make you Chaotic, and, therefore, Fallworthy.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whoo hoo! Wild card b!$*&es!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Umm, to become Chaotic in allignment means you have become Dedicated to Chaos.
Since when? I dont think any of the chaotic characters ive ever seen have chosen to be dedicated to it, just like a lot of NE characters haven't chosen to be "dedicated to furthering evil". In the case of evil character's they're just far more selfish/cruel than altruistic. If you had to "dedicate" yourself to an alignment to align with it then 99% of PCs and NPCs would be true neutral, because their priorities are more grounded than an abstract desire to devote themselves to alignment extremes.
Paladins on the other hand DO have to dedicate themselves wholly to good and law as part of their special code to gain their powers, which is why slipping up has such dire consequences for them. If their own desires or free thought start to become balanced with their lofty ideals they "fall", breaking their code. Becoming more balanced means they then start to become neutral. The scales tip the other way, so does their alignment. If they continue to the extreme, that's when they become anti-paladins, who do dedicate themselves to evil and chaos to gain new power - and gaining a new special code.
At least, that's how I always saw it. The idea of all those steps happening at once with a single action is absurd, it would take time, even if they suddenly did proclaim "I'M NOW DEDICATED TO CHAOS!" and started to do everything in their power to further the concept of chaos. (That would strike me more as a bizarre break of character or the paladin having a mental breakdown than anything else.)
If your whole life revolves around getting whatever you want, to the exclusion and detriment of others, then YES, you have dedicated yourself to evil. It has become not only what you do, but who you are.
Does it have to be formal, or even self-acknowledged, NO. Hell, we lie to ourselves all the time. Paladins do have to formally dedicate themselves to Good and Law. Their fall does not have to be formal, but in the case of Chaos, they most actually be dedicated enough to it to invalidate their formal dedication to Law.
Daw, obviously if your entire life is dedicated to evil at the exclusion of all else you're going to be evil aligned. That doesn't mean every PC that is NE is a two dimensional being of pure evil that has dedicated his life to doing nothing but evil. (All cats are animals that doesn't mean all animals are cats.) Many evil characters are still capable of neutral or good acts otherwise they'd be boring caricatures. NE just means your own desires get the better of you a fair bit more than your conscience does.
Chaotic aligned PCs arent beings of complete chaos and utter entropy, nor have they "dedicated" themselves to chaos just because they find themselves leaning toward more impulsive choices.
Basically, a paladin doesnt need to change alignment to fall, they only need to break their special code. If they make a couple of selfish, vindictive, or otherwise naughty choices that doesnt mean their alignment suddenly shifts but it could mean they've broken their code and fallen.
Only a sith deals in absolutes :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dedicated does not imply exclusivity, it just means that the character can be expected to act in a certain way. Situations may, of course, have an influence. The two-dimensional thing is your inference, not my implication.
Also, you can be dedicated to revenge, healing, peacemaking, ... whatever.
Dedicated does not imply exclusivity, it just means that the character can be expected to act in a certain way.
Daw, I hate to be picky but the dictionary definition of dedicated is "exclusively allocated to or intended for a particular purpose" according to google that is...
Did you not intend to use that word?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladin has to be lawful good to retain his abilities. There was a lot of stories and discussion about paladins falling to evil, but how to make a paladin fall to chaos? Any ideas?Freedom. If others are restricted by law and suffer from it, the paladin might enter a conflict between freeing them and keeping to the local law.Yep! I'm about to Moral Quandry the heck out of one of my Lawful Good groups (3/4 anyway.) They'll be asked to help guard a cart of what turn out to be slaves in order to establish trade for the city. They are bound by the laws not to investigate it, but are duty bound to probably free them.
It pits their lawful side against their good side, which will probably earn them some kind of interesting character trait/flaw. There is the chance they'll find an ideal solution (free the slaves and repair relations with that clan, and also convince the town that the trade relations could be established another way or something.)
[Note: I probably won't cause them to fall unless they do something very bad here]
No offense but this is one of the worst things you can do to players. You're purposefully setting them up for a catch 22.
If your whole life revolves around getting whatever you want, to the exclusion and detriment of others, then YES, you have dedicated yourself to evil. It has become not only what you do, but who you are.
This is a very odd take IMO. From the MTG (magic) perspective; Black (magic) as a color is selfish and darwinistic, and uses destruction of life more frivolously; but Black is not "evil" even though it is usually associated with it.
Selfishness is not inherently evil, even in this game. While it is exclusionary, it can be done in a darwinian fashion which isn't necessarily evil. Letting someone die (due to their own mistakes) is pretty neutral. You yourself probably see much of the death in the world as something that "just happens", but indeed you could be saving lives.
Were you saving lives constantly, giving up your wealth, etc.. you would be "Good", and if you were rampantly murdering the poor.. you'd be "evil".. but doing nothing here is Neutral. You are not morally obligated to save people by any coherent moral system. In our current society, you often *can't* help people without risk of lawsuit (CPR, for example, by those without certification could get you sued as you break their chest or what have you; even if you save them)
No offense but this is one of the worst things you can do to players. You're purposefully setting them up for a catch 22.
Why? They:
* Will make the decision to participate and how to solve it themselves* Can solve it without violating any of their beliefs/etc if they go above and beyond
* Won't suffer loss of powers unless they go *out of their way* to do something horrendous (like murder the slaves or something)
It's a moral quandry that will reveal the motivations of the character and the player. Do they value life or law? If I don't punish them for making a decision, then they are really exploring something that matters.
I get that you may not like moral quandries, but I'd defy you to put forth a moral quandry that *isn't* a "catch 22" by your definition. This situation is a way to get players to make region-changing choices in the same way that you do in Mass Effect; and Mass Effect(1)'s morality system was lauded for having impacts on what you did and how you were perceived.
I honestly think that this situation is a (pun intended) Paragon example of how to design a quandry. They can act in any alignment in a fairly pre-defined way, but the way that would result in them being "perfectly heroic" is difficult and arduous.
Dedicated does not imply exclusivity, it just means that the character can be expected to act in a certain way.I hate to be picky but the dictionary definition of dedicated is "exclusively allocated to or intended for a particular purpose" according to google that is...
Did you not intend to use that word?
cat·ed
ˈdedəˌkādəd/Submit
adjective
(of a person) devoted to a task or purpose; having single-minded loyalty or integrity.
"a team of dedicated doctors"
synonyms: committed, devoted, staunch, firm, steadfast, resolute, unwavering, loyal, faithful, true, dyed-in-the-wool; More
(of a thing) exclusively allocated to or intended for a particular service or purpose.
"investing in dedicated bike lanes will encourage more bicycle commuters"
synonyms: exclusive, custom built, customized
"data is accessed by a dedicated machine"
So, when you are talking about a thing, dedicated implies exclusivity, since things don't think for themselves. When you are talking about a Person, not so much, but it does imply a certain degree of expected behavior. Choosing an inappropriate definition does support your viewpoint better though. We're done.
So, when you are talking about a thing, dedicated implies exclusivity, since things don't think for themselves. When you are talking about a Person, not so much, but it does imply a certain degree of expected behavior. Choosing an inappropriate definition does support your viewpoint better though. We're done.
"we're done" seemed a bit hostile. So you meant "devoted to a task or purpose; having single-minded loyalty or integrity."?
Breaking that down:
"Single-Minded" = "concentrating on only one aim." aka exclusivity.
"devoted" = Definition 1: "very loving or loyal" clearly not your meaning.
"devoted" = Definition 2: "given over to the display, study, or discussion of." study and discussion can be ignored, because not relevant (discussing and studying evil is not inherantly evil), so "given over to the display of" was your meaning? That seems like a very strange way to almost say they have predominant traits that are evil.
It's just that dedication, when referring to people, is usually said under contextualised devotion, such as "devoted to the display of", "devoted to the study of" or "devoted to the discussion of" as shown in the definition. Your understanding of the word is unfamiliar to me. Regardless, now I understand what you were trying to say at least.
Basically:
Umm, to become Chaotic in allignment means you have becomeDedicatedprimarily aligned to Chaos.
Aka, significantly more chaotic than lawful, In which case I agree :)
Factoring the paladin code into this, the chances are they're 0 or close enough to it because it seems most if not all actions that are considered chaotic or evil seem to break their code, which would result in their fall, even if it only pushed them to 0.1 or less. Of course if they somehow make it to 0.33, without breaking their code (through loopholes or something) they would instead fall for losing their correct alignment. (Though you should always make the player aware of such movements along the scale, as they may have justifications you hadn't considered.)
When a player has a fresh character, I assume the characters to be 0.25/0.5/0.75 depending on their alignment, with anti/paladins being 0 or 1.
Paladin has to be lawful good to retain his abilities. There was a lot of stories and discussion about paladins falling to evil, but how to make a paladin fall to chaos? Any ideas?
Depend on your view of it.
First divider is how you understand lawful. If it is following the law, then make an evil law and watch paladin most likely break it, thus becoming more and more chaotic and falling.
If you consider lawful his internal morals, like most do, this wont make him fall, since acting against evil remains a lawful action to him, even if it is a law/rule on the place, his code speaks higher.
And that is pretty much the last way to make a paladin fall to chaos now, breaking his code.
Breaking the code might not be evil, but it certanly wont be lawful, which is the closest i can imagine one getting.
Often enough the falling to evil, also includes falling to chaos, since it involves one or more breaches on the code.
Having a PC fall to chaos for any other reason will be freaking hard and will only be possible on very well made PCs with believable humans flaws. Something very rare on a paladin, which usually happens to be a perfect man with a never ending goodwill to help all the innocent and good of the land.
Even a "perfect man with a never ending goodwill to help all the innocent and good of the land" can shift away from "Lawful". Perhaps someone whose attempts to help people are frustrated by technicalities of the law and bureaucracy - not evil laws, which he should break, but well intentioned ones, designed for oversight and to prevent corruption. She's right, she's doing the right thing and if she has to ignore the law and let her conscience be her guide, that's what she'll do. People need saving, villains need to stopped and there's no time for paperwork and trials.
In other words, someone shifting their alignment from Law to Neutral (or even Chaos) while still remaining Good.
The "evil" before law was just to make it more obvious, it wasnt necessary. Simply put, either you believe lawful involves following the law or it isnt needed and the paladin has his internal code, which goes over the rest.
In your case for example, following the law is directly linked to the paladin alignment and my first example covers exactly this.
Simply put: Make the law of the place break the paladin up and watch him become chaotic by trying to be good. Typical catch 22.
This ofc wont fly often in my experience, since my games and in most of those i played, being lawful =/= following the law, whichs means the paladin wouldnt ever fall for breaking the law to be good and follow his faiths code.
I get that you may not like moral quandries, but I'd defy you to put forth a moral quandry that *isn't* a "catch 22" by your definition. This situation is a way to get players to make region-changing choices in the same way that you do in Mass Effect; and Mass Effect(1)'s morality system was lauded for having impacts on what you did and how you were perceived.
No, moral quandaries are usually the GM forcing you into a s@+&ty situation. Moral qunadries are almost always a Catch 22 when used in D&D and Pathfinder.
I'm not advocating player actions not having effects on the game world, I'm suggesting not arbitrarily setting up situations like this. Especially when the game involves a Paladin.
It's one thing if no one in the party is playing a class where a change in alignment would result in the loss of power (which is a bad mechanic in the first place) but in a party where perhaps only the paladin will really care and everyone else is free to ignore it or do whatever they want either one player is forced to argue and try to persuade the other players into going along with the thing he's obligated to do while the others are just like "Not my circus, not my monkey. Let's focus on the actual important thing happening."
No, moral quandaries are usually the GM forcing you into a s!#@ty situation.
I'm inclined to agree with Claxon here. Sounds like a turn off. I've played in a game where annoyances like this were done to a much lesser degree and it still got very tedious.
Had a Paladin fall for Lawful reasons in a Kingmaker game:
Most of the party wanted to assassinate Grigori, but Geoffry the Paladin decided he wanted to invite Grigori for an audience, hear him out, maybe turn him into an ally by assuaging his complaints in a civilized setting.
Grigori joined them for dinner and the party listened as Grigori went through a reasoned and detailed list of ways the party had been running the kingdom into the ground as he saw it, basically describing the party as not evil, excellent with violence, but novices in running a kingdom and lacking the experience and ability to govern.
Most of the party was steaming at this point, but Geoffry looked Grigori in the eye and said 'Okay, maybe you're right, then you be king' thinking he would show Grigori that rulership was harder than it looked. Geoffry made Grigori king on the spot and so began the reign of Grigori. The second he passed the crown Geoffry fell because Abadar frowns on giving random passersby control of the government on a whim. Extremely chaotic.
This mistake was exacerbated by the fact that Grigori began immediate passing proclamations that ran the kingdom into the ground. The party demanded the crown back and Grigori was all... No. Cuz he was king and he said so. What followed was a small civil war as the party struggled to wrest control from a charismatic strongman they had put in place themselves. They would eventually win after a couple of years of fighting and thousands dead. They never discovered Grigori was actually a spy from a rival kingdom just looking to sabotage their reputation. And they handed him a kingdom.
|
Had a Paladin fall for Lawful reasons in a Kingmaker game:
** spoiler omitted **
While that was incredibly stupid and quite chaotic, unless you considered that one act enough to actually change the Paladin's alignment and did so, then he shouldn't have fallen.
The only aligned acts Paladin's immediately fall for are evil ones. So unless his alignment actually became NG or CG from that act then he shouldn't have fallen by the rules.
The Iomedaen Enforcer Archetype is what you're looking for. 'Tis the LAWFUL good archetype, makes you highly enabled to combat CHAOS rather than evil. Thus; though the code isn't actually changed, nor is the divine bond; this is the Paladin that would more likely fall due to CHAOS more so than evil. Otherwise, as others have stated the code has some parts that essentially say: "follow the rules or stop being a paladin."
|
|
And as stated, they only lose class features if they commit an evil act, so youd have to have a house rule about that as well. Technically a Paladin can become Chaotic Good without losing his class features, he just cant take any more levels. Note that everything I say in this paragraph is strict RAW and probably not RAI otherwise the code of conduct is completely pointless.
This is actually untrue as you can see from the Paladin code.
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin.
Jurassic Pratt has the right of it. Committing occasional chaotic acts is ok, but not becoming Neutral or Chaotic Good.
Well, other than acting like a monk that finally cut loose and went to his first kegger... I'd immediately contrast it against the strange, sad, deluded little paladins of cheliax.
There are archetypes for paladins of the order of godclaw that focus on chaos, rahter than evil. This ties into the reason why Cheliax went devil in the first place- to avoid the horrors of a decayed national order. The people of that nation preferred damnation to seeing their nation burned by rebels, bandits, and raiders from foreign lands.
So you could go in the other way- a paladin that wants to fight against the evil tyrant... in all the wrong ways. This would turn towards the end of robin hood style tactics.
You see, the difference of a CG and LG character is the question 'what happens next'? So when you have the evil king's 100 evil guards....
CG kills them to prevent the people from suffering.
LG asks 'who is going to protect them from bandits after I kill them?'.
While the evil guards might steal way too much from the common man, and even kill a few of them... they might not go around burning villages (you don't murder your cattle without cause, right?). So a paladin would be concerned with replacing the evil authority with a good one- a nice GM might give the tyrant a good brother that was banished (nice convenient answer).
So how could the paladin go chaotic? Encouraging a band of rebels that engage in light robbery to support the resistance. They might not be at the slave/murder levels of regular bandits... but they may well make things hard for innocent, neutral merchants.
Add in the assassination of some evil (but highly important) generals/bureaucrats... and you could cause a bunch of damage in trying to take down the evil king. And that could be seen as chaotic.
Now, a lot of these acts might sound like normal adventurer acts in a campaign... but CG has always been the 'easiest' alignment for us.
No, moral quandaries are usually the GM forcing you into a s@$+ty situation. Moral qunadries are almost always a Catch 22 when used in D&D and Pathfinder.
It's one thing if no one in the party is playing a class where a change in alignment would result in the loss of power (which is a bad mechanic in the first place)
A) You must not like things like Game of Thrones or similar then. That's fine, but I'm running a group that likes Morally-Grey decisions.
B) I specifically and explicitly stated that this decision wouldn't screw their alignment [barring things that normally would, like slaughtering innocent people.]
Enjoy what you want, but Moral Quandries are a good way of forcing your group to consider what they are and aren't willing to do, in character, and look for a way to solve the problem.
There are myriad options that would potentially solve this problem, and most of them would not even vaguely change their alignment. They could:
* buy the slaves after the trade and free them
* they could work a separate deal between the towns, they could decide it's none of their business to investigate the cart (it's not) and thus just do the minor escort quest without hitting the quandry
* They could cancel it, chastise the lord for attempting to do such a thing and try to rebuff the trade efforts by returning said slaves and convincing them that the lord is in their debt or some such
* (etc..)
Another instance was a quest I designed under the expectation they'd break and enter a house and instead they found a way around it. They resisted the urge to do the easiest thing in a complex situation with merchants and found a path that satisfied all parties while not even attempting to break the law. That turned out to be a pretty fantastic thing since I hadn't even designed the option they came up with, given I just assumed they'd take the easy route in that case (and attempted to make that route interesting for the lawful good party.)
The point is, sure.. if your GM designs it with only options to screw you, then sure; I get it! But if your GM designs it so you can solve it in any number of ways and you do so, you've experienced character development without realizing it.
A good moral quandry is one that allows the player's intentions and motivations to come to the fore, and is one that potentially allows actual heroism rather than "here's a thing to do, yay you did it" heroism. It empowers the players to find solutions IMO. The moral quandry presents you with easy options that would force you to choose between what you value more, but potentially harder options that let you do it all.
Last examples (all from Deus Ex Human Revolution):
* You can gas the inmates killing innocent people and letting the scientist with evidence of the evil corporation escape, thus exposing the corporation. You can gas the scientists and save the inmates, but this may let the corporation off the hook. However.. if you're diligent and quick about it you can find the device in a far away area that leaks the gas and disable it. This takes a good bit of work; but lets you have it all if you think of it and find it.
* You can plant evidence of a crime not committed on someone to help your own company. These people are lying about your company and probably did do it, but you'll have to do something morally wrong. You can instead not do this, but your company won't have a legitimate case against his corruption; and thus may look bad. You can instead potentially have a confrontation on live TV and (if successful) make him admit to his wrongdoing; keeping you honest.
And there are at least a few others in that game. These things make what you do and how you do it matter, which is exactly what an RPG cares about. Most of all, they don't tell you all the options up front or what they require; you have to consider them and act accordingly. That is the *pinnacle* of roleplaying.
He says absolutely!
:D
^^ -tT'S toe- ^^
No, moral quandaries are usually the GM forcing you into a s@$+ty situation. Moral qunadries are almost always a Catch 22 when used in D&D and Pathfinder.
It's one thing if no one in the party is playing a class where a change in alignment would result in the loss of power (which is a bad mechanic in the first place)
A) You must not like things like Game of Thrones or similar then. That's fine, but I'm running a group that likes Morally-Grey decisions.
B) I specifically and explicitly stated that this decision wouldn't screw their alignment [barring things that normally would, like slaughtering innocent people.]
Enjoy what you want, but Moral Quandries are a good way of forcing your group to consider what they are and aren't willing to do, in character, and look for a way to solve the problem.
There are myriad options that would potentially solve this problem, and most of them would not even vaguely change their alignment. They could:
* buy the slaves after the trade and free them
* they could work a separate deal between the towns, they could decide it's none of their business to investigate the cart (it's not) and thus just do the minor escort quest without hitting the quandry
* They could cancel it, chastise the lord for attempting to do such a thing and try to rebuff the trade efforts by returning said slaves and convincing them that the lord is in their debt or some such
* (etc..)Another instance was a quest I designed under the expectation they'd break and enter a house and instead they found a way around it. They resisted the urge to do the easiest thing in a complex situation with merchants and found a path that satisfied all parties while not even attempting to break the law. That turned out to be a pretty fantastic thing since I hadn't even designed the option they came up with, given I just assumed they'd take the easy route in that case (and attempted to make that route interesting for the lawful good party.)
The point is, sure.....
A) No, I love Game of Thrones...to watch. Not to play. It would be horribly un-fun game to play. Getting wrapped up in moral quandaries isn't fun. Watching as other make mistakes and passing judgment on them from afar can be incredibly enjoyable.
B) No you didn't. You said probably. Probably means "I might still screw over my players".
I imagine that if a paladin started acting like a follower of Cayden Cailean (abusing drinks, getting flirty etc.) that would be fall towards Chaos even if he kept helping people and remained Good.
Similarily if he accepted some duties (like guarding a city) but keeps ignoring them ("nothing is going on anyway, and those other guys needed my help too!") that is also shifting towards Chaotic.
I wonder about a case when paladin captures criminals, but instead of handing them to authorities (which would be Lawful) gives them a preach, and if convinced ther's a hope for them, gives them a second chance and lets them go.
Another scenario: let's say there are enemies that are not evil by nature but are still a threat to a settlement. The paladin, as a part of some greater force, is sent to get rid of one group of the enemies. Instead he starts to negotiate with them. It's not Evil, but it compromises the overall strategy, and despite the paladin's best intentions may have overall negative consequences.
I wonder about a case when paladin captures criminals, but instead of handing them to authorities (which would be Lawful) gives them a preach, and if convinced ther's a hope for them, gives them a second chance and lets them go.
Sounds a bit like the Redeemer Paladin Archetype that gets a slightly modified code of conduct and as a result is allowed to be slightly more open minded.
Another scenario: let's say there are enemies that are not evil by nature but are still a threat to a settlement. The paladin, as a part of some greater force, is sent to get rid of one group of the enemies. Instead he starts to negotiate with them. It's not Evil, but it compromises the overall strategy, and despite the paladin's best intentions may have overall negative consequences.
Just because something's had negative consequences doesn't mean its a fall worthy act. That would be a catch 22 because if neither side is actually evil (from the paladin's perspective), then slaying anyone could be fall worthy. Sometimes you should roleplay decisions that you know will be negative if it's what your character would do, and try to make the best of it.
Of course, sometimes by following a deity that expands your code of conduct to cover the things they stand for can lead to such conflicts (such as "Dr. Guns-For-Hands"'s story with abadar being pissed off enough), but unless i'm wrong the default paladin can gain his power purely from his virtue and doesn't actually need to worship such deities, right?
Step 1: create demiplane, directional gravity.
Step 2: debuff paladin saves (darn Divine Grace)
step 3: pit trap (perception is not classPaladin is now falling sideways.
What really makes it perfect is the guys name is sideromancer.
Another scenario: let's say there are enemies that are not evil by nature but are still a threat to a settlement. The paladin, as a part of some greater force, is sent to get rid of one group of the enemies. Instead he starts to negotiate with them. It's not Evil, but it compromises the overall strategy, and despite the paladin's best intentions may have overall negative consequences.Just because something's had negative consequences doesn't mean its a fall worthy act. That would be a catch 22 because if neither side is actually evil (from the paladin's perspective), then slaying anyone could be fall worthy. Sometimes you should roleplay decisions that you know will be negative if it's what your character would do, and try to make the best of it.
Well, one such act wouldn't be enough to fall, but if a character had a tendency to ignore the strategy and follow his own feelings about what is good, I don't think he would be Lawful Good.
Well, one such act wouldn't be enough to fall
"(A paladin) loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act." = If the paladin knows they aren't evil, then killing them is 100% an evil act and as per their code, they've fallen. They're almost certainly still LG because one act isn't enough to shift their alignment, but they've fallen.
If a character had a tendency to ignore the strategy and follow his own feelings about what is good, I don't think he would be Lawful Good.
"a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor..." = If the strategy is laid out by legitimate authority, they have to follow it or they break their code. In situations lacking what the paladin believes to be a "legitimate authority" I think the paladin would assume that he is the most qualified to be the legitimate authority and to be the voice of law. A paladin could also decide that an existing authority is corrupt/insane and therefore no longer "legitimate", though because of his inherently lawful nature, I doubt he would do so lightly... If he did, then he might begin to not respect authority at all, which would lead to a code breaking fall.