Why are we so obsessed with Paladins falling?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 100 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, so I know, on the surface, this seems like a trolling thread to start up more nerdrage about Paladins who loose their powers, but it is not. It is more along the question of why this is such a big topic, and why people either jump to one side (Paladins should fall always forever) or the other side (Paladins should never fall.) In short, this is a metacognative discussion on why we TALK about paladins falling so much.

To give a little context, I was GMing a game of PFS the other day with two new players. One was playing the pregen Seelah, and the other, the pregen Harsk. At one point, Seelah decided to attack non-lethally, and Harsk's player declares that she has fallen because she wasn't smiting evil (and she's a paladin of Iomede.)

This really gave me pause, and irked me quite a bit. For one, the player was initially reticent to play a Paladin because he 'hated' lawful good (He was from 5th ed where paladins don't have such a strict alignment requirement.) And it took a bit for me to convince him that Lawful good didn't mean lawful stupid (even for a paladin.)

so I cleared everything up, assured the new guy that attacking non-violently a guy wasn't going to cause him to fall, and got back to the game, but the idea stuck with me.

Why are some people so obsessed with Paladins falling?

After thinking on it, I may have a solution. I think the problem here is that a Paladin falling is kind of like a Checkov's gun, and people expect it to go off.

For those who don't follow TV Tropes, a Checkov's gun is a thing, a concept, action, or sometimes item, that is presented early on in a movie, so that later, when it is used, it doesn't seem like it has come out of the blue. It is basically simple forshadowing. For example, in Shawn of the Dead, there is an early scene where the main characters debate if the gun at the bar they frequent is real. This is setup for later in the movie where they get to the bar and use the gun.

This is a super common cliche/trope in TV and movies. So much so that if it doesn't go off, or if it doesn't 'misfire' (essentially be a misdirect) then it feels unfulfilling to us, and might seem like an anticlimax, or a missed opportunity.

In Pathfinder, (and in earlier renditions of DnD) there is this setup for a Paladin being struck down by their god and loosing all their powers, and it's quite a striking idea, and it makes for some good drama. It's like a Checkov's gun, you have this thing set up in front of you, a plot point. Naturally, some people (including GMs) want this plot point to go off. They want Checkov's gun to fire. They want to see this note brought to a close.

The problem is, that the idea of a Paladin Falling is not INTENDED to be a Checkov's gun. It's supposed to be a restriction. Paladins, most will agree, are a pretty powerful class, one of the best melee classes out there. In order to balance it, there is a restriction. In this case, Paladin's get benefits, but risk loosing it all if they don't follow their restriction.

It's like a garden hose. A fighter is like a garden hose with the water on, where the water just flows out. It's useful, but not that powerful. A paladin is like a garden hose with a nozzle on it. You put a limit on it so the pressure (power) is greater, but it is now more restricted, and if that nozzle breaks, you are worse off than you would be without one at all.


Paladins are human. Humans are imperfect, even the chosen warriors of the gods; therefore, paladins must be capable of falling.

Paladins are humans. Humans are imperfect, but this means they are also imperfect at evil; therefore, fallen paladins (and yes, anti-paladins) must be capable of redemption back into paladins.

All RPGs have one thing at their core: story. If you're playing a fighty-game without story, you're playing a battle game, or heroclix, or whatever; you're not playing an RPG. You can play a battle game with RP, but then hey, you're injecting story into your battle game; congrats, you're on your way to developing an RPG. Making a good story is core to playing an RPG, and an essential part of a good story is a challenge. That challenge does not have to be a monster or opponent with a CR; that challenge can be the player themselves, if that's what makes for an interesting story for them. (I have seriously conversed with people who feel that taking items away from their PCs was absolutely verboten and a mark of a bad GM; how much worse must they see a GM who takes away the very essense of the character in order to help that player tell a great story?)

Paladins can fall. Fallen paladins should have the chance to be redeemed. For a great 'paladin' story, within which a paladin both falls and is redeemed look for the trilogy 'The Deed of Paksenarrion', by Elizabeth Moon. If you can, come back and say either of those things - that a paladin should never fall, and that a fallen paladin should fall forever.


A paladin should try to be just and good. My biggest issue with a lot of these "is this really evil?" Threads that end with "just get an atonement" is that it's missing the point. You don't grey area what's supposed to be the example you set for everyone. You shouldn't just magic it away like an aspirin when you think you may get sick later.

When playing a Paladin, set the example. Don't let treading the line be what makes you fail. If you want a better story in a fallen and redeemed paladin, at least make it worthy.


20 people marked this as a favorite.

I think part of the obsession is pure schadenfreude.


I will agree with you there.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem is multifacets. It is Tolstoy-esque really: “All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.”

A. Unique moral problems for paladins. Can't have evil allies, can't lie, etc. When taken at face value, this can really encourage lawful stupid by some players. Also, it makes the shifts much more relevant and easier to occur (a druid, for instance, can start out 'I don't care, lets just roll dice' neutral, and fall to NE, and still be fine; cleric can go go from LG to LN without a problem; paladins have to stay paragons)

B. Some players just tend to be murderhobos, so wondering why they fall when they stab the peasant and rob their wallet is bizarre to them. More realistically, they decide to murder a monster (probably a goblin) because those tend to be coded as 'just kill it quickly', although the GM might have intended to show otherwise if given a word in edgewise (they might get interrupted by the player's calling for initiative). When you have role players and roll players class... things get messy.

C. GM looking for a 'compelling story', and thus trying to manufacture a no win scenario. This also covers when there is a win scenario, but the GM is still wanting that fall, so he places baby goblin shaped landmines everywhere.

D. GM's big boss got killed in the suprise round vit a smiting crit, and he is wanting revenge.

And many, many more.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Simple answer, the Paladin is the only class with built in Kryptonite.


17 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, in some cases it’s because of the morality issue. A paladin is based on the idea of objectively true and objectively verifiable alignment, which we don’t have in the real world. Thus, when there’s a conflict between the GM’s idea of good and the player’s idea of good, some GMs will take advantage of the opportunity. Some will try to show that they are more morally developed than their players (“Well, maybe you can’t understand what good is”). Some will level an attack on the very concept of morality (“Good is just a lie anyway”).

In most cases, though, I think a lot of GMs want to see a paladin fall because they want to try to run a redemption arc. What it really reminds me of is the concept of the Ultimate Punisher Story, which requires some explanation.

There was an interview I recall reading with a comic book editor, whose name I can’t recall, who was in charge of the Punisher series of comics. For a time they accepted open story submissions on the comic, and the editor had kept a bunch of rejected submissions in a drawer he labeled “Ultimate Punisher Story.” Because every one of these submissions was the same:

Frank Castle (the Punisher) makes a mistake and kills an innocent person.
Frank Castle gives up the vigilante life and becomes a priest.
Years later, a big threat arises that draws Frank out of retirement, to put on the skull shirt one last time.

These stories were submitted by many different people, and they differed in the little details. Sometimes the innocent person was a boy, or a nun, or a cop. Sometimes it was a crimelord who Frank came back to fight, sometimes a supervillain, sometimes a corrupt politician. But the basic story was always the same.

The editor wondered why so many people were obsessed with this idea. It didn’t fit the character at all, as the Punisher was driven by revenge and obsession, and wasn’t religious. And since you can’t really set anything after the Punisher’s last big mission, it was effectively a dead end for the series. So why this story?

Ultimately, the reason’s fairly simple: all those would-be writers wanted to be remembered as the one who wrote the Ultimate Punisher Story. Not as the guy who wrote a story where the Punisher guns down some goons. And if the series was wasted after that, so much the better, because it also meant they would have written the Last Punisher Story. And thus their submissions went into the drawer, because the readers were paying to see the Punisher gun down some goons, not to feed some particular writer’s ego.

When a player shows up with a Paladin, some GMs start imagining the Ultimate Paladin Story. The paladin will make a mistake, and fall from grace. He’ll spend a long time wandering the earth, saving people, proving that he can do right without the power of heaven. And then there will be some big threat, and the paladin will stand up against it, and all his powers will come back, and he’ll smite the demon or the dragon or whatever with righteousness. And then presumably everyone will shed a tear in awe at the storytelling skill of the GM who made it happen.

Nevermind that it may not fit the character at all. Nevermind that it makes supposedly “good” gods look like cruel bullies. Nevermind that the player may have just wanted to play as a shining knight and smite some orcs. The GM wants to be remembered for being the one to tell the Ultimate Paladin Story, and that requires the paladin to fall.

And thus, one way or another, the paladin will fall.

The only way things will ever work out is for GMs to actually talk to their players beforehand. If they want to do the whole fall and redemption thing, go for it! Work out some appropriate fall. Decide together what sort of thing will raise a fallen paladin up again. But for the love of all that is holy, don’t try to be an auteur and force the story on a player who just signed up to kill some goons.


I agree with Lemeres , there is just many , many reasons this happens.

This isnt only on the paladin either , but the paladin is like a beacon to the alignment issue because it adds to it the code and the obvious fall.

Pathfinder is a game with many very strick rules and alignment is a very loose part of it since it is all subjective mostly.

What one thinks is fine and what is wrong may change a lot from player to player and gm to gm , add to that the multitude of human feelings one can have while the decide it , like pride/envy...

Yup , you are in for a mess.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So yeah, Chekhov's Gun isn't a TVTropes thing. It predates it by like, a century. Chekhov's Gun is a quote from Anton Chekhov and really just says "don't include something in the story unless it actually matters", in a bit more colorful language. Its place in tabletop really only applies to things the GM does. Players should not expect that the story find a place for every piece of equipment or class ability they have (unless they make one up themselves). GMs should expect that when they say the room has a statue or the NPC has a silver ring or whatever that the players will assume it's significant. To obsessive levels.

The problem is not multifaceted. It has a single facet. Some people feel the need to tell other people how to play. It's just that simple. The paladin isn't unique in this regard, it just has the problem of restrictions written as vague rules instead of fluff (seriously, "act with honor"?) so when someone tells a paladin they're doing it wrong they're just worried about the rules and not just being a jerk.

You can get many of the same reactions by mentioning Barbarians who don't foam at the mouth when they rage, Rogues who focus on Strength and/or aren't sneak thieves, Clerics of an ideal, divine casting classes without a god, or druids who aren't vegetarian. Those are just off the top of my head. Anything that doesn't match some vocal person's specific idea of what the flavor of the class is. Some vocal person who, for some reason, feels the need to tell other people how to play. Because they're doing it wrong.

People don't care about the Paladin falling. They care that other people are playing something in a way they disagree with, but using an appeal to authority instead of saying it's their opinion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's a combination of objective morality, and vestigial class features.

Objective morality suggests a black or white worldview, often with the rider concept that evil is easier than good (wide road vs narrow path). This approach cannot take circumstance into account and thus leads to almost certain moral failure.

The forced alignment and roleplay penalties themselves are both holdovers from earlier editions where they were seem as necessary balancing factors to the powers gained by a Paladin. If they were actually needed in those earlier editions could reasonably be debated, but they are far less called for in Pathfinder. These restrictions create the opportunity for objective morality to become problematic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
People don't care about the Paladin falling. They care that other people are playing something in a way they disagree with, but using an appeal to authority instead of saying it's their opinion.

I think that's definitely a factor, but the Paladin is pretty unique in that it's the only class that includes a totally by-the-rules way to punish people for "doing it wrong." Which no doubt encourages the sorts of people who already have that tendency.


The Wyrm Ouroboros wrote:
You can play a battle game with RP, but then hey, you're injecting story into your battle game; congrats, you're on your way to developing an RPG.

Thank you, Dave Arneson; may you rest in peace.

On the other hand, zombie Dave Arneson could be interesting, too...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
VampByDay wrote:
In short, this is a metacognative discussion on why we TALK about paladins falling so much.

Every "Should the paladin fall?" thread is effectively asking "What is the difference between right and wrong / good and evil? How should humans act?"

This is probably the most important question in the world - and one that is unlikely ever to be settled.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A lot of people also seem obsessed with 'grimdark antiheros' - and the existence of a paragon of good almost offends them. No, it's not everyone, or even close to the majority, but it's definitely a faction.


I would have said it is because it is the most subjective mechanic in the rulebook.

I would always be wary of other players being involved in whether or not a Paladin has fallen. This is surely something between the Paladin player and the GM. When another player starts to shout about my characters personal moral code it can be taken as anywhere between chaudenfreude, metagaming (why would the character know such things?), through to outright game destruction.


Simply for story purposes.

It's very interesting to watch the Champion fall, and then work toward redemption. It can make for a compelling story/character arc.

Doing it just to f!&* with the player playing one - no.

But doing it because the player brings great RP to the character, and is willing to explore these dynamics - yes!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Why do we love the Paladins falling.

A hilarious combination of wearing heavy f~*!ing armor, dumping dexterity and the timeless Lancelot boning Guinevere debacle.

*whump, clatter, clang*

Damn it, fell again!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is also the fact that "paladin falls" arguments are so classic in the community that its an obvious route to take if you want to start a topic that's guaranteed to quickly generate flames.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Wyrm Ouroboros wrote:


Paladins can fall.

Just because something "can" happen doesn't mean that it will or should.

In my opinion, the percentage of times where a PC Paladin should fall in the furtherance of a campaign's storyline is vanishingly small.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because we want to know what kind of noises they make when they land.

Is it a *SPLAT*?

Is it a *CRUNCH*?

Is it a *BOOOOOM*?

Is it an *AAAAAAAGGGGHHHH!!*?

No one knows.

That's why we make scenarios for Paladins to fall.

Grand Lodge

Because without the threat of falling (and the lawful good alignment requirement), paladins are mechanically superior to all other martial classes in just about every way.

It's essentially the same reason they introduced kryptonite into the Superman mythos. Without it, the character is so mechanically perfect it's kind of boring.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
VampByDay wrote:
Paladins, most will agree, are a pretty powerful class, one of the best melee classes out there. In order to balance it, there is a restriction. In this case, Paladin's get benefits, but risk loosing it all if they don't follow their restriction.

See, I think that the popular perception (at least on these boards) is that this restriction simply isn't worthwhile (in terms of benefits vs. penalties) anymore.

Prior to 3.0, what you say was definitely the case. Back then, the paladin class was one that was incredibly stringent; you needed a set of high ability scores (operating under the presumption that these were rolled, rather than bought), had to be human (though 2E added "demi-paladins" in The Complete Paladin's Handbook), and if you ever fell that was it, you were just a fighter from now on (maybe, maybe you could get one chance at redemption, but there'd never be another one after that).

That was because earlier editions of the game had different mechanics and different sensibilities accompanying them. Paladin abilities made them flat-out better than other "warrior" classes, and that demanded that they be held to a higher standard, both mechanically and in the in-character presumptions of how the game world worked.

That all changed with Third Edition. At that point, the idea became that all classes should be balanced with each other, and the game tried to make it so that paladins were simply "different" from other classes (especially martial classes) without being necessarily "better" than them. How well this design ethos succeeded is certainly questionable, but it seems fairly obvious that that was always the goal.

The problem with this is that it makes the entire concept of "falling" into a legacy restriction, one which no longer grants that much of a benefit. A paladin really isn't that much better than, say, a barbarian, and yet barbarians aren't saddled with a strict code of conduct the way a paladin is.

I think a lot of the furor over whether or not something makes a paladin fall is from people knowing that they've got the proverbial Sword of Damocles hanging over their head, and they're not really getting very much for it.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
So yeah, Chekhov's Gun isn't a TVTropes thing. It predates it by like, a century. Chekhov's Gun is a quote from Anton Chekhov and really just says "don't include something in the story unless it actually matters", in a bit more colorful language. Its place in tabletop really only applies to things the GM does.

Yes, I know that. I said the TV tropes thing as a bit of a glib joke. That and modern people on these boards are more likely to get a TV tropes referance than a reference to some guy named Anton Chekhov.

It's place in Roleplaying games is much larger, I argue. As RPGs are all about the stories they tell, many people, players/GMs/spectators, whatever, they all think of Chekhov's gun as part of a STORY DEVICE, so many expect it to go off.

Bob Bob Bob wrote:
The problem is not multifaceted. It has a single facet. Some people feel the need to tell other people how to play. It's just that simple. The paladin isn't unique in this regard, it just has the problem of restrictions written as vague rules instead of fluff (seriously, "act with honor"?) so when someone tells a paladin they're doing it wrong they're just worried about the rules and not just being a jerk.

I think that's part of it, sure, but as you said Paladin's aren't unique in this regard. A cleric, inquisitor, and Druid can all lose their powers if they stray too far from their god. Sure, their restrictions are more loose, but they still exist. Why don't people say that every cult of the dawnflower member should loose their powers? Why don't people say that Kyra should loose her powers every time she takes someone down without offering them redemption? I think the problem goes deeper than 'people are jerks.' Well, yes, some people are in it for the shedenfrude or because 'that's not how you play a Paladin, but I think there's something deeper

A Bunch of people wrote:
It's because of the subjectivity of the alignment system.

That is a bit of the answer, but not the whole answer. I think. Think back to the example I gave. I don't think anyone would have argued that attacking non-lethally would go against lawful good, so why did that one player insist that Seelah fell for attacking non-lethally? It doesn't go against Lawful good, and it doesn't go against the Paladin code. It could have been sheudinfraude, or the thought that the person was playing their character wrong, but it was a pregen Seelah at the end of an adventure. The player was probably not going to play her again, and the session was almost over anyway.

I think he thought that it 'had' to happen at some point. So either the player was deliberatly trying to undo my message that 'lawful good doesn't mean lawful stupid.' or that they just thought that the Paladin falling thing 'had' to happen at some point. It was a part of the class that had to be exposed.

Now, I am not saying that all players are like my player, and surly there are some jerks out there that think that Paladins are being played 'wrong' or that they want to punish paladins out there, but I think there is something more to it than that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AD&D Paladin Handbook wrote:

What better nemesis for a paladin than his direct opposite, an "anti-paladin" that embodies the forces of evil? As the mirror image of a normal paladin, an anti-paladin might be able to detect the presence of good, generate an aura of protection against good creatures, and wield an "unholy" sword.

Though DMs may experiment with any type of character they like, we discourage the use of anti-paladins. Good and evil are not merely mirror images of each other. Just as the forces of evil have their unique champions, the paladin is intended as a unique champion of good. The paladin originates from a tradition of dynamic balance, in which the forces of good are few and elite and in which forces of evil are numerous and of lesser quality. Allowing anti-paladins blurs this basic relationship.

The concept of Paladins falling is rooted in a traditional "Good vs Evil" balance schematic where the loss of a single Paladin is a significant loss for the side of Good. Paladins get their powers from devotion, discipline, adherence to their code, and pure "Goodness". That's a tall order to fulfill, but the benefit for doing it is supposed to be significant. On the flip-side, "champions" of evil don't draw from a code or discipline; they are competitive and prone to in-fighting. Evil is supposed to be inherently self-destructive because its champions compete with one another for personal advancement rather than cooperate for the promotion of the group. There shouldn't be a concept of a "fall" for the forces of Evil.

Furthermore, we have a very strong tendency to rationalize our actions and moral choices. We spin excuses and validations for morally ambiguous choices and try to apply this reasoning to a character with objective, unambiguous Goodness. A real, honest-to-goodness Paladin does not rationalize, he doesn't make excuses, and he doesn't compromise. Ever. In order to properly espouse the ideal of a Paladin character, you must, mentally, get yourself to a place where you can be an idealist without thinking of it negatively as naivete or stupidity or "wishful thinking". That's a big source of the problem; our society today thinks the ideals from which the Paladin draws his supernatural mojo are stupid and unrealistic; thus, we search, either deliberately or unintentionally, for validation of our own opinion regarding this. We look for opportunities for the Paladin to fall to prove to ourselves that his ways are just as naive and gullible and that morality is never black/white but all gray at best, or black/gray at worst. But, the thing is, that a Paladin class would be incapable of existing in the first place if that were the case. Paladins can only exist with an objectively White aspect of morality. In Grey or Grey/Black universes, there could never be such a creature as a Paladin, so "inevitably falling" is a moot point. Only in White/Gray, White/Black, or White/Gray/Black can they exist in the first place; a prerequisite to them being able to fall. And, in such a universe, they very much CAN espouse the absolutist, objective, uncompromising Good morality.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think one of the more memorable things I've heard a GM say, was doing Extra Life [a 24 hour game marathon]. We sat down to play a module and he turned to his buddy and said with an evil grin. ''Sweet, I've got two paladins.''

Later in the module, the big bad guy [surrounded by minions] offers a duel to the party. If he wins, the party has to go away. I realized that his was the reason for his comment. He expected the party to take the duel because the minions [half of who we should have had a chance to kill earlier, so it was more like fighting 2 fights together] would be difficult and a one on one fight might be easier. Of course, once we lost the duel the paladins would have a choice;
Honor the arrangement, thus falling to prevent evil and fall or break the deal, thus acting unlawfully/ without honor and fall.

Now, I might have just been really tired then [and the party opted for don't take the duel any way] but this really, really irked me. I think, mostly because this showed a very GM vs. Player mentality. The GM was going to delight in making two paladins fall in a no win situation by trying to force us into it, hence why the boss had more minions then he ought to. [Not technically against Pfs rules but it was easy to see things had been manipulated. Minions in earlier rooms had either fled early or retreated prior to our arrival when they detected our presence.]

I think a lot of the time it comes down to the Paladin fall is an easy GM vs. Player button to press. In some ways, [especially out of pfs] it's an auto-win.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
VampByDay wrote:
Paladins, most will agree, are a pretty powerful class, one of the best melee classes out there. In order to balance it, there is a restriction. In this case, Paladin's get benefits, but risk loosing it all if they don't follow their restriction.

I agree with most of the OP except this.

In the current edition, there are a great many classes and archetypes that are equal to or better than paladins, but those other classes don't have these kinds of restrictions.

For the OP's argument to be valid, I would expect a great many other classes would need similar "Play right or lose your class abilities" balancing mechanisms. But they just don't exist, even for classes that can literally blow paladins right out of the water.

Way back in first edition it was true (until they introduced the barbarian and cavalier in Unearthed Arcana). Back then, the paladin might have been the best class (although wizards, if they survived to high levels, eventually took over the, just like they do now).

To balance that, they made it almost impossible to roll one (on 3d6, the minimum ability scores needed were nearly impossible to actually roll without cheating; I don't recall ever seeing anyone actually roll well enough to play a paladin, unless the GM used variant rules for generating ability scores).

If you did manage to roll well enough (thanks to a generous GM), then you were forced to conform to this very strict code (which included donating almost all the treasure you found in addition to the lawful-stupid restrictions).

In those days, it probably was a balance mechanism.

Not anymore.

Now it's just an atavism. A very problematic atavism.

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Because some people don't like the idea of righteous heroes, see them as inherently self-righteous, and also likely because it makes them feel worse about themselves by comparison.


It's the same reason YouTube and America's Funniest Home Videos before it are so popular.

Jackasses falling are always hilarious to watch!

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Hmm....where to begin.

I've played several paladins and never had one of them Fall. I think one of the fundamental problems out there is that many people do not have a clear grasp of the concept of "Lawful Good" and what that entails. Too many portray the Gods (and paladins) as uncompromising arbiters of absolute law....and they completely forget the far more important half of "Good". Their goal is the end suffering, to protect and safeguard people, to represent the highest ideals of their deities. They are warriors to be sure, but their powers and abilities were given to them to be used in service of the greater good, not to wander around like killing machines who slaughter their way through every person and creature that has ever made a poor decision.

To get back to the original topic though, I think we need to look at the original inspiration of the Paladin class. Lancelot.

Lancelot was the quintessential holy warrior. Perfect in mind and body, unswerving dedication to his King, his oaths and his God. But he fell. It was his lust for Guinevere which shook his loyalty and his faith, after which he became a wandering madman priest (in some stories) who spent decades paying for his transgressions. His redemption came in the twilight of Camelot when he returned to fulfill his oaths in the final battle against Mordred, thereby earning the forgiveness of Arthur and his God.

That story is the foundation of the "Paladin's Fall". It is a classic story, but one that does NOT need to be repeated over and over with every Paladin that shows up to a game table. The goal is to have fun, and unless you plan ahead of time to roleplay out a fallen paladin, it shouldn't occur in game unless the player has his paladin commit a decidedly evil act. You are not going to fall just because you chose to show mercy to an enemy (if anything, that is EXACTLY what you SHOULD be doing), nor will you fall if you make a poor decision for the right reasons. Evil is what makes a paladin fall. Not travelling with a questionable companion while completing a quest (great opportunity to redeem them), not failing to kill every goblin in the world (mercy, redemption, forgiveness....you know, "Good" things), not for choosing not to kill a slaver who is operating within the law and treats his slaves well (although given a chance to purchase their freedom, a paladin would certainly do so....what do they need of wealth if another's suffering can be ended by spending it).

That said, willingly aiding someone in acts that are clearly evil (torture, murder, demonic activities, etc...) will certainly cause a paladin to fall, although usually he is going to get a wake-up-call from his deity the moment he begins to walk down that path. Time enough for atonement before the hammer falls, as it were.

/rant.


Well, one thing I always do is to make it a player decision to fall. I try to be very clear about things that would affect falling or even be questionable to the paladin's code. Since each person is different, and paladins of different deities have different priorities, it should never be a surprise.

For example a Paladin of Sarenrae should be focused on redemption. Redemption sometimes requires that you give an evil being a chance. I'm going to be more lenient about associating with evil when there's a reasonable chance of influencing them.

I also look at playing paladins like playing certain videogames on hardmode or trying to get specific achievements. The party should be able to solve the adventure without the paladin falling, but some areas may be harder. As a GM, I'm definitely not trying to make a no-win scenario. But sometimes there's the temptation of an easier path. Come to the dark side, we have cookies.

One example came from a an old 3.5 module. Since it was a module, there was no specifically targeting paladins. This module had a couple of different evil groups that also hated each other. The party was trying to avoid the rise of a truly epic evil. At one point, an imprisoned marilith offers to aid you in exchange for being freed. She has followers in the dungeon who will then aid you instead of opposing you. It's possible for a party to defeat everything, but it's on the hard end. If they take this deal it's on the easy end. There are also other options to avoid some fights.

In the group I ran, they had had some bad luck in a few fights and they chose to deal with the marilith. They did get a binding oath that she would return with her followers to the abyss for a century and a day after this was finished. I let the paladin know that this was going to cause a fall, and she chose to go with it.


Maybe it's just "a thing". It's a community topic that just gets propagated. Sure, it can happen with clerics, but the ongoing popular topic is paladins. I haven't heard of any GMs trying to contrive a scenario in which the only suitable course of action for a druid is to teach druidic to a non-druid, to get them lose their powers. Mind, I haven't set out to find such examples, but I didn't set out to find all these paladin discussions, either, and yet I've seen them. So, maybe not "nobody has ever done it", but "it's unlikely anyone has ever done it". Although I think it would be not a noble goal to do so, I would be extremely impressed if a GM tricked a player to have their druid lose their powers in this way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Stazamos wrote:
Maybe it's just "a thing". It's a community topic that just gets propagated.

Well, one of the issues is that most of the Paladin stories "in real life" (meaning, largely, the Arthurian legends, or similar medieval epics) are stories of paladins falling or dying because they refuse to fall (and therefore being a hero, but the story ends at that point). Lancelot is the primary example of the first, and Roland is the primary example of the second.

Both are highly dramatic stories with lots of narrative fodder.

Even in the Grail legend,... the interesting stories are the stories of the knights who failed (look at T.H. White's treatment in The Once and Future King). Galahad, the paladin who didn't fail, is superhuman and boring (or maybe superhumanly boring).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Fall mechanics are also terrible because it is an on/off switch.
Because you abruptly lose your powers, it feels more like a punishment than an interesting new direction.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the issue more at hand is peoples obsession with "what is an evil act".

For example last weekend at a PFS game We were presented with a combat with 6 Ninja. 3 of them were either put to sleep or Dazed so that they were prone, and no longer an immediate threat. My rogue took the opportunity to slay an enemy while they were vulnerable and to simplify things I said "I'm going to coup de grace them". To which the entire table erupted with a resounding "That is an evil act!!!". So I proceeded to take a full round two weapon sneak attack and actually did more damage then I would have if I coup de grace probably. To which the table had no issue... because somehow it was no longer an evil act because it was simply an attack... I was and still am super confused by this but I rolled with it.

So long story short I think peoples obsession with what is and isn't an evil act is really what is wrong with this mechanic rather then simply being a Paladin problem. They just suffer more directly from it because it holds an immediate negative consequence for them and not so much for everyone else.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Even in the Grail legend,... the interesting stories are the stories of the knights who failed (look at T.H. White's treatment in The Once and Future King). Galahad, the paladin who didn't fail, is superhuman and boring (or maybe superhumanly boring).

I think it's mostly that the stories generally use him as the Deus Ex Machina mechanism than him remaining pure being at the root of him being boring.

"Oh look - here comes Galahad. Let me guess... he's going to instantly beat all the bad guys and save the girl with virtually no trouble again."

There was never a story about him before he was so skilled, or up against a foe/obstacle which he can't easily take on headfirst in the most boring way possible.


I think people are interested in stories where characters change and develop. The paladin, more than any other class, is held up as an ideal. If a paladin were to remain as this ideal all the way through a 20-level campaign, that can potentially be fairly boring, particularly since they're likely to have been exposed to many situations that challenge their beliefs.

Stories of characters with high ideals stumbling, falling, and picking themselves back up again are interesting. I don't think every paladin needs to fall, but I like seeing them learn to loosen up a bit at least.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Headfirst wrote:

Because without the threat of falling (and the lawful good alignment requirement), paladins are mechanically superior to all other martial classes in just about every way.

That superiority goes out the window against non-evil foes. Against multiple evil foes the Paladin's smite is rapidly eclipsed by the Inquisitor's Bane.


I think it's a common topic because it is the cleanest, most direct exposure of the flaws of probably the most flawed systems in pathfinder: alignment. The attempt to cram the most obviously subjective thing out there into a precise, objective categorical structure fails rather dramatically at yielding clear rules results. Thus, people fill in the void with tons of personal preference and supposition and homebrew almost entirely, which is naturally highly variant, compared to other more clear cut rules issues.

Take the dodgiest piece of meat on the table, cut it wide open in a way that exposes it most directly to the air, and you'll get the biggest reaction from people nearby.

Scarab Sages

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Crimeo wrote:

I think it's a common topic because it is the cleanest, most direct exposure of the flaws of probably the most flawed systems in pathfinder: alignment. The attempt to cram the most obviously subjective thing out there into a precise, objective categorical structure fails rather dramatically at yielding clear rules results. Thus, people fill in the void with tons of personal preference and supposition and homebrew almost entirely, which is naturally highly variant, compared to other more clear cut rules issues.

Take the dodgiest piece of meat on the table, cut it wide open in a way that exposes it most directly to the air, and you'll get the biggest reaction from people nearby.

Okay, this has ALWAYS bothered me. I don't understand people's vehement hatred of the alignment system. NOW DON'T GET ME WRONG. THE ALIGNMENT SYSTEM IS NOT PERFECT. However, people take every opportunity to dogpile and stab the crap out of that thing instead of sitting down and thinking about it.

Is the alignement system flawed? Yes. Most certainly. Is it the most flawed system in the game? No. I can list off ten things off the top of my head that irk me more than the alignment system (in fact, I have.)

People misunderstand the alignment system. It is not "fit people into tight little categories and have them act only within that category." Not all Lawful good people are the same, not all chaotic evil people are the same. The question is "Where do you fall on the order vs. chaos axis, and where do you fall on the good vs. evil axis? Put the two together. We done? Good, moving on. . .

Besides, Paladin's problems don't stem from their alignment. Playing lawful good is actually pretty easy if you stop being a murderhobo. The problem is the code. 'Act honorably,' and 'don't countenance evil' is far more subjective than 'lead an ordered life and try to be good.'

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
VampByDay wrote:
Okay, this has ALWAYS bothered me. I don't understand people's vehement hatred of the alignment system. NOW DON'T GET ME WRONG. THE ALIGNMENT SYSTEM IS NOT PERFECT. However, people take every opportunity to dogpile and stab the crap out of that thing instead of sitting down and thinking about it.

Individual posters are not "people". For every person cranking out on alignment on a menu discussion board there are hundreds playing with those mechanics without a complaint.


VampByDay wrote:
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
Chekhov's Gun
It's place in Roleplaying games is much larger, I argue. As RPGs are all about the stories they tell, many people, players/GMs/spectators, whatever, they all think of Chekhov's gun as part of a STORY DEVICE, so many expect it to go off.

Players can tell their own story. The GM is responsible for telling the story of the world. The only way the players can "set off" a Chekhov's Gun is personally, they can't "make" the world set it off for them. The GM can.

VampByDay wrote:
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
The problem is not multifaceted. It has a single facet. Some people feel the need to tell other people how to play. It's just that simple. The paladin isn't unique in this regard, it just has the problem of restrictions written as vague rules instead of fluff (seriously, "act with honor"?) so when someone tells a paladin they're doing it wrong they're just worried about the rules and not just being a jerk.
I think that's part of it, sure, but as you said Paladin's aren't unique in this regard. A cleric, inquisitor, and Druid can all lose their powers if they stray too far from their god. Sure, their restrictions are more loose, but they still exist. Why don't people say that every cult of the dawnflower member should loose their powers?
...because they do! Just not as often. In case you missed my third paragraph:
Recursion! wrote:
You can get many of the same reactions by mentioning Barbarians who don't foam at the mouth when they rage, Rogues who focus on Strength and/or aren't sneak thieves, Clerics of an ideal, divine casting classes without a god, or druids who aren't vegetarian. Those are just off the top of my head. Anything that doesn't match some vocal person's specific idea of what the flavor of the class is. Some vocal person who, for some reason, feels the need to tell other people how to play. Because they're doing it wrong.

And some of those aren't even divine classes. The paladin isn't even unique in the "fluff masquerading as rules". A Druid must "revere nature" or they lose everything. Because that's so very specific and clear.

Seriously though, the Paladin isn't special here. It's just the most frequent target. Probably helps that the vaguest parts of the code most people have a definition for (act with honor) and it's a fairly personal definition that varies wildly from individual to individual. Again, it's not about the Paladin falling, it's about how other people are playing wrong and need to be told that so they stop/play correctly.

Grand Lodge

LazarX wrote:
Headfirst wrote:

Because without the threat of falling (and the lawful good alignment requirement), paladins are mechanically superior to all other martial classes in just about every way.

That superiority goes out the window against non-evil foes. Against multiple evil foes the Paladin's smite is rapidly eclipsed by the Inquisitor's Bane.

Maybe, but then the paladin also has full BAB, proficiency with all martial weapons, swift self-healing, heavy armor, and channel energy. Also, on a semantic note, inquisitors are not usually referred to as a "martial" class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Paladins, most will agree, are a pretty powerful class, one of the best melee classes out there. In order to balance it, there is a restriction. In this case, Paladin's get benefits, but risk loosing it all if they don't follow their restriction.

The Wizard is by far and away more powerful than the Paladin. Why does it not have even more restrictions to balance it? Hell, even the 2.0 Wizard is more powerful and it looses access to ALL spells of its opposed school.

The Paladin Code is not meant to balance the Paladin, and is not (in game design) a balancing factor. It is PURELY a legacy mechanic from earlier editions. Melee classes do not deserve class restrictions (as a measure of balancing).

People are obbssessed with Paladins falling because they have a stick up their butts and are BADWRONGFUN guys who can't accept other people can have their cake and eat it too (unless you're a wizard, since they can cast a spell that lets them not only eat their cake, but eat the Paladin's cake too).


Quote:
The question is "Where do you fall on the order vs. chaos axis, and where do you fall on the good vs. evil axis?

And answering that question requires putting morality into distinct boxes. I realize it doesn't force you to continue acting that way (which is great), but it does still require objective, summary judgment of morality, which is impossible to do in any sort of clear rules way. I therefore think it's the most broken system, because it basically requires large, consistent amounts of GM fiat non-optionally, more than any other system.

It also causes the most arguments and bad blood between players by far in my experience. I'm not playing as a member of a cohesive church group or something that all agree on codified morality. Usually I have very different morals than my players or GM, so arguing about this stuff when the game forces you to basically use real life morals instead of clear in game rules, starts moral arguments between actual human players.

I can imagine a system that wouldn't work like that, but they would have to be very clear, very explicit about "X is wrong, Y is not wrong" or at least give logically extensive rules that could be objectively applied to any situation for "in game Golarion morality." That could solve it without arguments or huge amounts of fiat, but would probably get Paizo in trouble for seeming to officially promote certain moralities.

It's just a huge mess. And it doesn't really add anything OTHER than its own huge mess, so the game is much cleaner without it entirely.


This is me being purely speculative, but how much is a knee-jerk reaction against the stereotypical Lawful Stupid paladin?

Still, alignment is tricky as it restricts a few classes. Paladins are of course the most well-known as they're the most restricted, but there's a reason the monk/barbarian gestalt doesn't really get off the ground.

And as mentioned, 'act with honour' has many meanings. Ruses de guerre are 'legit' as far as modern war -- if you can impersonate the enemy commander and get that unit to go somewhere else, it's their own fault for obeying you. Except when you're fighting while outright disguised as an enemy. But that's also modern rules.

So, argument bait plus class that sometimes gets played as a spoilsport holier-than-thou type? Yup.


I think it's a mix between Checkov's gun, miss-interpretation of what a paladin is and that some people can't understand three dimensional characters (that's why so many characters in movies are flat).
A Paladin doesn't need to be the vanilla kind of Paladin (does everything right, is always nice, etc,etc). It's just that some people aren't aware of it, and when someone is playing a vanilla-chocolate-strawberry Paladin, someone screams "THAT'S NOT ICE CREAM! THAT'S POOP!" because they're not aware of chocolate flavored ice cream... How did this end up here?

And for some reason, people think that Paladins can never stray from their path. It's like if their god was standing behind with a readied trip weapon as soon as they take a wrong step, even when it's just a side step and not a step backwards.
To me it's as silly as if someone would make a Barbarians "fall" if they didn't break some laws each session, just to prove to the world that they're not lawful.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rub-Eta wrote:
To me it's as silly as if someone would make a Barbarians "fall" if they didn't break some laws each session, just to prove to the world that they're not lawful.

That's why barbarians never use the crosswalk. Jaywalking proves their chaotic nature.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:
To me it's as silly as if someone would make a Barbarians "fall" if they didn't break some laws each session, just to prove to the world that they're not lawful.
That's why barbarians never use the crosswalk. Jaywalking proves their chaotic nature.

Actually I'd say it's the power attack vital strike that chops through the engine block which proves it for me.


One thing I wonder about is if paladins are as likely to fall when you use the subjective morality rules from unchained. What is "Good" then changes depending on the individual, but they all still share the code the same conduct.

1 to 50 of 100 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why are we so obsessed with Paladins falling? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.