Fallen Paladin: Does attacking a possessed party member qualify as an Evil Act and Violation of the Paladin Code?


Rules Questions

151 to 200 of 442 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Rysky wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:

It may be a slur in your discourse communities, but that in no way makes it universally so. Really, since it seems we just have differing experiences with the words in question, the end point is that it's unfair to categorize the term "bros before hoes", or more importantly its use in this case, as inherently misogynistic (since there's no way for either of us to know the user's intentions or tendencies in regards to the words).

Most of my social interactions is through the use of the internet so I don't really have a "discourse community".

And I can safely say that I'm pretty sure "hoe" is universally a slur, just because it gets thrown around a lot doesn't make it stop being one. So yes, "bros before hoes" is INTENSELY misogynistic. I've never come across an example of it not being.

I was referring to "whore" not inherently being a slur, not "hoe". Nonetheless, as I said before, "hoe" isn't universally used exclusively against women, so to say that it is absolutely misogynistic in this case or any other where you're not familiar with the speaker's use of the word is inaccurate. It's definitely a slur in every case I've ever seen, but not in any way inherently sexist. Also, the medium through which you communicate in no way impacts whether or not you are a member of a discourse community. You're actively engaging in one right now.
Again, just because you can call a man that doesn't make it stop being a misogynistic slur, and it is absolutely sexist. And it IS inherently sexist, that's exactly why it's a misogynistic slur even if you don't direct it a women.

Again, that may be the case for the discourse communities you frequent, I'm just saying that's not objectively the case for all, or necessarily even most people. You're assuming that the OP's GM is using the same definition as you, which is presumptuous.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Well, since the OP's GM didn't use the phrase, can we drop it?


Being nice is always more effective in changing peoples attitudes toward the better than raging at them, arguing with them, or otherwise telling them they are wrong. And if a carefully worded apology can sooth the savage beast then what is the harm in using it? No harm at all.

Madokar... I hope you will consider an apology or alternatively a compliment to let them know you have no hard feelings over events. Emotions are infectious. If you get angry at someone they will get angry back. If you are nice to them they will be nice back.

I know it sucks to be on the wrong side of a GMs bad call. But you can turn it into an opportunity to show how mature a player you are. THAT will get you invites to games.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Madokar Valortouched wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
Madokar Valortouched wrote:
For the record, I can't bring up the people online. I'm the outsider in the group, and the rest of the party agrees with the GM's decision. Their united opinion is that people online don't know the group or the story the GM is trying to tell.
And its a very fair point for them to make, particularly the GM. We have your side of the story, but as I mentioned in my first post, there is a lot of context we don't have. You've given us what you are able, but the GM's side of the story would provide a lot more. Something you should ask yourself, "Do you trust this GM to make your paladin falling an enjoyable, and good story point?" Or do you feel the GM is simply being malicious?
I do trust him to come up with an impressive story. We've been going at this campaign a year and this is the first major dispute that's popped up. I just question his rationality behind the fall than his story-telling ability. And the rest of the group has played with him for years and they trust him.

I think that that is part of the problem. They share an opinion of what is the "right" behavior for a paladin, formed by years of gaming together. Something that for them don't need to be explained as it is "self evident".

You don't come from the same background, so you risk this kind of incident.
Personally I don't see any evil or unlawful behavior in what you did, so no reason to fall.

"the story the GM is trying to tell" for me is a very bad reason to make a paladin fail. It sound as the GM is imposing his story on the story of the characters.
A GM control the universe, but it isn't his job to impose actions on the PCs.

BretI wrote:


As to his decision, to me "Bros before foes" is a more Chaotic attitude than most paladins should have. Us first, the rest of the world can worry about themselves.

Seconded.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Apologizing solves nothing. Apologizing to someone like the DM and his group is like accepting that your husband hit you and welcoming him again in your home (hyperbole on purpose).
GM made 1 horrendous unjustified call. How much time is it gonna pass until he makes another one?
Suddenly you're the only one turning the other cheek, accepting whatever the whims of the DM are.

IMO there are mistakes and mistakes. This was a huge bad call, that invalidated one class altogether.
A Wizard could wake up and have lost his Spellbook, forcing a bit of the story, but you don't lose your magic power. A somewhat high level wizard will always have a spare book with his most important spells.

Apologizing would be a nice response if there was actually an argument and the morality of the act was dubious, but in this case, pretty much anyone that is not that group agrees that there was no reason to make the Paladin fall.

If you really want to keep playing with this group and not resent them, turn the other cheek. Count the days until something like this happens again. Then leave the group or just accept nothing is gonna change.

Liberty's Edge

Madokar Valortouched wrote:


I think you're the first one to side with my GM both here and on Giant in the Playground.

Thing is, it wasn't a consensual fight. Both combatants had their eyes turn solid black, and when the fight was over, they had no recollection of the fight. The Black Blades were in complete control.

There is also no apparent way to communicate with the Blades if you are not their wielder. And even then it's iffy. At least, that's the way it's been going so far in the campaign.

And I agree. It isn't evil to let people do what they want. But both combatants were not in control of their actions. Both were Good aligned. So being compelled to kill each other is not what they would do under their own power. It wouldn't be what they wanted.

Trying to find approval in different gaming board will not help you.

That said, a black blade has this from level 3, when the magus get it:
"Telepathy (Su): While a magus is wielding or carrying his black blade, he can communicate telepathically with the blade in a language that the magus and the black blade share."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's totally fine if in your setting, "Goblins" are Huge, benevolent guardians of peace and Good that command such reverence from the populace that offering them violence is unthinkable, and instill such terror in the forces of evil that even the rumor of one in the next county will send them scampering for safety.

It is totally not fine to fail to tell you players.

Liberty's Edge

Cheburn wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Madokar Valortouched wrote:


As soon as the Magus was knocked out, he dropped his Black Blade. At which point the dragon grabbed the Blade by her claws and destroyed it. This restored her to her senses and she stopped fighting.
...

Sounds like fun. Hopefully the loss of his Black Blade will restore some peace in the party.

The Black Blade is one of the Bladebound Magus's key class features. The Magus is going to want to get the Black Blade back, and he can do so through a ritual. Without his Blade, he'd be better off re-rolling as a standard Magus.

If he has the money I will use an adamantine version of his Black Blade in his ritual, that will make easier to destroy other Black Blades.

Someone/something destroying your BB is the only way to have one made of special materials.

BTW: destroy all black blades is a very bad special purpose, as the wielder can always restore it with a ritual and some money.
So permanently destroying a Black Blade require permanently destroying its wielder.

PRD wrote:


Unbreakable (Ex): As long as it has at least 1 point in its arcane pool, a black blade is immune to the broken condition. If broken, the black blade is unconscious and powerless until repaired. If destroyed, the black blade can be reforged 1 week later through a special ritual that costs 200 gp per magus level. The ritual takes 24 hours to complete.

Liberty's Edge

Letric wrote:

Imagine the following scenario:

Wizard cast spells
GM: nothing happened, your spell fails
Wizard: why? I wasn't close to any enemies, no reason for it to fail
GM: There was too much wind and you fail to articulate the necessary gestures to cast the spell

Well, actually:

Concentration Check DCs wrote:


Wind with rain or sleet while casting 5 + spell level
Wind with hail and debris while casting 10 + spell level

;-)

Sorry, but I couldn't resist.

But the GM should inform you beforehand that the weather is bad enough that you will have to make a concentration check. He know what is happening, the PC would know that too, but the player could be unaware of that.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
any one can make a situation were no matter what the paladin falls real cunning would be situations were the paladin wont fall but will have his morals and mental fortitude heavily put to the test and a different grizzly outcome no matter what path is chosen, the only time a paladin should be forced to fall instantaneously is when the player asks it of the dm to do not on the dms whim and a dm should give plenty of nodice about if a paladin is wavering and has the potential to fall.

for the most part sure I agree with some exceptions such as the following.

Well I did have a player running a paladin murder a bunch of orphans (group of kid thiefs granted but definitely not deserving murder.) and I had him fall on the spot and if you say that was wrong then I don't know how we could find common ground.

if their god had a strick code for killing all theives and bandits they would actually fall if they didnt kill them


John Napier 698 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Madokar Valortouched wrote:
Apparently, the GM viewed spilling the blood of an ally as an evil act and betrayal of the paladin code. I was just wondering if it's that extreme. The intent was to prevent the Magus from committing an evil act by killing a potentially good-aligned creature while he was under the influence of an unknown, aggressive intelligence.
In this GM's game, apparently so. In my games, this would not be an issue.
I completely agree. It wouldn't be an issue in my games, either. I would flat-out disallow intelligent items. Previously, creating intelligent items would involve either summoning a spirit and binding it to the object, or sacrificing a sentient and bonding its soul. So, this begs the question. Is the possession / use of an intelligent item an Evil act, akin to slavery?

not entirely true you can also make intelligent items from part of your own soul how ever it is a lot more dangerous to do so


Aranna wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Aranna wrote:

I fail to see where he says he is being bullied. If you and Rysky are seeing something there I don't then please enlighten me. The worst thing the OP talks about is falling for something he shouldn't have fallen for. And that is due to different interpretations of the paladin code. The only other fault I could see is the GM plot device which would bother me but doesn't seem to bother the OP.

The GM is final authority on alignments and codes. If the whole world thinks the GM is wrong it doesn't matter. Inside his own game the GM is right. As a player you really have just four options:
1- Reject the GM and leave the game. Pretty drastic and it sure won't make you any friends.
2- Avoid the issue by avoiding classes with specific code or alignment issues. It won't solve anything but it won't cost you anything either.
3- Accept the GMs interpretation and start playing by his rules. This will make the GM happy but may be a bitter pill to swallow especially after a heated argument.
4- Smooth Talk your GM into seeing things your way. This is best used with friends though and since he is new it is highly unlikely to work.

Options that will do harm:
5- Argue endlessly about it. NOBODY wants to hear someone whine and the group already is behind the GM on this.
6- Become a problem player till you get your way. Like the earlier bad advice about going antipaladin in a good group. This throwing a tantrum option is highly likely to get him tossed unceremoniously from the group.

I recommended option 2 as his best course as a newbie.
But why apologize if he did nothing wrong? I may be wrong but it sounded like there already was a heated argument which he lost. The group dynamic will be far more inclined to support him in the future if he falls on his sword here. And the group dynamic is FAR more powerful than being right or wrong. If he apologizes for the disruption of play rather than his stance he can win hearts without going back on his earlier

...

if you were the new person in the group and they just beat the snot out of you would you apologise "just to smooth things over" this is hypothetically the same thing minus the illegal parts


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I haven't read through the entire thread simply becaue I've seen so many discussions on this, so here's by input.
That call was extreme and unfair. There was nothing but Good intent in your reasoning, and there is nothing in Iomedae's Paladin Code that would condemn your actions. In fact, much of her code supports your stopping them from fighting:

Paladin Code wrote:
I will learn the weight of my sword. Without my heart to guide it, it is worthless—my strength is not in my sword, but in my heart. If I lose my sword, I have lost a tool. If I betray my heart, I have died.

You did not compromise your integrity and did what you knew was right.

Paladin Code wrote:
I will not be taken prisoner by my free will. I will not surrender those under my command.

Emphasis mine. You would not accept the hijacking of your comrade's body and mind

Paladin Code wrote:
I will never abandon a companion, though I will honor sacrifice freely given.

You would not leave them to their fate and the consequences of what they were about to do. Same as above.

Paladin Code wrote:
I will guard the honor of my fellows, both in thought and deed, and I will have faith in them.

This can interpreted as the same as the above, as well. You were not letting your companion tarnish their honour and believed this was not what they would want.

Your GM might be one of those people who just hates Paladins, either arbitrarily or because of a past bad experience or two. He might instead be one of those people who cause bad experiences with Paladins and make people hate them. I don't know, though.

All that said, Black Blades usually shouldn't cause issues this intense.

Black Blades wrote:
A black blade is independently conscious but features some personality traits reflecting its wielder. A black blade always has the same alignment as its wielder and even changes its alignment if its wielder does. The blade typically works toward its wielder’s goals, but not always without argument or backlash. Each black blade has a mission, and while sometimes two or more black blades will work in concert, each mission is singular in purpose (the black blade’s mission is usually up to the GM and the needs of the campaign or the adventure, or a GM can determine the weapon’s purpose randomly using Table: Intelligent Item Purpose). Some black blades are very open about their missions, but most are secretive. Certain sages have speculated that an invisible hand or arcane purpose moves these weapons.

I don't know what these two Black Blades' purposes/missions are, but they don't sound particularly Good, which is troublesome considering Silver Dragons are almost always Good and you have said the Magus' alignment is Chaotic Good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Bros before foes" is hardly a Good attitude. In fact, it's basically the definition of Neutral

Liberty's Edge

It seem that the GM think too much Stormbringer and no about the Pathfinder rules about black blades.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Letric wrote:

Imagine the following scenario:

Wizard cast spells
GM: nothing happened, your spell fails
Wizard: why? I wasn't close to any enemies, no reason for it to fail
GM: There was too much wind and you fail to articulate the necessary gestures to cast the spell

Well, actually:

Concentration Check DCs wrote:


Wind with rain or sleet while casting 5 + spell level
Wind with hail and debris while casting 10 + spell level

;-)

Sorry, but I couldn't resist.

But the GM should inform you beforehand that the weather is bad enough that you will have to make a concentration check. He know what is happening, the PC would know that too, but the player could be unaware of that.

You're completely right, but without the DM informing about it, it's not fair nor does it make for an enjoyable game.

Eventually with his ruling if I ever get my Paladin-hood back I'd be playing like this:
Paladin > Would attacking this goblin make me fall?
Would not helping this evil entity being devoured by its own sin make me fall?
Will talking to the innkeeper make me fall?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

on the other hand he could turn that ruling against the dm and just slaughter everything using the bros before foes as a defence as literally everything in the world could present a threat to the party members there for he would fall if he didn't kill everything that isn't a party member


DrDeth wrote:
bbangerter wrote:


And its a very fair point for them to make, particularly the GM. We have your side of the story, but as I mentioned in my first post, there is a lot of context we don't have. You've given us what you are able, but the GM's side of the story would provide a lot more. Something you should ask yourself, "Do you trust this GM to make your paladin falling an enjoyable, and good story point?" Or do you feel the GM is simply being malicious?

, "Do you trust this GM to make your paladin falling an enjoyable, and good story point?"

There is no such thing- unless the player agrees before hand.

Do you trust your Dm that destroying your wizards spellbook will make a enjoyable, and good story point?"

Do you trust your Dm that cutting off your rogues fingers will make a enjoyable, and good story point?"

Do you trust your Dm that making your fighter a parplegic will make a enjoyable, and good story point?"

Actually, yes, I do. I trust my GM enough to assume that any crippling harm to my characters will be quickly reversible, and contribute to the plot if it was purposely inflicted.

This really isn't a paladin thing. It's an overcontrolling GM thing, and it would happen in some form or another anyway. Are there GMs who specifically just have weird ideas about what paladins should fall over? Yeah. But those are, in my experience, usually going to at least have a consistent opinion that they can explain in advance, even if it may not match up with my personal philosophy. Same as any other house rule or table variation.


Bloodrealm wrote:

I haven't read through the entire thread simply becaue I've seen so many discussions on this, so here's by input.

That call was extreme and unfair. There was nothing but Good intent in your reasoning, and there is nothing in Iomedae's Paladin Code that would condemn your actions. In fact, much of her code supports your stopping them from fighting:
Paladin Code wrote:
I will learn the weight of my sword. Without my heart to guide it, it is worthless—my strength is not in my sword, but in my heart. If I lose my sword, I have lost a tool. If I betray my heart, I have died.

You did not compromise your integrity and did what you knew was right.

Paladin Code wrote:
I will not be taken prisoner by my free will. I will not surrender those under my command.

Emphasis mine. You would not accept the hijacking of your comrade's body and mind

Paladin Code wrote:
I will never abandon a companion, though I will honor sacrifice freely given.

You would not leave them to their fate and the consequences of what they were about to do. Same as above.

Paladin Code wrote:
I will guard the honor of my fellows, both in thought and deed, and I will have faith in them.

This can interpreted as the same as the above, as well. You were not letting your companion tarnish their honour and believed this was not what they would want.

Your GM might be one of those people who just hates Paladins, either arbitrarily or because of a past bad experience or two. He might instead be one of those people who cause bad experiences with Paladins and make people hate them. I don't know, though.

I pointed out those very tenets. What I got for the trouble was "Then do it all to the random dragon."

When I argued that if I knocked the dragon out, it would leave a window for the Magus to execute the dragon. Which would make me an accomplice to murder, which would be worse than standing by and doing nothing.

What THAT got me was: "You never feared for the cultist's lives. They were gullible and persuaded to evil. You outright killed them? Frost Giants, goblins, you murdered a lot. Your argument is void.

You have little knowledge of the situation and you attacked an ally. I don't know how to say it any different. You made a bad call and are being punished. It's why playing a paladin is hard."


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Madokar Valortouched wrote:

I pointed out those very tenets. What I got for the trouble was "Then do it all to the random dragon."

When I argued that if I knocked the dragon out, it would leave a window for the Magus to execute the dragon. Which would make me an accomplice to murder, which would be worse than standing by and doing nothing.

What THAT got me was: "You never feared for the cultist's lives. They were gullible and persuaded to evil. You outright killed them? Frost Giants, goblins, you murdered a lot. Your argument is void.

You have little knowledge of the situation and you attacked an ally. I don't know how to say it any different. You made a bad call and are being punished. It's why playing a paladin is hard."

Dear Paladin of Iomedae:

You've killed a lot of chaotic evil creatures. When you saw two good creatures being forced to attack each other against their will, you subdued one to save them both, but drew some blood in the process. You're a bad person and I'm going to punish you. NO POWERS FOR YOU!

<3,
GM

...

Someone doesn't understand Paladins.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Ask him to list his "rules of conduct" for the paladins. In print.
That will give you an "official" guideline and get him to clear up his rules.
I suspect that he hasn't a clear ideas of the rules a paladin should follow, so he is deciding them as he go. Probably the rules is using are based on mutual consensus with his others players over years of gaming. Something that you don't share. That put you in a bad position.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:

Ask him to list his "rules of conduct" for the paladins. In print.

That will give you an "official" guideline and get him to clear up his rules.
I suspect that he hasn't a clear ideas of the rules a paladin should follow, so he is deciding them as he go. Probably the rules is using are based on mutual consensus with his others players over years of gaming. Something that you don't share. That put you in a bad position.

More seriously, Diego's advice is probably the best you're going to get.


So basically your GM is an asshat that cannot be reasoned with. You attempted to subdue your party member to prevent him from doing something he would regret. Your enemy in that situation was not the dragon or your party member: it was the forces controlling them. You knew the dragon was not Evil, so that at the very least makes it different from the cultists and goblin raiders and such. You also know the capabilities of your party and assessed that subduing the Magus first rather than the dragon would make the situation the safest.
I was right: he either hates Paladins or he plays them to the absolute extreme and wants to make every minuscule action a moral dilemma placing you on the edge of falling for drama's sake. I probably wouldn't keep playing with them if they consistently play that way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:

Ask him to list his "rules of conduct" for the paladins. In print.

That will give you an "official" guideline and get him to clear up his rules.
I suspect that he hasn't a clear ideas of the rules a paladin should follow, so he is deciding them as he go. Probably the rules is using are based on mutual consensus with his others players over years of gaming. Something that you don't share. That put you in a bad position.

I think it's more likely that his rules consist of "What makes this the most impossibly difficult for the Paladin? He wants to play a drama whore, he'll get drama."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cheburn wrote:
Madokar Valortouched wrote:

I pointed out those very tenets. What I got for the trouble was "Then do it all to the random dragon."

When I argued that if I knocked the dragon out, it would leave a window for the Magus to execute the dragon. Which would make me an accomplice to murder, which would be worse than standing by and doing nothing.

What THAT got me was: "You never feared for the cultist's lives. They were gullible and persuaded to evil. You outright killed them? Frost Giants, goblins, you murdered a lot. Your argument is void.

You have little knowledge of the situation and you attacked an ally. I don't know how to say it any different. You made a bad call and are being punished. It's why playing a paladin is hard."

Dear Paladin of Iomedae:

You've killed a lot of chaotic evil creatures. When you saw two good creatures being forced to attack each other against their will, you subdued one to save them both, but drew some blood in the process. You're a bad person and I'm going to punish you. NO POWERS FOR YOU!

<3,
GM

...

Someone doesn't understand Paladins.

That's not even the end of it. Those goblins he mentioned? They were from the start of the campaign. They were attacking the starting village. Once we cut through the warriors of their den, we came to the women, children, and the elderly.

At which point, I sheathed my sword and ordered my companions to cease their attacks. We managed to convince the village to accept the goblin women, children, and elders to join the human village in an attempt to redeem the goblins.

The cultists? I managed to knock one of them out. Was going to interrogate him later. When the Paladins of Abadar show up, they execute him while he is unconscious. A quick heal check from paladin prevented the cultist from dying and earned my animosity with the local Abadaran church.

The frost giants were being led by a cleric of the Demon Lord Kostchtchie. They had amassed an army of winter-themed enemies and were seeking to summon Kostchtchie from the Abyss. Two of the winter enemies were a White Dragon, his kobold servants and an independent army of Ice Hobgoblins. The dragon begged me to free him. I found the sceptre that was binding the Dragon and the kobolds to the will of giants. I destroyed it. That got me a White Dragon and his Kobolds on my side while we dealt with the summoning of a Demon Lord.

The Hobgoblins? They were forced to work for the Frost Giants because the giants were holding their princess captive. We freed the princess and got an army of hobgoblins on our side. We marched on the giants and tore them asunder. The hobgoblins, the dragon and his kobolds all went their separate ways. Because hobgoblins, dragons and kobolds are peanuts to deal with when compared to a Demon Lord emerging from the Abyss. As part of our arrangement, the Hobgoblins, the Dragon and his kobolds all promised to relocate somewhere far away from civilization.


Madokar Valortouched wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:

I haven't read through the entire thread simply becaue I've seen so many discussions on this, so here's by input.

That call was extreme and unfair. There was nothing but Good intent in your reasoning, and there is nothing in Iomedae's Paladin Code that would condemn your actions. In fact, much of her code supports your stopping them from fighting:
Paladin Code wrote:
I will learn the weight of my sword. Without my heart to guide it, it is worthless—my strength is not in my sword, but in my heart. If I lose my sword, I have lost a tool. If I betray my heart, I have died.

You did not compromise your integrity and did what you knew was right.

Paladin Code wrote:
I will not be taken prisoner by my free will. I will not surrender those under my command.

Emphasis mine. You would not accept the hijacking of your comrade's body and mind

Paladin Code wrote:
I will never abandon a companion, though I will honor sacrifice freely given.

You would not leave them to their fate and the consequences of what they were about to do. Same as above.

Paladin Code wrote:
I will guard the honor of my fellows, both in thought and deed, and I will have faith in them.

This can interpreted as the same as the above, as well. You were not letting your companion tarnish their honour and believed this was not what they would want.

Your GM might be one of those people who just hates Paladins, either arbitrarily or because of a past bad experience or two. He might instead be one of those people who cause bad experiences with Paladins and make people hate them. I don't know, though.

I pointed out those very tenets. What I got for the trouble was "Then do it all to the random dragon."

When I argued that if I knocked the dragon out, it would leave a window for the Magus to execute the dragon. Which would make me an accomplice to murder, which would be worse than standing by and doing nothing.

What THAT got me was: "You never feared for the...

The dragon wasn't "random." Did you roll it on a random encounter sheet? No? Then it wasn't "random." In fact, you already explained that it was there as a guardian for a temple/tomb thing. That, in itself, doesn't make it random, as the word would suggest. Misguided definition of an encounter is misguided, and them using it as a means to defend their position is not only unfair, but also flat-out wrong and easily dismissible as a claim to why you lose your powers.

As for whatever cultists you're talking about, if they were persuaded, then they certainly had the option to say "No, I refuse, I'd rather die than serve the forces of evil!" But, they instead decided "You know what? I think I'll take that Devil's Power deal, it sounds pretty! I've always wanted to show those bullies a thing or two anyway!" Meaning they chose to be Evil, chose to do unspeakable and horrific things, because they were too weak-willed and feeble-minded to follow what they would consider the Greater Good. They weren't mind-controlled or forced against their will to do so. If they were, they probably wouldn't ping as Evil, and the Paladin would realize this, and then probably not kill them. But wait, because they're not your "bros" (and by the GM's definition, they must be "hoes"), and you'd want to spare them (and your fellow PCs probably wouldn't), you'd still fall because you're once again going against your party members' desires and wishes.

Either way, this proves that the GM set up a "Gotcha!" scenario with a makeshift and skewed interpretation of a specific Paladin Code, and that you never had a chance to maintain your Paladinhood no matter what you did. Quite frankly, I don't know why you'd want to play with either the GM, or your fellow players, if they're going to pull and endorse that kind of horse s#!% against you.


Cheburn wrote:
Some reasonable guidelines from a forum post in 2012.

This was a great link! Thank you so much. I'm uncomfortable with paladins, and any player who would tell the party they're "in the wrong," so it helped to clarify for me issues of certain alignments. And since I just put a Lawful Good Black Blade into the campaign I'm running... thank you again. (Incidentally, the magus is Neutral Good, and I had warned the player about the mismatch -- but I'm taking this opportunity to warn him again. Yes, there's plot reasons.)

Cheburn wrote:
As far as the rest of my commentary on the Black Blade goes, it's more that he's ignoring non-questioned game mechanics, I'm assuming (which could be making an ass out of me), without having discussed it with the group. There's no need for a FAQ; he should just be clear that in his campaign Black Blades will function following his house-rules.

I'm quoting you, Cheburn, to acknowledge your inspiration for my thoughts, but addressing the OP.

Madokar, I'm sympathetic that the GM essentially stole your PC's class abilities for what might prove to be a short period of time (pending atonement) -- and much more so that said GM stole your self-image of playing a champion of Good & Justice. Now that you know your PC is forced to follow a code of conduct handed down from on high, with possibly other critical provisions that you haven't been told about, I hope you're considering creating a new character not quite as subject to GM whimsy.

Although... is it even possible to dodge whimsy with this GM?

I might be mis-interpreting, but said GM seems to have subverted all of the (very many, apparently!) Black Blades in the campaign into wanting to destroy the others, regardless of alignment. In short, your fellow adventurer, the magus, may be forced into this sort of conflict at GM whim on a regular basis, even after getting "issued" a fresh Black Blade. What about the other PCs? Do they get shoved around by the GM a lot? Do they like it?

Maybe it's time for a group conference with the GM, or for you alone to find a GM who's less intrusive in how people run their characters. Or maybe you can simply build a character who will be better able to join in the fun. (An oracle who could be religious without class-dependent features? A rogue to help the magus out by stealing black blades?) Whatever you do, don't pick a witch -- I just bet you that your familiar would get possessed at some point!


bitter lily wrote:
Cheburn wrote:
Some reasonable guidelines from a forum post in 2012.

This was a great link! Thank you so much. I'm uncomfortable with paladins, and any player who would tell the party they're "in the wrong," so it helped to clarify for me issues of certain alignments. And since I just put a Lawful Good Black Blade into the campaign I'm running... thank you again. (Incidentally, the magus is Neutral Good, and I had warned the player about the mismatch -- but I'm taking this opportunity to warn him again. Yes, there's plot reasons.)

Cheburn wrote:
As far as the rest of my commentary on the Black Blade goes, it's more that he's ignoring non-questioned game mechanics, I'm assuming (which could be making an ass out of me), without having discussed it with the group. There's no need for a FAQ; he should just be clear that in his campaign Black Blades will function following his house-rules.

I'm quoting you, Cheburn, to acknowledge your inspiration for my thoughts, but addressing the OP.

Madokar, I'm sympathetic that the GM essentially stole your PC's class abilities for what might prove to be a short period of time (pending atonement) -- and much more so that said GM stole your self-image of playing a champion of Good & Justice. Now that you know your PC is forced to follow a code of conduct handed down from on high, with possibly other critical provisions that you haven't been told about, I hope you're considering creating a new character not quite as subject to GM whimsy.

Although... is it even possible to dodge whimsy with this GM?

I might be mis-interpreting, but said GM seems to have subverted all of the (very many, apparently!) Black Blades in the campaign into wanting to destroy the others, regardless of alignment. In short, your fellow adventurer, the magus, may be forced into this sort of conflict at GM whim on a regular basis, even after getting "issued" a fresh Black Blade. What about...

The rest of the group seems to like what the GM is doing. I attribute it to them having some level of chemistry. And like I said earlier, this is the first time in a year we've had a major dispute. So it's worth waiting out to see where it goes.


It depends on how meta-gamy your characters are.

You knew lethally attacking the magus wouldn't be an issue because you wouldn't deal enough HP damage to kill him, but does your character know about that?

If lethal attacks are interpreted as trying to kill someone, then yeah you would did something evil by trying to kill an innocent person.


johnlocke90 wrote:

It depends on how meta-gamy your characters are.

You knew lethally attacking the magus wouldn't be an issue because you wouldn't deal enough HP damage to kill him, but does your character know about that?

If lethal attacks are interpreted as trying to kill someone, then yeah you would did something evil by trying to kill an innocent person.

Thing is, my first attack out of the gate was a nat 20 that was confirmed with a nat 20. And I used that critical hit to deal around 45 points of nonlethal damage. After that, the goal was to continue to deal nonlethal damage to the Magus. I slipped in one lethal strike because I knew I couldn't hit him while taking the -4 penalty to inflict the lethal damage.

In character, I described it as my paladin attempting to deal nonlethal damage, but due to the defenses and fighting style of the Magus, it wound up as a lethal strike by accident.


Madokar Valortouched wrote:
The rest of the group seems to like what the GM is doing. I attribute it to them having some level of chemistry. And like I said earlier, this is the first time in a year we've had a major dispute. So it's worth waiting out to see where it goes.

Good luck!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yep, gotta side with the OP here. Paladins should preserve as much life as possible. If he has to physically stand between an Evil (If even just possessed...) ally, then that's where he stands.

If he stops his ally... great. If he hurts his ally... He can HEAL. If he kills his ally... that sucks, but its' still necessary. Regardless I don't feel that the magus was in 'deadly' danger even if he took a few wounds... so there shouldn't have been any falling at all.


Madokar Valortouched wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:

It depends on how meta-gamy your characters are.

You knew lethally attacking the magus wouldn't be an issue because you wouldn't deal enough HP damage to kill him, but does your character know about that?

If lethal attacks are interpreted as trying to kill someone, then yeah you would did something evil by trying to kill an innocent person.

Thing is, my first attack out of the gate was a nat 20 that was confirmed with a nat 20. And I used that critical hit to deal around 45 points of nonlethal damage. After that, the goal was to continue to deal nonlethal damage to the Magus. I slipped in one lethal strike because I knew I couldn't hit him while taking the -4 penalty to inflict the lethal damage.

In character, I described it as my paladin attempting to deal nonlethal damage, but due to the defenses and fighting style of the Magus, it wound up as a lethal strike by accident.

Nothing allows you to lethal attack "by accident".

What could happen is in a moment of anger and frustration, you attempted to kill your friend, which sounds like grounds for a paladin to fall.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
phantom1592 wrote:

Yep, gotta side with the OP here. Paladins should preserve as much life as possible. If he has to physically stand between an Evil (If even just possessed...) ally, then that's where he stands.

If he stops his ally... great. If he hurts his ally... He can HEAL. If he kills his ally... that sucks, but its' still necessary. Regardless I don't feel that the magus was in 'deadly' danger even if he took a few wounds... so there shouldn't have been any falling at all.

I agree a paladin has to stand against evil(whatever force was possessing his friend), but a paladin also can't try to kill innocent mind controlled people, even for good reasons.

Yes, this puts a paladin in a bad position where he has to do some very difficult stuff, but being a paladin isn't supposed to be easy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The only action I think you could have taken was Sunder.

Because you tried to save two lives you know to be INHERENTLY good. Both of which were controlled (really? There can be only one?) by something outside their control.

You did your due diligence by taking the time to detect evil. Clearly the weapons themselves are the issue, not the people.

In trying to save all the lives you should be thanked.

You're falling because you're interrupting a quest that has good people killing each other for the sake of peen measurement.. I think that's beyond ridiculous.

Full story of the group? We don't need it because your CHARACTER didn't have it. Therefore you made the only call you could have, attempting to end a slaughter. They can fill you in on backstory once they wake up. You made the call based on what you knew, attempting to benefit everyone and keep the peace.

You're not fallen you're a f@$%ing hero.


johnlocke90 wrote:
Madokar Valortouched wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:

It depends on how meta-gamy your characters are.

You knew lethally attacking the magus wouldn't be an issue because you wouldn't deal enough HP damage to kill him, but does your character know about that?

If lethal attacks are interpreted as trying to kill someone, then yeah you would did something evil by trying to kill an innocent person.

Thing is, my first attack out of the gate was a nat 20 that was confirmed with a nat 20. And I used that critical hit to deal around 45 points of nonlethal damage. After that, the goal was to continue to deal nonlethal damage to the Magus. I slipped in one lethal strike because I knew I couldn't hit him while taking the -4 penalty to inflict the lethal damage.

In character, I described it as my paladin attempting to deal nonlethal damage, but due to the defenses and fighting style of the Magus, it wound up as a lethal strike by accident.

Nothing allows you to lethal attack "by accident".

What could happen is in a moment of anger and frustration, you attempted to kill your friend, which sounds like grounds for a paladin to fall.

Mechanically, I had already done a significant amount of nonlethal damage. Meaning I could tack on lethal damage to make the fight end quicker and he still would have wound up knocked out. However, I got disapproving looks from the group from the lethal strike, so I stopped doing that.


Quote:


What could happen is in a moment of anger and frustration, you attempted to kill your friend, which sounds like grounds for a paladin to fall.

With spells like Breath of Life and Mercies like costless raise deads, killing "a friend" isn't exactly an insurmountable obstacle.


Honestly, I think this should be a moot point, given that an Atonement (and possibly a follow up adventure/quest) should square this away. Talk to your GM on the side and ask why this happened. If it's a plot hook, so be it. As a GM if I did something to a player, I'd be willing to give some answer (however vague it would need to be to avoid meta gaming). If the GM really has a thing against Paladins in particular, move on to another character, play your fallen Paladin as is (it's a really good role playing opportunity to commune with your deity), or find another group that you feel more comfortable with. Playing is supposed to be fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In all honestly, make a new toon. These things are going to keep happening.
They already agree on what a Paladin Code is, no matter what God you chose, which changes your code.
Just go Neutral toon.
Your ally starts killing himself against a dragon? Sit and watch.
If asked why you didn't help, you simple reply: I have no quarrel with that enemy, and my party member engaged him for no reason. I shall not deal in nonsense.

You've been playing for a year. Do check of your gaming sessions. Were these things happening already and you just didn't notice because they didn't directly affected your character?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemming_Six wrote:
Honestly, I think this should be a moot point, given that an Atonement (and possibly a follow up adventure/quest) should square this away.

It's on principal. It doesn't matter if it's just an Atonement spell away. It shouldn't have happened in the first place because he did nothing against his code or his alignment.


Letric wrote:

In all honestly, make a new toon. These things are going to keep happening.

They already agree on what a Paladin Code is, no matter what God you chose, which changes your code.
Just go Neutral toon.
Your ally starts killing himself against a dragon? Sit and watch.
If asked why you didn't help, you simple reply: I have no quarrel with that enemy, and my party member engaged him for no reason. I shall not deal in nonsense.

You've been playing for a year. Do check of your gaming sessions. Were these things happening already and you just didn't notice because they didn't directly affected your character?

Lawful Neutral is ultimate sass via technicality.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
johnlocke90 wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:

Yep, gotta side with the OP here. Paladins should preserve as much life as possible. If he has to physically stand between an Evil (If even just possessed...) ally, then that's where he stands.

If he stops his ally... great. If he hurts his ally... He can HEAL. If he kills his ally... that sucks, but its' still necessary. Regardless I don't feel that the magus was in 'deadly' danger even if he took a few wounds... so there shouldn't have been any falling at all.

I agree a paladin has to stand against evil(whatever force was possessing his friend), but a paladin also can't try to kill innocent mind controlled people, even for good reasons.

Yes, this puts a paladin in a bad position where he has to do some very difficult stuff, but being a paladin isn't supposed to be easy.

His character sheet may have said CG... but he was still evil at the time. Or at least doing evil. If I were DM, the magus would have been eligible for a smite.

Evil comes in all forms. From the CE undead to the Neutral bandits and mooks trying to kill you for money, to the occasional evil possessed decent person. The fact that the Paladin tried everything else, and with the nonlethal damage... the lethal damage wouldn't have actually killed anyone...

I don't see this as fallable in the least.

IN FACT... If I had a CG character carrying around a sword that may make me attack innocent characters... I would have a standing arrangement with the Paladin to stop me at any cost.

The fact that you share a meal with one person doesn't give him free reign to kill other good characters just because he's your 'bro'. It falls under the 'working with evil characters' clause. No more then if you worked with a Jekyll/Hyde Master Cymist who was a decent guy during the day but raped and murdered at night. Paladin had to stop him. Diplomacy, intimidate, Nonlethal, Lethal... you've got options, but even non-lethal is really lethal if you hit hard enough (and paladins CAN hit hard enough...)


Bloodrealm wrote:
Letric wrote:

In all honestly, make a new toon. These things are going to keep happening.

They already agree on what a Paladin Code is, no matter what God you chose, which changes your code.
Just go Neutral toon.
Your ally starts killing himself against a dragon? Sit and watch.
If asked why you didn't help, you simple reply: I have no quarrel with that enemy, and my party member engaged him for no reason. I shall not deal in nonsense.

You've been playing for a year. Do check of your gaming sessions. Were these things happening already and you just didn't notice because they didn't directly affected your character?

Lawful Neutral is ultimate sass via technicality.

i thought that was lawful evil as they can worm their way out of a situation using the rules and just don't abyed by the ones that have negative effects on them


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Just say no to DM-estic abuse.


phantom1592 wrote:


His character sheet may have said CG... but he was still evil at the time. Or at least doing evil. If I were DM, the magus would have been eligible for a smite.

Evil comes in all forms. From the CE undead to the Neutral bandits and mooks trying to kill you for money, to the occasional evil possessed decent person. The fact that the Paladin tried everything else, and with the nonlethal damage... the lethal damage wouldn't have actually killed anyone...

I don't see this as fallable in the least.

IN FACT... If I had a CG character carrying around a sword that may make me attack innocent characters... I would have a standing arrangement with the Paladin to stop me at any cost.

That's not how Smite or Alignment work. One action is usually not enough for an alignment shift, you generally don't shift more than one step at a time, and mind control doesn't count anyway. Individual actions are not creatures, either.

The Magus also shouldn't have had a Black Blade that didn't match his alignment in the first place, which is, again, the GM's fault. Even if it wasn't a Black Blade and was just a normal intelligent item, it would have imposed negative levels on the Magus if it was a different alignment from him that did not have one Neutral alignment component and one alignment component matching his (e.g. a Neutral Good or Chaotic Neutral item would still allow the Chaotic Good character to use it).


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Just say no to DM-estic abuse.

This sort of comment...PC gone mad, I tell you..


Letric wrote:

In all honestly, make a new toon. These things are going to keep happening.

They already agree on what a Paladin Code is, no matter what God you chose, which changes your code.
Just go Neutral toon.
Your ally starts killing himself against a dragon? Sit and watch.
If asked why you didn't help, you simple reply: I have no quarrel with that enemy, and my party member engaged him for no reason. I shall not deal in nonsense.

You've been playing for a year. Do check of your gaming sessions. Were these things happening already and you just didn't notice because they didn't directly affected your character?

Hi, again. Freshly returned from work. I've been reading the posts that have accumulated while I was away. To summarize my current understanding of the situation:

1) The Paladin was punished for not placing party loyalty before the Paladin Code as written and the tenet of his faith.

and 2) The party expected him to help kill a possessed creature.

Therefore, it seems to me that the party didn't really want a Paladin, they wanted a Mercenary. So, give them one. Have the fallen Paladin fall on his sword, then roll up a Lawful Neutral ( with Evil tendencies ) Fighter. Then have that fighter negotiate a contract, in writing, with the party. Anything outside the contract will have to be negotiated beforehand, or be paid an arbitrarily decided "service fee."

Oh, and the party will have to pay him, monthly.


Lady-J wrote:
John Napier 698 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Madokar Valortouched wrote:
Apparently, the GM viewed spilling the blood of an ally as an evil act and betrayal of the paladin code. I was just wondering if it's that extreme. The intent was to prevent the Magus from committing an evil act by killing a potentially good-aligned creature while he was under the influence of an unknown, aggressive intelligence.
In this GM's game, apparently so. In my games, this would not be an issue.
I completely agree. It wouldn't be an issue in my games, either. I would flat-out disallow intelligent items. Previously, creating intelligent items would involve either summoning a spirit and binding it to the object, or sacrificing a sentient and bonding its soul. So, this begs the question. Is the possession / use of an intelligent item an Evil act, akin to slavery?
not entirely true you can also make intelligent items from part of your own soul how ever it is a lot more dangerous to do so

Do you mean sacrificing your own levels ( life force ) to do so? Yes, I agree. A critical failure in the ritual can leave the crafter a withered husk in danger of becoming a Wight and the entirety of his soul within the item.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

To the OP unless your really liking the game I would find another group imo. Better no gaming than having to suffer bad gaming. As well I would ignore the advice on apologizing to the group and DM. That some of the worst advice I ever heard imo. Your character was played well. Then your screwed over because of both a bad call and the DM lack of not knowing how to play a Paladin.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

What I see in this scenario is that the GM has this idea for a Highlander style plotline involving the black blades, and he's punishing you for interfering with his cool story. There will almost certainly be more situations down the line where the magus has to fight a "good guy" because that's how the Highlander plot goes.

151 to 200 of 442 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Fallen Paladin: Does attacking a possessed party member qualify as an Evil Act and Violation of the Paladin Code? All Messageboards