Going by that wording, committing an evil act unintentionally doesn't make you fall, but violating your code of conduct unintentionally does make you fall. (Though maybe I'm taking the commas too seriously...)If you didn’t want your every action scrutinized and a code of conduct which requires a legal degree to understand, then you shouldn’t have played a lawful character.
That's a good point, actually. I've never seen a Barbarian fall from following too many rules.
|
I've seen characters die in the surprise round of their first encounter. At the opening of the adventure.What happened? Just curious.I don't remember the details, it was about 25 years ago. But I do remember that he was a new character joining an existing party, and that he lasted 7 minutes. The campaign was so lethal that someone thought to time it! There were about 10 players in the group and the GM was trying to encourage a few to leave to make the group size more manageable. Consequently it was the most lethal AD&D game I've ever played.
EDIT: I misread your post, Shady Stranger. I thought you were replying to me, not TOZ.
There was a story floating around the PFS forums a couple of years back about a pair of brand new PCs who got coup-de-grace'd in their sleep in their very first encounter: A single perception check was the only roll they ever attempted (which they failed, of course).
|
except we have official clarification that if a dominated paladin is forced to do something evil that he falls even though it isn't his free will and choice.
I'm with folks asking for a source on this, because that is really, really stupid. You can't willfully perform an evil act without free will.
Going by that wording, committing an evil act unintentionally doesn't make you fall, but violating your code of conduct unintentionally does make you fall. (Though maybe I'm taking the commas too seriously...)
I would argue that to act without honor would require knowing what you are doing. You shouldn't fall from picking up a weapon you didn't know was poisoned any more than you should fall if someone lies to you and you believe it, then repeat the information.
That's a good point, actually. I've never seen a Barbarian fall from following too many rules.
I mean, they can if they do it to the point where they become lawful. Of course they just have to act chaotic again until their alignment shifts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's in the running for the absolute DUMBEST thing I have EVER heard get farted out of the backside of a game developer.except we have official clarification that if a dominated paladin is forced to do something evil that he falls even though it isn't his free will and choice.Frankly that's just absurd, and makes me glad I don't put any stock in "official clarification."
I mean, I could see arguing what really makes a Paladin fall is not "disappointing the god or whoever endorsed them" (Paladins don't need to have a specific god) but "failing to live up to the code of conduct that they set for themselves which lead to them becoming a Paladin."
So the Paladin who gets mind controlled and does a bad thing and is aware of this is going to feel really bad, and their redemptive arc from there is essentially about "gaining humility and learning to forgive oneself."
But "you automatically fall if you get mind controlled" (no matter how good your saves are there's a 5% chance of this happening) "and do a bad thing" is ridiculous.
It kind of amuses me that using poison should make a Paladin fall since I wonder if Paladins can use insecticide and rat poison or if they must shrink down and go confront all their household pests in honorable combat. I'm not sure if the quick-fall Paladin's decision to toss back something an enemy tossed at him really seems that dishonorable in the same sense as lying or cheating. It certainly isn't a planned act of subterfuge at least.The thing I dislike about the restriction against poison is that it essentially removes the option of using tranquilizer darts (ie sleep poison) to non-lethally take down enemies -- which seems like it would be a preferred paladin option otherwise. But it is what it is. No one said being a paladin was easy.
A Paladin can use poison as long as he tells his enemies beforehand that he's using poison, because using poison without knowledge of the one he's applying it to in an attempt to gain a hidden advantage is considered dishonorable, which is the reason that most people would say poison makes them fall.
So, if you circumvent that issue, then the Paladin wouldn't fall. Especially if said poison isn't lethal in the right doses (such as too much Con Damage, or generic Ability Drain).
The source for “mind control can make you fall” is some atonement rule in UI or HA.
A Paladin can use poison as long as he tells his enemies beforehand that he's using poison, because using poison without knowledge of the one he's applying it to in an attempt to gain a hidden advantage is considered dishonorable, which is the reason that most people would say poison makes them fall.
That would certainly be a nice rule to have in the game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Paladin can use poison as long as he tells his enemies beforehand that he's using poison, because using poison without knowledge of the one he's applying it to in an attempt to gain a hidden advantage is considered dishonorable, which is the reason that most people would say poison makes them fall.That would certainly be a nice rule to have in the game.
Yeah, while I'd probably allow it in my games (honestly, I don't really care if Paladins use poison at all), by RAW the code specifies that using poison violates the code, not secretly using poison.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like it's weird that people are comfortable using intent or common sense or "just make this work" with all sorts of loosely written stuff in the rules, but refuse to do the same with the Paladin code.
|
|
I feel like it's weird that people are comfortable using intent or common sense or "just make this work" with all sorts of loosely written stuff in the rules, but refuse to do the same with the Paladin code.
I think it's tied to the reason Paladins are (at least on the forums) so contentious in the first place. People seem to have really firm ideas as to what a Paladin should be, and either want to punish them for it, or keep their brand of Paladin as stultifying as possible. The result is the same either way.
I only read about these problems I've never experienced them short of a dm making up a reason for a player to fall but their was obvious antipathy between the two of them. If the guy would of played something else he would of found some other way to mess with him. We stopped playing with that DM almost immediately. One of the reasons I'm gun shy about new players to my games. Only friends since.
I once read a post on some DnD or PF forum or another that at the very start of their adventure the PCs were all meeting in a tavern. Some guy walks up to the Paladin and hands him a coin.
Paladin: What's this for?
GM announces that the Paladin had just associated with an evil NPC by taking money from them, so they had fallen.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I once read a post on some DnD or PF forum or another that at the very start of their adventure the PCs were all meeting in a tavern. Some guy walks up to the Paladin and hands him a coin.
Paladin: What's this for?
GM announces that the Paladin had just associated with an evil NPC by taking money from them, so they had fallen.
Not only are you allowed to punch said DM in the face for that but morally obligated. In fact if you did not punch said DM in the face for that your paladin falls... (banana peel yo.)
I still prefer "Cast Protection from Evil 5 times, become Good" and it's derivatives from the pure dumb perspective.except we have official clarification that if a dominated paladin is forced to do something evil that he falls even though it isn't his free will and choice.That's in the running for the absolute DUMBEST thing I have EVER heard get farted out of the backside of a game developer.
I don't know if such a "clarification" actually exists, but both of these are'nt so much as simply "dumb", but outright contradicting what the CRB says. As was quoted, "A paladin [falls] if she ever willingly commits an evil act", mind controll is about as unwilling as it gets. Regarding alignenment tagged spells, the CRB says "There’s no hard and fast mechanic by which you can measure alignment—unlike hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls.", and the five spells thing is just about the definition of a hard and fast mechanic.
The source for “mind control can make you fall” is some atonement rule in UI or HA.
I can't find one by searching for "paladin" in either book.
I feel like it's weird that people are comfortable using intent or common sense or "just make this work" with all sorts of loosely written stuff in the rules, but refuse to do the same with the Paladin code.
Is it just me or is this basically a metaphor for religion?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The source for “mind control can make you fall” is some atonement rule in UI or HA.I can't find one by searching for "paladin" in either book.
That's because it's under atonement, as found in the Absolution spell in Ultimate Intrigue, or Atonement-light.
You purge impure thoughts from the target’s mind and fill him with exultant relief at the forgiveness of his sins. Absolution ends all charm or compulsion effects affecting the target (including harmless compulsions, such as heroism) as per break enchantment. If the target was forced to perform any actions contrary to his alignment, monk vows, paladin oath, or similar code of conduct by that charm or compulsion effect, that action doesn’t cause him to lose access to class abilities, including divine spellcasting.
Unlike an atonement spell, absolution can’t reverse alignment change or the effects of willing transgressions, induce a creature to change its alignment, or restore class abilities lost because of misdeeds performed in the past. Absolution automatically works if the caster and the target share the same alignment or the same patron deity. If they don’t, but their alignments are within one step of each other, absolution has a 5% chance of success per caster level. If neither of these is true, the spell automatically fails.
If using the honor subsystem, casting absolution also eliminates the honor loss for events and actions committed by the target while he was affected by a charm or compulsion effect that the spell ended.
So if you're forced to violate your paladin oath, this spell will restore your powers, even if it won't do everything an Atonement will.
I don't know if such a "clarification" actually exists, but both of these are'nt so much as simply "dumb", but outright contradicting what the CRB says. As was quoted, "A paladin [falls] if she ever willingly commits an evil act", mind controll is about as unwilling as it gets.
Sure, but the CRB also says this.
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features
Violation of the code doesn't require it to be willing. An evil act that falls outside the code can be forgiven if you're compelled, but one that is squarely forbidden by your code leads to loss of your powers until you get an Absolution or Atonement.
This actually makes sense. GOOD doesn’t hold an unwilling evil act against you, but LAW accepts no excuses when you violate your oath to uphold a code. Get a better Will save, reroll ability, or suffer the consequences of your failure, Citizen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Saying that you don't fall if you perform an evil act while you are no longer in control of yourself, but you do fall if you violate your paladin code while you are no longer in control of yourself doesn't make any sense.
Performing an evil act automatically violates the paladin code at the same time. Therefore, committing an evil act while being mind controlled automatically makes the paladin violate his code of conduct. Thus, the part "...willfully commits an evil act..." has to extend to "...violates the code of conduct..." to make any sense.
Saying that you don't fall if you perform an evil act while you are no longer in control of yourself, but you do fall if you violate your paladin code while you are no longer in control of yourself doesn't make any sense.
Performing an evil act automatically violates the paladin code at the same time. Therefore, committing an evil act while being mind controlled automatically makes the paladin violate his code of conduct. Thus, the part "...willfully commits an evil act..." has to extend to "...violates the code of conduct..." to make any sense.
There are multiple paladin codes, and GMs can let their players create their own codes. If your code is "I shall never allow a child to be harmed, nor willingly commit an evil act" then if you're Dominated and you kill a child you fall, but if you kill the child's father you do not.
Pro tip: none of the Paladin code provisions of Iomedae or Torag reference evil acts at all. They're more specific than that. I'm willing to bet that at least 75% (and quite possibly 100%) of the published Paizo deity-specific Paladin codes don't have "evil" appear as a forbidden act in the Code.
Honestly, this is the worst sort of whining. "I'm given all these incredible bonuses and immunities against having anyone force me to do something, but if they somehow succeed I temporarily lose some of my powers until I get someone to cast a spell that helps me get over my PTSD and guilt? UNFAIR!!!"
The Paladin codes of the deities are later additions, I referred to the code of conduct and the rulebook that explicitly says:
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Thus, according to the rules, a Paladin is only ever going to fall, if he willingly commits an evil act. It doesn't even matter if he breaks his code, as long as it isn't an explicitly evil act that he commits willingly.
But, sure, if you don't care about the rules and want to play it your way and your players (or your GM) are all on the same page, then go for it. There is no wrong way to play this game, as long as all parties involved agree on the course you take.
Honestly, this is the worst sort of whining. "I'm given all these incredible bonuses and immunities against having anyone force me to do something, but if they somehow succeed I temporarily lose some of my powers until I get someone to cast a spell that helps me get over my PTSD and guilt? UNFAIR!!!"
Honestly, the only one who is whining here is you. Sure, a Paladin should be more aware of his actions than others, but whenever a thread like this crops up, many arguments inevitably gain the foul taste of: "I want to let my paladin players fall at every opportunity, to punish them for daring to choose that 'ridiculously overpowered munchkin-'class."
I feel like the key word is "willingly" as in-
-"I know what I'm doing"
-"I know what I'm doing is evil"
-"I am choosing to do it nonetheless".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, one section says one thing and the other something completely different. To me that looks like it is up to the players and the GM to work something out. The wording isn't completely clear on this, but taking common sense into account, I still say that the Paladin has to do the action that leads to his fall willingly, no matter what it is.
And let's be glad that Paizo writes fantasy stories and not legal code.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Absolution spell makes it clear which view the current development team supports. And they sympathetically provided a cheaper alternative to Atonement to help with such mandatory involuntary loss of powers.
To be honest, I don't even like "Atonement" as the thing that gets the Paladin back their powers. I'd prefer it to be more of an RP thing, where the Paladin has to somehow make it right or make amends to the aggrieved party, with "go talk to a priest" only really being available if everything else falls though.
But that's an RP thing, and inappropriate for organized play, and you can't really make a rule for it.
@Xenocrat:
According to your interpretation of the text of "Absolution" a paladin would even fall if he committed an evil act unwillingly, which directly contradicts both sections of the rulebook that deal with a paladins fall from grace.
But this ties right into Paizo's inconsistency, then you simply have three different takes on that matter instead of two. I am inclined to favour core rules instead of later additions in form of obscure spells, but as I said before: If you don't like it, change it for your game. All is well if your fellow players agree with it. I just don't understand your need to shove your interpretation down the throat of others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Xenocrat:
According to your interpretation of the text of "Absolution" a paladin would even fall if he committed an evil act unwillingly, which directly contradicts both sections of the rulebook that deal with a paladins fall from grace.
But this ties right into Paizo's inconsistency, then you simply have three different takes on that matter instead of two. I am inclined to favour core rules instead of later additions in form of obscure spells, but as I said before: If you don't like it, change it for your game. All is well if your fellow players agree with it. I just don't understand your need to shove your interpretation down the throat of others.
Since I am neither the creator of Paizo’s published rules or the dictates of logic I’m not forcing anything down anyone’s throat. Your beef is with some dead Greeks and live Seattleites.
I feel, though, that there's a broad continuum of valid ways to play a specific campaign from "It will take deliberately bad roleplaying or a specific choice by a player before a Paladin falls" and "Paladins are going to have to walk a tight-rope the entire game".
The onus, then, falls on the GM to establish exactly how we're going to play it for any specific game. The rules that apply to a specific game genre (e.g. Horror or Intrigue) might not apply in a game that's not doing that sort of thing at all.
Like in an intrigue game, the Paladin's automatic "I am trustworthy and telling the truth" status is a thing that could be leveraged by a player to get something done, so you counterbalance that with an increased risk of falling in these sorts of games and that's fine. But the same sort of rules shouldn't apply if you're just going to a dungeon to murk a goblin, unless it's an especially spooky dungeon and "the risk of falling" is part of the tension you're trying to cultivate (Since the "I'm not frightened of anything ever" that Paladins tend to carry around can potentially ruin a horror game.)
|
Oh it exists. Horror Adventure Handbook. The specific quote is that casting an [alignment] spell about five times warrants an alignment shift since [alignment] spells are an [aligned] act ergo doing it repeatedly will send you to [alignment]. I honestly think that particular rule is even more hated than the spell manifestation thing* which is saying something.
*Note: I actually think the spell manifestation thing is okay aside from the fact Paizo forgets their own ruling at times and break their own encounters.
Not quite actually. I see people bring this up fairly often, but it's simply not true that it says you shift after 5 casts of an aligned spell. It specifically says that alignment shifts are fully up to GM discretion and that's just Paizo's suggested guideline (which is indeed terrible, but not the same as saying that as a hard rule around "x" casts shifts your alignment).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if such a "clarification" actually exists, but both of these are'nt so much as simply "dumb", but outright contradicting what the CRB says. As was quoted, "A paladin [falls] if she ever willingly commits an evil act", mind controll is about as unwilling as it gets. Regarding alignenment tagged spells, the CRB says "There’s no hard and fast mechanic by which you can measure alignment—unlike hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls.", and the five spells thing is just about the definition of a hard and fast mechanic.I still prefer "Cast Protection from Evil 5 times, become Good" and it's derivatives from the pure dumb perspective.except we have official clarification that if a dominated paladin is forced to do something evil that he falls even though it isn't his free will and choice.That's in the running for the absolute DUMBEST thing I have EVER heard get farted out of the backside of a game developer.Oh it exists. Horror Adventure Handbook. The specific quote is that casting an [alignment] spell about five times warrants an alignment shift since [alignment] spells are an [aligned] act ergo doing it repeatedly will send you to [alignment]. I honestly think that particular rule is even more hated than the spell manifestation thing* which is saying something.
*Note: I actually think the spell manifestation thing is okay aside from the fact Paizo forgets their own ruling at times and break their own encounters.
Now I want to make a character who has to cast protection from evil on themselves in order to be good. Over the course of a day, they slowly slip towards the evil end of the scale. A changeling or tiefling maybe, or someone reincarnated from an evil soul. They want to be good, but something deep inside is tilting the scales. The only way for them to be good is to magically protect themselves from themselves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that giving a guideline about how many actions it might take to shift somebody's alignment is terrible in and of itself even if aligned spells being aligned acts is somewhat controversial in the gaming community. The idea that you could somehow atone for casting Evil spells by casting Good ones seems somewhat odd, but the idea that somebody could start "slipping into darkness" by summoning devils or creating undead seems thematically appropriate for a lot of stories (at least to me)
I sometimes wonder if maybe a lot of people secretly or not so secretly dislike Paladins and therefore want to make up reasons for them to fall and be ridiculed. The DM who had an Evil NPC give the Paladin a coin could be in that camp. I guess he could also just be the Jerkmaster General or somebody who feels very clever and wanted to provide an "interesting" quest for the Paladin to regain his powers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Saying that you don't fall if you perform an evil act while you are no longer in control of yourself, but you do fall if you violate your paladin code while you are no longer in control of yourself doesn't make any sense.
Maybe the 'must not perform an evil act' rule is judged by the gods of Good, who will understand that it wasn't really your fault that you killed and ate all those children (or whatever), because somebody else made you do it.
But the 'paladin code' is judged by the gods of Law, and they don't care about mercy or fairness, only the precise wording. "You took an oath never to use poison. You accidentally used poison. Accidental usage is still usage. The oath made no special exceptions for unwilling use of poison. Therefore, you are in violation of your oath and your powers are forfeit."
A PFS GM should be advising players and introducing them to the rules, not ruining their fun.
Since in this case everyone apparently had fun, that seems a bit harsh.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure paladins falling from unwilling evil acts goes all the way back to first edition.
I don't have a 1E Player's Handbook, but I do have a 2E one. A quick look...
Heh. Under 2E, a paladin who unwillingly commits an evil act loses all powers until he can atone.
Under 2E, a paladin who willingly commits an evil act can never get his powers back and immediately changes his class to fighter.
using poison is not an evil act and breaking the paladin code cannot make on fall unless it is also evil RAW
Nope.
A paladin... who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features
Under 2E, a paladin who willingly commits an evil act can never get his powers back and immediately changes his class to fighter.
Ah, the good old days. No-one complained that the classes weren't perfectly balanced, because they weren't intended to be. Being a Fighter was supposed to be a punishment.
here
Mark explains that mind controlled falling paladins are a thing that's always been in the game.
Mark explains that mind controlled falling paladins are a thing that's always been in the game.Which is whatever, as it still contradicts the CRB rules for Paladins falling.
Didn't you know? Failing a saving throw even once constitutes a dishonorable act.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A mind controlled Paladin isn't falling because of they're actions, they're falling because Sarenrae isn't going to let you Dine Weapon Flaming onto your sword so you can burn orphans while you cut them to pieces.
Deities would, very logically, stop granting you their favor while you commit evil acts.
Maybe the 'must not perform an evil act' rule is judged by the gods of Good, who will understand that it wasn't really your fault that you killed and ate all those children (or whatever), because somebody else made you do it.But the 'paladin code' is judged by the gods of Law, and they don't care about mercy or fairness, only the precise wording. "You took an oath never to use poison. You accidentally used poison. Accidental usage is still usage. The oath made no special exceptions for unwilling use of poison. Therefore, you are in violation of your oath and your powers are forfeit."
Well, if in your fantasy world, all the good deities and all the lawful deities conduct meetings in which they pass judgement, then so be it, as long as you aren't my GM. But I do think that this is more than a little far fetched and it is much more reasonable that each deity jugdes only their paladins. Or how would lawful good deities decide in your communal interplanar court room? Do they develop split personalities and both exonerate and condemn the paladin? Can you imagine Sarenrae, or Iomedae letting Asmodeus judge their paladins? Or Shelyn letting Zon-Khuton judge her paladins?
A paladin... who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features
As I wrote before: The rulebook contradicts itself in this question, because it also says:
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
And according to this section it doesn't matter one bit if a paladin breaks his code, as long as he doesn't willingly commit an evil act.
How is that a contradiction? It's an "and" not an "or".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of people here are getting hung up on "willfully commit an evil act"
Instead they should focus on the part where says "or break the paladin code"
Using poison is not an evil act. If a paladin wins a combat by unknowingly using poison, the opponent still loses by an unhonorable means.
Unknowingly uses poison is still using poison.
@slade: Simple syntactic rules.
"You will lose your driver's licence if you are caught driving drunk. Additionally you have to heed the speed limits and red lights."
That means that you only lose your driver's licence if you are driving drunk.
Deities would, very logically, stop granting you their favor while you commit evil acts.
True, but in this case the paladin should get his powers back, once he snaps out of the mind control.
@Rogar Stonebow: The question everybody here gets hung up on is whether "willfully" extends to the paladin code or not.
@slade: Simple syntactic rules.
"You will lose your driver's licence if you are caught driving drunk. Additionally you have to heed the speed limits and red lights."
That means that you only lose your driver's licence if you are driving drunk.
No: it just fails to specify the penalty for violating speed limits and driving through red lights. That doesn't mean there isn't one. Maybe the penalty varies according to the severity of the violation; a fine, loss of driving licence, or prison.
True, but in this case the paladin should get his powers back, once he snaps out of the mind control.
That's probably what the absolution/atonement spell is for, to prove to your deity that you're not liable to do it again so you can trust me with the good stuff again.
Still, I'd prefer to recontextualize this to be an occult ritual sort of thing rather than a spell, with the accompanying backlash being the equivalent of your "say n hail marys".