| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He broke the code by killing an innocent, no it wasn't his fault, Because it wasn't his fault, he doesn't have to pay the cost of the atonement spell, but he still needs the atonement spell.
They would not get a discount on it if it wasn't their fault, if they didn't need one if it wasn't their fault.
He actually didn't break the code. The code reads, "...punish those who harm or threaten innocents."
Do you send the gun or the man who shot it to jail? This is pretty obvious. Without the source of the Confusion what would have changed? The Child obviously wouldn't have died. The Paladin didn't really kill the child. Whomever cast the confusion did.
So the Paladin focusing on the task at hand and hunting down the creature who was the source of the confusion is well within the bounds of his Code.
He killed a child. Presumably, murder (especially the murder of children) is illegal in the lands he is from. Were there any witnesses? If so, maybe word gets out who killed the child and the law comes to apprehend him. He is a paladin, so he's going to have to go along with the officers of the law and maybe deal with a trial where he argues his innocence because he was under the influence of mind control magic (can this be proven?)
Come to think of it, he might feel obligated to report to the local authorities and turn himself in as a matter of course. After all, if I run over a child with my car and they die on the scene, I can't just drive off because I know they darted in front of my vehicle and there was nothing I could have done to avoid them, right?
In the course of the trial, everyone in the community learns that he killed a child, and didn't seem to care about it or do anything to rectify the situation.
It doesn't matter if he was at fault or not. It doesn't matter what the actual court findings are. The court of public opinion might condemn him regardless, if not for actually killing a child then for seeming to feel no remorse over it.
Meanwhile, I agree that the paladin should not fall for the actual killing (not his fault). As for his seeming indifference to the killing, I would think that the deity and those who worship her would see them as cause for concern if nothing else -- not an immediate fall, but something to remember if other grey areas come up in the future.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Robber picks up gun and shoots kid. Who is to blame? The Robber or the Gun?
Bad example. Guns can't think.
Wizard dominates Warrior and uses him to go on a murder rampage. Who is to blame? The Warrior or the Wizard explicitly controlling him?
The wizard. But if the warrior was a holy man who has a code of conduct that explicitly requires him to "punish those who harm or threaten innocents", I would expect him to show a greater level of concern for his actions (whether willingly performed or not) than "meh". Killing an innocent is a violation of the paladin code of conduct. The only upside for the paladin is that doing it under some form of external control makes it easier to be forgiven.
Crazy guy blows up a Dam. Water drowns hundreds of people. Who is to blame? The Delivery method or the person who did it?
Another bad example. Water cannot think.
Not going to touch your other example with a barge pole. But it's not a good one for your case.
Try this on for size: a kidnapper takes a random woman off the street, and threatens her life if a random man doesn't kill a random child. The three victims are unrelated and do not know each other. The random man kills the random child. The kidnapper is ultimately to blame. But his blame does not and should not absolve the random man for his a) unlawful killing and b) his failure to protect the random child by breaking a solemn vow he took to protect innocents. It doesn't matter that he was compelled to do it. He did it. Yes, he can be forgiven, and not ultimately held accountable. But for him to not even demonstrate any concern for the act is a failure to "judge those who fall short of their duties". That's pulled straight out of the Lawful alignment text. He fell short. Not his fault, but he fell short of his duty to protect innocents. That might not bother some people, and that's okay, but a paladin? The ideal Lawful Good warrior? Not something they should shrug off with "wasn't my fault".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And you know what? Saranrae has the only opinion that matters. Because when you choose to play a paladin, you explicitly accept that you are granted your powers only so long as you behave in the way that "embod[ies] the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve."
Excuse me? Nowhere in playing a Paladin does it say in either the Code of Conduct or Ex-Paladins does it state that I need to uphold all my deity's tenants. Y'know. The Actual Mechanics of the class instead of DM fiat. The Deity doesn't grant the Paladin power.
Fluff text has no mechanical effect on whether a Paladin gets his powers or not. Period. I don't see fluff text granting benefits or penalties for others so this is clearly houseruled.
Also this thread has a really gross look on this poor feller. Consider for a moment.
Robber picks up gun and shoots kid. Who is to blame? The Robber or the Gun?
Wizard dominates Warrior and uses him to go on a murder rampage. Who is to blame? The Warrior or the Wizard explicitly controlling him?
Crazy guy blows up a Dam. Water drowns hundreds of people. Who is to blame? The Delivery method or the person who did it?
Also to the folks saying that failing your Will save is giving in heres another analogy.
I apologize for the crass example I'm about to provide.
Man overpowers and rapes a woman who tries her hardest to resist. Is it her fault or the Man's?
I had asked earlier since you have the answers it seems. where does it state what is mechanic and what is fluff? Is it like italicized or bolded in the book? Maybe mine is different cause i dont have those options.
He killed a child. Presumably, murder (especially the murder of children) is illegal in the lands he is from. Were there any witnesses? If so, maybe word gets out who killed the child and the law comes to apprehend him. He is a paladin, so he's going to have to go along with the officers of the law and maybe deal with a trial where he argues his innocence because he was under the influence of mind control magic (can this be proven?)
Sure it can. He in fact had a Wizard party member who specifically identified the condition at the time. Also there are several magical methods of truth detection.
Im cool with the social ramifications of what you propose. That makes sense.
I had asked earlier since you have the answers it seems. where does it state what is mechanic and what is fluff? Is it like italicized or bolded in the book? Maybe mine is different cause i dont have those options.
Everything after the Role section on the class are mechanics.
Even if you hold that particular sentence of the paladin fluff to be true it is ultimately meaningless since theres no "And if he doesn't uphold the tenants of his deity, he falls!" line. Anywhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Try this on for size: a kidnapper takes a random woman off the street, and threatens her life if a random man doesn't kill a random child. The three victims are unrelated and do not know each other. The random man kills the random child. The kidnapper is ultimately to blame. But his blame does not and should not absolve the random man for his a) unlawful killing and b) his failure to protect the random child by breaking a solemn vow he took to protect innocents. It doesn't matter that he was compelled to do it. He did it. Yes, he can be forgiven, and not ultimately held accountable. But for him to not even demonstrate any concern for the act is a failure to "judge those who fall short of their duties". That's pulled straight out of the Lawful alignment text. He fell short. Not his fault, but he fell short of his duty to protect innocents. That might not bother some people, and that's okay, but a paladin? The ideal Lawful Good warrior? Not something they should shrug off with "wasn't my fault".
This is a shining example of an always fall situation thus whatever the Paladin does, he shouldn't fall. Exactly the sort of scenario an antagonistic DM would put in if there was a Paladin. Personally I'd just attack the kidnapper as the child has potentially more life to live.
Also saying Bad Example and not even thinking about it is really lame.
Theres a difference between being told to do something and being completely unable to control your actions due to the actions of another.
Also my last example was more to the folks who said that it was the Paladin's fault for failing his Will save.
Again this is a huge difference in gameplay expectations. Likely the player isn't interested in this kind of stuff and would just like to get back to slaying evil and being a hero. He doesn't want the game to get bogged down by this kind of DM Fiat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I feel like you have to work to maintain a good alignment, and sure it wasn't the paladin's fault, but the lack of compassion could be enough to lose good alignment not the act itself.
Imagine a person driving a car and a kid trips and falls on the street, the kid dies.. it wasn't the driver's fault but anyone would feel bad, well anyone except for the paladin driving the car....
I am not sure stripping his powers will make the game more enjoyable though, you could just talk to him about it, possibly change to an inquisitor instead.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
SO looking directly at the code, do you think the paladin in question
a. Acted with honor? (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and oh wait the fun fluff lines and so forth) Hey GM whats so forth?, oh you think he should be remorseful for his act? oh He can just walk forward. cool. Thats not fluff that mechanic.
on to the ability Divine bond. very first sentence of the ability.
Upon reaching 5th level, a paladin forms a divine bond with her god.
So the gm could very well rule his crass uncaring nature broke the bond he made with the god, no more fun weapons or mounts. Not fluff it was written after the role part.
Oh hey, channeling positive energy, gets to do it like a cleric, uses effective cleric level. charisma based ability.. so nothing on how it works exactly. Lets look it up under cleric then.
Oh wait, crud clerics lose class abilitys if they violate the tenets of their deity. channel positive energy is a class ability. Does that mean paladins dont have to worry about that, even though their abilty works like a clerics?
What about spells then, since gods have nothing to do with it where does his divine focus come from? Since the definition of divine is 1di·vine adjective \də-ˈvīn\
: relating to or coming from God or a god
: very good
As for actually caring and being so demanding that a player be sympathetic right then, please stop telling others how they should play their characters.This line bugs me a little. I don't think anyone is telling him or suggesting that he has to play his character a specific way. I'm certainly not.
But there are consequences to actions. Am I telling you how to play your character if I say falling 500ft is going to kill him unless he does something to slow his fall?
I don't think so.
This paladin, likewise, needs to do something to slow his fall. Because it sounds like he is falling.
Or not. Playing an Ex-Paladin can be pretty interesting. Especially if he is actively trying to either reestablish paladin-hood or even swing the other direction, growing more and more bitter and twisted about being held to too high a standard and being forsaken and damned by the self serving gods he had once devoted himself to.
He can do whatever he wants. But actions have consequences. That is the nature of actions. This conversation is simply about what those consequence should/could/would be.
So say the dm rules he falls, and he gets atonement and that takes up time and some sessions and all that. He plays the fallen paladin until he is no longer fallen. Then he is back with his full abilities.
Then he gets hit with another enchantment spell (maybe it is confusion, maybe it is domination) and falls again for something he didn't choose to do. What type of yo-yo rule is this? Why allow the paladin to lose their abilities for something they didn't do? When it can be exploited over and over again. Please consider that. It is not a tough code to live by, it is a code you fail when something beyond your control comes up.
Do you see how stupid "you fall for something you didn't do" is in a setting with powerful behavior altering enchantment magic?
On actions having consequences that he should own up to, he didn't make the act. Magic made the act through him.
He broke the code by killing an innocent, no it wasn't his fault, Because it wasn't his fault, he doesn't have to pay the cost of the atonement spell, but he still needs the atonement spell.
They would not get a discount on it if it wasn't their fault, if they didn't need one if it wasn't their fault.
He actually didn't break the code. The code reads, "...punish those who harm or threaten innocents."
Do you send the gun or the man who shot it to jail? This is pretty obvious. Without the source of the Confusion what would have changed? The Child obviously wouldn't have died. The Paladin didn't really kill the child. Whomever cast the confusion did.
So the Paladin focusing on the task at hand and hunting down the creature who was the source of the confusion is well within the bounds of his Code.
Yep, it is kind of obvious.
SO looking directly at the code, do you think the paladin in question
a. Acted with honor? (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and oh wait the fun fluff lines and so forth) Hey GM whats so forth?, oh you think he should be remorseful for his act? oh He can just walk forward. cool. Thats not fluff that mechanic.
on to the ability Divine bond. very first sentence of the ability.
Upon reaching 5th level, a paladin forms a divine bond with her god.So the gm could very well rule his crass uncaring nature broke the bond he made with the god, no more fun weapons or mounts. Not fluff it was written after the role part.
Oh hey, channeling positive energy, gets to do it like a cleric, uses effective cleric level. charisma based ability.. so nothing on how it works exactly. Lets look it up under cleric then.
Oh wait, crud clerics lose class abilitys if they violate the tenets of their deity. channel positive energy is a class ability. Does that mean paladins dont have to worry about that, even though their abilty works like a clerics?What about spells then, since gods have nothing to do with it where does his divine focus come from? Since the definition of divine is 1di·vine adjective \də-ˈvīn\
: relating to or coming from God or a god: very good
1. Talking about the Code is good. That is mechanics not fluff. We're on track now. However, the "So forth" portion of the Code is the most commonly and easily abused by DMs.
EDIT: Druids get their spells from "Nature." Paladins get ALL their class features/spells from following their code of conduct and keeping their Lawful Good alignment. See the Ex-Paladins line on losing spells due to breaching one of those things. Only Clerics get their spells explicitly from their deity. So deity power doesn't exactly come into play with Paladins except in fluff text.
I'm all for the code firmly guiding the paladin's behavior, absolutely. If they break it, they fall. If THEY don't break if, they don't fall.
If you want to homebrew this into impossible not to fall land, or run situations where the paladin falls trying to do the right thing, that is your choice, but I hope you can see how this could go pear-shaped.
Adding to a point I made yesterday, the paladin should know what exactly will cause them to fall and the dm should be very clear on that. If a lack of remorse after an accident will cause the pally to fall, the dm should be clear as the pally would know that (father Cadelbrass was very clear, we must be remorseful and give pause and prayer to those that are lost). After all, this character in the setting has spent years becoming a paladin. My friend's suggestions on paladin education and support for grief and falling actions should be in existence if the paladin comes from an order.
Or, the paladin orders set the pallys loose in the world, and don't tell them that events beyond their control and intent can cause them to fall. It is simple really, more world building and backstory covering the code as it was taught, and through this communication to the player on what paladins are, or don't include this.
still needs that divine focus to cast the spell. What makes a divine focus divine? back to the definition of divine then granted not all the paladin spells require a divine focus, but some do
A divine focus component is an item of spiritual significance. The divine focus for a cleric or a paladin is a holy symbol appropriate to the character's faith.
So for a battle focused Paladin, it could be your weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Presumably, murder (especially the murder of children) is illegal in the lands he is from.
Would a magic world have different laws for magic? I'd presume charm and compulsion effects would have their own set of laws.
Come to think of it, he might feel obligated to report to the local authorities and turn himself in as a matter of course.
On the other hand, the players might not want to play courtrooms and constables. Worse, what do you do if the player is found guilty? Laws usually aren't kind, and its sort of awkward to have a player's character, much less your paladin doing the right thing, go to jail and spend however much time there. That might not sit well with people either, the idea of spending time in court or having their character go to jail for being mind controlled.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a shining example of an always fall situation thus whatever the Paladin does, he shouldn't fall. Exactly the sort of scenario an antagonistic DM would put in if there was a Paladin. Personally I'd just attack the kidnapper as the child has potentially more life to live.
Try this on for size: a kidnapper takes a random woman off the street, and threatens her life if a random man doesn't kill a random child. The three victims are unrelated and do not know each other. The random man kills the random child. The kidnapper is ultimately to blame. But his blame does not and should not absolve the random man for his a) unlawful killing and b) his failure to protect the random child by breaking a solemn vow he took to protect innocents. It doesn't matter that he was compelled to do it. He did it. Yes, he can be forgiven, and not ultimately held accountable. But for him to not even demonstrate any concern for the act is a failure to "judge those who fall short of their duties". That's pulled straight out of the Lawful alignment text. He fell short. Not his fault, but he fell short of his duty to protect innocents. That might not bother some people, and that's okay, but a paladin? The ideal Lawful Good warrior? Not something they should shrug off with "wasn't my fault".
Good choice. You might get lucky. But no, it's not a shining example of "set up to fall". It is an example of the types of moral quandary a lawful and good character should struggle with, not shrug off.
Also saying Bad Example and not even thinking about it is really lame.
And trying to suggest that an inanimate object like a gun or lake is as morally bound as a person isn't equally lame? Guns don't have morals. People do. If your weapon of choice is a person, you can expect that person to have thoughts and feelings about their actions. And if that person is allegedly Good, the killing of an innocent is a moral problem.
Theres a difference between being told to do something and being completely unable to control your actions due to the actions of another.
Yes, there is. Which is why atonement specifically covers unwilling actions.
It's not about who is to blame. The paladin code of conduct makes absolutely no reference to whose fault things are. The only question is this: "did the paladin punish the person who harmed an innocent?" Which was the paladin. Sure, he punished the person who caused him to harm the innocent, good for him. But there is no suggestion in the information we've been given to suggest that he even thought of his own punishment as being necessary. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Also my last example was more to the folks who said that it was the Paladin's fault for failing his Will save.
Fair enough. I'm somewhat ambiguous on that point, myself. I really don't like the example you went with, but it's a reasonable general point for the discussion at hand.
Again this is a huge difference in gameplay expectations. Likely the player isn't interested in this kind of stuff and would just like to get back to slaying evil and being a hero. He doesn't want the game to get bogged down by this kind of DM Fiat.
That's between the player and the GM. I hold paladins to high standards, but I have a gentleman's agreement with my players: I will not try to make you fall. If you do it through your own choices, that's your character development, but I won't push the issue from my side of the GM screen.
In this case, though, I would question the paladin's player about his character's motivations for not seeming to care about the loss of innocent life, and if his answer didn't satisfy me, he would fall. And "it wasn't my fault" is not a good reason, in my game, for a good character not caring about the death of innocents.
"but I have a gentleman's agreement with my players: I will not try to make you fall. If you do it through your own choices, that's your character development, but I won't push the issue from my side of the GM screen."
Excellent, we are in agreement then. So if the paladin doesn't make a choice to do an act that makes them fall, they don't fall. Right? This is exactly what we are discussing here, a killing while under confusion and not in control of the character.
"it wasn't my fault" is a good reason, when it wasn't their fault. Or are you flipping your position on player choice that you just stated?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, there is. Which is why atonement specifically covers unwilling actions.It's not about who is to blame. The paladin code of conduct makes absolutely no reference to whose fault things are. The only question is this: "did the paladin punish the person who harmed an innocent?" Which was the paladin. Sure, he punished the person who caused him to harm the innocent, good for him. But there is no suggestion in the information we've been given to suggest that he even thought of his own punishment as being necessary. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Let me explain how I feel about this. I disagree that fundamentally, the Paladin was the one to harm the innocent.
The Confusion spell did or more accurately, the person who caused the effect did. The Paladin's place in the matter didn't matter. If anyone else was confused it would have happened. The Child dying was not a consequence of the Paladin's actions but that of the origin of the confusion effect. If it had been someone else, would the Paladin strike that person down instead of heading for the caster?
The Paladin didn't break his code, the confusion effect did. I don't believe the Paladin should require an atonement.
Now the Paladin acting rather careless about the whole situation is something to talk about definitely. Personally I'd let the Paladin know he wasn't exactly acting honorably on the matter and expect him to pay a sum to the family for the emotional distress caused to them for the event. 100 gold or so is enough to live for the rest of most people's lives.
This is a shining example of an always fall situation thus whatever the Paladin does, he shouldn't fall. Exactly the sort of scenario an antagonistic DM would put in if there was a Paladin. Personally I'd just attack the kidnapper as the child has potentially more life to live.Good choice. You might get lucky. But no, it's not a shining example of "set up to fall". It is an example of the types of moral quandary a lawful and good character should struggle with, not shrug off.
Its actually a pretty good example of two crappy choices. If the paladin falls for the women dying or the child its a pretty good example of a fall-fall. Its not fun for everyone when you try and hold their class features hostage or try to test their morals. Some people just like enjoying who they are rather than being picked on for who they chose to play.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying your doing it wrong, but it doesn't require communication to say "Hey, I do things this way" instead of dropping things on people. It also could lead to some really awful reactions if you say you won't make them fall, but then drop something that looks fall-fall on them.
In this case, though, I would question the paladin's player about his character's motivations for not seeming to care about the loss of innocent life, and if his answer didn't satisfy me, he would fall. And "it wasn't my fault" is not a good reason, in my game, for a good character not caring about the death of innocents.
The idea that I have to react to being forced to do something and have my character held hostage over it and judged by interrogation doesn't chill well with me. I'd probably say it wasn't my fault as my way of saying I want to move on. In general I have a rule against putting up with games that think killing or abusing children is great emotional fodder. That isn't in any way fun to me.
"it wasn't my fault" is a good reason, when it wasn't their fault. Or are you flipping your position on player choice that you just stated?
I think he was stating that "It wasn't my fault" as a reason not to care about a child dying means your not a good character. Awkwardly this is a moment that question comes up, and it looks pretty targeted. It wasn't my fault is a pretty good reason to avoid guilt when it really wasn't your fault, but not the best reason to not care about a child dying, depending on who you ask, but that's getting into real world junk and subjective opinion. Edit: One of the unfortunate things about alignment is how easy it is to force your ideals on someone else, and this is one of those cases where someone is quiet honestly using their power to say their idea of morality is better than yours.
"it wasn't my fault" is a good reason, when it wasn't their fault. Or are you flipping your position on player choice that you just stated?
"It wasn't my fault, but the death of that child is unjust. It was wrong. I have avenged the murder on the person who made me do it. I did my duty." That's a good reason. The character has recognised their duties and responsibilities and acted accordingly.
"Wasn't my fault, Evil Wizard made me do it!" is not a good reason.
I couldn't care less that the paladin killed the child. What bugs me is that a child was killed and he did not appear to care. I don't know, maybe he did, but had run through the whole "I did my duty to bring justice" thing in his head and didn't tell anyone. And that's the failure, here. The GM could not tell the difference between "dead kid, who cares?" and "dead kid, justice is done, I AM PALADIN!" One is a fall, the other is not.
Again, subjective and declaring the paladin must make an emotional performance or they fall. I did not see that in the rules champ.
Do stoic paladins fall for being stoic?
Do mute paladins fall because they can't communicate they truly really cared?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Checking the body for gold is a type of caring. Sheez, cut the guy a break already.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, subjective and declaring the paladin must make an emotional performance or they fall. I did not see that in the rules champ.
Do stoic paladins fall for being stoic?
Do mute paladins fall because they can't communicate they truly really cared?
The arguments keep circling around the paladin making some sort of emotional performance. This isn't necessary.
From the OP and the follow up by the other player, it seemed that the player of the paladin was just blowing it off entirely.
This isn't about following the core code or the expanded one in the Faiths book. This is more along the lines of being a paragon of good, or even a good person at all. I mean, you don't have to tear at your clothing and whatnot, but a prayer over the body? A kind word to the other children? Any sort of reaction other than "how many xps for the kid? Is there any treasure? Moving on!" would at least be the bare minimum I'd expect from a good aligned player. let alone a paladin.
As for the examples above, a mute or stoic character can find ways to communicate their grief or guilt. It doesn't have to be some theatrical performance, but there are a myriad of ways to have taken the reaction that would be in line with playing a 'holy warrior', even if you take the angle that the paladin owes nothing to the God and cannot lose their powers.
Role playing, you know?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At this point, I sort of think the Paladin should just be tempted. Y'know, promise of power if they do something morally questionable? See how they react to a second event.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm having a hard time seeing any reason whatsoever why the Paladin should fall here.
He didn't break his Code. He did not commit an Evil act. He has not ceased to be Lawful Good.
Those are the conditions for falling.
"He didn't show enough remorse." is not something that will make you fall.
"He failed a saving throw." is not something that will make you fall.
"He picked his nose and wiped it on his friend's jacket." is not something that will make you fall.
This is not complicated, unless you're specifically looking for reasons why the Paladin should fall.
If that's what you're trying to do, save yourself and your player some heartache. Tell him to re-roll his character and ban Paladins from your table. A lot better in the long run than starting some long, drawn out process where every time the Paladin does something you think may have kinda sorta broken the Code if you look at it in the right light on the second Tuesday of November.
I'm having a hard time seeing any reason whatsoever why the Paladin should fall here.
He didn't break his Code. He did not commit an Evil act. He has not ceased to be Lawful Good.
Those are the conditions for falling.
"He didn't show enough remorse." is not something that will make you fall.
"He failed a saving throw." is not something that will make you fall.
"He picked his nose and wiped it on his friend's jacket." is not something that will make you fall.
This is not complicated, unless you're specifically looking for reasons why the Paladin should fall.
If that's what you're trying to do, save yourself and your player some heartache. Tell him to re-roll his character and ban Paladins from your table. A lot better in the long run than starting some long, drawn out process where every time the Paladin does something you think may have kinda sorta broken the Code if you look at it in the right light on the second Tuesday of November.
The OP wrote that the Paladin was habitually pushing the boundaries regarding his code and had be warned by the GM about this.
The OP wrote that the Paladin was habitually pushing the boundaries regarding his code and had be warned by the GM about this.
That's not what I read.
The only thing that might even be construed as that was "There have been a few none lawful good actions hes blurred the lines with", after which he gave the story and then said "I've warned him now for a few sessions", with no real specificity about WHAT he was warned of, and why, if it was different than the story.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The OP wrote that the Paladin was habitually pushing the boundaries regarding his code and had be warned by the GM about this.That's not what I read.
The only thing that might even be construed as that was "There have been a few none lawful good actions hes blurred the lines with", after which he gave the story and then said "I've warned him now for a few sessions", with no real specificity about WHAT he was warned of, and why, if it was different than the story.
Sounds almost the same as what he said.
---
Also, the argument that paladins don't need their God at all is hilarious! They're paladins, presumably they care a lot to train so hard. Rule-lawyers are bloody annoying.
The mental gymnastics going on in this thread. Ugh
The OP wrote that the Paladin was habitually pushing the boundaries regarding his code and had be warned by the GM about this.That's not what I read.
The only thing that might even be construed as that was "There have been a few none lawful good actions hes blurred the lines with", after which he gave the story and then said "I've warned him now for a few sessions", with no real specificity about WHAT he was warned of, and why, if it was different than the story.
Sounds almost the same as what he said.
---
Also, the argument that paladins don't need their God at all is hilarious! They're paladins, presumably they care a lot to train so hard. Rule-lawyers are bloody annoying.The mental gymnastics going on in this thread. Ugh
Its not an argument when it's true. A Paladin needs no deity.
Also, the argument that paladins don't need their God at all is hilarious! They're paladins, presumably they care a lot to train so hard. Rule-lawyers are bloody annoying.
The mental gymnastics going on in this thread. Ugh
What makes it so funny? I'm having trouble seeing how its hilarious. Then you turn around and say its mental gymnastics and grunt. By RAW paladins don't need a deity, its not some crazy corner case or mental gymnastics, or rules lawyering.
As reward for their righteousness, these holy champions are blessed with boons to aid them in their quests: powers to banish evil, heal the innocent, and inspire the faithful.
If nothing else, I think it's reasonably clear that they're expected to act in a righteous way... considering they explicitly get their powers as a reward for their upstanding behavior.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As reward for their righteousness, these holy champions are blessed with boons to aid them in their quests: powers to banish evil, heal the innocent, and inspire the faithful.If nothing else, I think it's reasonably clear that they're expected to act in a righteous way... considering they explicitly get their powers as a reward for their upstanding behavior.
Let me try.
conflict is all these brutal souls know. Savages, hired muscle, masters of vicious martial techniques, they are not soldiers or professional warriors—they are the battle possessed, creatures of slaughter and spirits of war. Known as barbarians,
Barbarians apparently only know conflict, and they aren't allowed to be professionsal or soldiers. You also need to be possessed. Also apparently they are spirits of war, not people. They also used soul to refer to a human being rather than their non physical aspects.
Ever just one step ahead of danger, rogues bank on their cunning, skill, and charm to bend fate to their favor.
Dude, rogues can bend fate. Who knew.
The flavor text is more like that poster you see of the movie I always thought. Its meant to look attractive or say "be this to be this!" rather than any actual bearing on how you should play your character.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
so what if he stopped the whole campaign just to go on off a hour long adventure to redeem himself would that have been better and following that he would be so paranoid with losing favor with his god he would go out of his way to make things difficult like no sneaking or use of the bluff skill for his party not fighting the villain because he may repent. this is how pallys get bad names for being jerks because they are occasionally forced to.
@MrSin: I think that would be slightly more persuasive if Paladins didn't have actual rule mechanics specifically pointing out how and when they can lose their abilities. There's basically two kinds of fluff: actual and flavorful. Flavor is for fun, while actual fluff is an integral part of the class (i.e. Wizards use Magic). As far as I can tell, Paladins getting their powers as a reward for their good behavior is "actual" fluff, not just flavor for the class. They're expected to follow their code of conduct (and being callous about harm done to innocents might fall under at least some definitions of "dishonorable behavior").
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins get their powers from being Lawful Good and maintaining their Code of Conduct. This is supported by the Ex-Paladins entry in the class.
So he didn't break his code as has been explained in the thread. He also hasn't willingly committed an evil act.
That leaves us with maintaining a Lawful Good alignment. Alignment is pretty opinionated. However what we do know is that small deviations in morality isn't enough to change your alignment.
All in all, I think it makes complete sense for a seasoned holy warrior(9th level guys) to not worry a crazy amount for one innocent death when hes aware of hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake in the world. Should he show a bit of goodness and atleast pay his respects to the body? Sure yeah whatever. Should he fall for sticking to the task at hand and hunting down the greater evils of the world? Absolutely not.
If theres any ambiguity at all on the matter of whether he should fall or not, he shouldn't.
|
There are three listed ways for a Paldin to fall
A paladin who
(1.) ceases to be lawful good,
(2.) who willfully commits an evil act, or
(3.) who violates the code of conduct
loses all paladin spells and class features.
Killing an innocent child violates the code of conduct. The paladin falls.
The character fails his save. Something bad happens.As always, there are spells to counter a failed save- stone to flesh, restoration, raise dead... atonement.
Rules solved.
Roleplaying
LG: "We must do everything we can to help those less fortunate than ourselves."
CE: "He was in the way. It's not my fault."
Paladins take responsibility.
If this player wants the powers of a Paladin, without the LG mentality, he should be playing an anti-paladin.
@MrSin: I think that would be slightly more persuasive if Paladins didn't have actual rule mechanics specifically pointing out how and when they can lose their abilities. There's basically two kinds of fluff: actual and flavorful. Flavor is for fun, while actual fluff is an integral part of the class (i.e. Wizards use Magic). As far as I can tell, Paladins getting their powers as a reward for their good behavior is "actual" fluff, not just flavor for the class. They're expected to follow their code of conduct (and being callous about harm done to innocents might fall under at least some definitions of "dishonorable behavior").
"dis·hon·or·a·ble (ds-nr--bl)
adj.1. Characterized by or causing dishonor or discredit.
2. Lacking integrity; unprincipled."
"dis•hon•or•a•ble (dɪsˈɒn ər ə bəl)
adj.
1. showing lack of honor or integrity; ignoble; base; disgraceful; shameful.
2. having no honor or good repute. "
Don't see "must show remorse for every innocent death outside his control" there.
Let's look at the Chivalric Code (ala the Song of Roland, which Paladins are somewhat loosely based on IIRC) and see what it has to say about this.
To fear God and maintain His Church
To serve the liege lord in valour and faith
To protect the weak and defenceless
To give succour to widows and orphans
To refrain from the wanton giving of offence
To live by honour and for glory
To despise pecuniary reward
To fight for the welfare of all
To obey those placed in authority
To guard the honour of fellow knights
To eschew unfairness, meanness and deceit
To keep faith
At all times to speak the truth
To persevere to the end in any enterprise begun
To respect the honour of women
Never to refuse a challenge from an equal
Never to turn the back upon a foe
Nope, not there either.
The Paladin was callous, yes. But not dishonorable by any definition I can find, nor that you are likely able to find (though if you can, I'd genuinely love to see it).
There are three listed ways for a Paldin to fall
A paladin who
(1.) ceases to be lawful good,
(2.) who willfully commits an evil act, or
(3.) who violates the code of conduct
loses all paladin spells and class features.Killing an innocent child violates the code of conduct. The paladin falls.
The character fails his save. Something bad happens.
As always, there are spells to counter a failed save- stone to flesh, restoration, raise dead... atonement.
Rules solved.
So the Paladin needs to worry about falling every time he gets mentally compelled and is no longer able to control his actions. Its completely him doing the actions. Nothing is possibly exerting its complete power over him. Surely he isn't helpless when dominated. -_-
Again. This particular Paladin's presence had no effect on whether the Child lived or died. The caster of the spell is what caused the Child to die. Do you blame the guy who pulls the trigger or the gun?
This is a scary example of a DM deciding how you should play your character and enforcing it.
I'm having a hard time seeing any reason whatsoever why the Paladin should fall here.
He didn't break his Code. He did not commit an Evil act. He has not ceased to be Lawful Good.
Those are the conditions for falling.
"He didn't show enough remorse." is not something that will make you fall.
"He failed a saving throw." is not something that will make you fall.
"He picked his nose and wiped it on his friend's jacket." is not something that will make you fall.
This is not complicated, unless you're specifically looking for reasons why the Paladin should fall.
If that's what you're trying to do, save yourself and your player some heartache. Tell him to re-roll his character and ban Paladins from your table. A lot better in the long run than starting some long, drawn out process where every time the Paladin does something you think may have kinda sorta broken the Code if you look at it in the right light on the second Tuesday of November.
He killed a child. It says right in the code that just because he was under a magical effect is no excuse. He still falls. BUT he does get to use the atonement spell for free.
@MrSin: I think that would be slightly more persuasive if Paladins didn't have actual rule mechanics specifically pointing out how and when they can lose their abilities.
And that has nothing to do with their worshipping a deity or if the powers come as a reward. That would be attributing two different things. The fact they can lose it can be fluffed to be a lot of different things from loss of personal faith(my favorite), or the loss of interest from an outside benefactor. Regardless, the text you quoted doesn't have a bearing on the class itself, which was my point of them pointing out the barbarian text.
Killing an innocent child violates the code of conduct.
Which part of the code does it violate? Oddly enough "don't kill innocents" isn't part of the code(though I'm certain you should not be doing it regardless...)
He killed a child. It says right in the code that just because he was under a magical effect is no excuse. He still falls. BUT he does get to use the atonement spell for free.
The code doesn't actually say anything about magical compulsion. It does say you should use atonement even when you haven't actually fallen or done wrong though, which is sort of weird.
He killed a child. It says right in the code that just because he was under a magical effect is no excuse. He still falls. BUT he does get to use the atonement spell for free.I'm having a hard time seeing any reason whatsoever why the Paladin should fall here.
He didn't break his Code. He did not commit an Evil act. He has not ceased to be Lawful Good.
Those are the conditions for falling.
"He didn't show enough remorse." is not something that will make you fall.
"He failed a saving throw." is not something that will make you fall.
"He picked his nose and wiped it on his friend's jacket." is not something that will make you fall.
This is not complicated, unless you're specifically looking for reasons why the Paladin should fall.
If that's what you're trying to do, save yourself and your player some heartache. Tell him to re-roll his character and ban Paladins from your table. A lot better in the long run than starting some long, drawn out process where every time the Paladin does something you think may have kinda sorta broken the Code if you look at it in the right light on the second Tuesday of November.
Question. Imagine if you will that the Paladin gets magic jar'd. The person now in the Paladin goes and kills someone. Does the Paladin fall?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are three listed ways for a Paldin to fall
A paladin who
(1.) ceases to be lawful good,
(2.) who willfully commits an evil act, or
(3.) who violates the code of conduct
loses all paladin spells and class features.Killing an innocent child violates the code of conduct. The paladin falls.
The character fails his save. Something bad happens.
As always, there are spells to counter a failed save- stone to flesh, restoration, raise dead... atonement.
Rules solved.Roleplaying
LG: "We must do everything we can to help those less fortunate than ourselves."
CE: "He was in the way. It's not my fault."Paladins take responsibility.
If this player wants the powers of a Paladin, without the LG mentality, he should be playing an anti-paladin.
The Code:
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.
Nothing in there about killing innocents.
You know why? Because that's covered by "Evil Acts". Killing a child is an evil act. No doubt.
However: " who willfully commits an evil act"
He did not willfully commit the act.
There is nothing in the Code that would cause him to fall in this scenario. Period.
There is, in fact, THE OPPOSITE. The Code itself absolves him of this crime by the very inclusion of that word "willful". This act was against his will, so he does not fall. This is simplicity itself.
He killed a child. It says right in the code that just because he was under a magical effect is no excuse. He still falls. BUT he does get to use the atonement spell for free.
Actually, it does NOT say that right in the Code.
Here is the Code. Again.
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.
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
Please, bold the part that says "Just because he was under a magical effect is no excuse. He still falls."
I've already pointed out where it says exactly the contrary, but here's your shot. Prove me wrong.
The code doesn't actually say anything about magical compulsion. It does say you should use atonement even when you haven't actually fallen or done wrong though, which is sort of weird.
It does not. The Atonement spell says that, but makes no mention of Paladins when it does so.
Note however, the Cleric CoC says nothing about willfully grossly violating the CoC of their god. Just grossly violating, period.
Killing an innocent child violates the code of conduct.Which part of the code does it violate? Oddly enough "don't kill innocents" isn't part of the code(though I'm certain you should not be doing it regardless...)
I'm splitting hairs but...
"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."
I don't think stabbing the child is helping him. Notice that that part of the code doesn't care about the willingness of the pally.
EDIT: One could argue that stabbing a child is dishonorable too.
Its not fun for everyone when you try and hold their class features hostage or try to test their morals. Some people just like enjoying who they are rather than being picked on for who they chose to play.
To these people; Don't play a paladin.
Morality is the name of the paladin game. Don't like moral questions, obligation, expectations?
Simple.
Don't play a paladin
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its not fun for everyone when you try and hold their class features hostage or try to test their morals. Some people just like enjoying who they are rather than being picked on for who they chose to play.To these people; Don't play a paladin.
Morality is the name of the paladin game. Don't like moral questions, obligation, expectations?
Simple.
Don't play a paladin
Or you know, don't play a paladin with Remy but feel free to play a paladin with someone else. You can also be a pretty moral character without being constantly stressed out by having to be tested.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or you know, don't play a paladin with Remy but feel free to play a paladin with someone else. You can also be a pretty moral character without being constantly stressed out by having to be tested.Its not fun for everyone when you try and hold their class features hostage or try to test their morals. Some people just like enjoying who they are rather than being picked on for who they chose to play.To these people; Don't play a paladin.
Morality is the name of the paladin game. Don't like moral questions, obligation, expectations?
Simple.
Don't play a paladin
Seriously. Just because theres a Paladin in the game doesn't mean you should stick a bunch of moral problems when there wouldn't be otherwise.
I play the game to have fun. If I want to play a larger than life heroic holy warrior who punches liches in the face, thats what I want to do.
The Paladin is an awesome class with great fluff behind it. Whats not so awesome is how a lot of DMs feel the need to impress THEIR image of what the Paladin should be upon the player.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... the DM should state up-front about what they expect from a Paladin character (with a focus on how they view the moral aspect), and the player can either agree or make a different character? Seems reasonable enough.