Actions don't define your alignment. You do. Your motives and what your character is trying to achieve are far more important in determining their alignment than the actions they take.I was going to argue this by pointing out the PRD definitions of good and evil, lawful and chaotic characters and how they all have statements of what actions they do.
But the first sentence of the alignment rules agree with you about alignment as being attitude focused.
As does the changing alignment sectionAlignment
A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment
Alignment is a tool, a convenient shorthand you can use to summarize the general attitude of an NPC, region, religion, organization, monster, or even magic item.The evil, good, law, and chaos descriptions as well as the individual alignment descriptions though are all a mix of attitudes and actions.
Whether attitudes or actions are more important in the end from how it is written is certainly debatable.
No comment. Just reformatting your post cause reasons...
Gods save us from Fundamental Literalists whether they be Christian, Islamic, or Game Book Nerd Fanatics! There seems to be some high exalted standard that DM's are supposed to interpret rules as if they were old style textile machines that were operated by punch cards. I know that there are DM's out there who believe it's their sacred mission to put Paladins or other code characters in fail or fail situations, and there are players who think that it's incumbent on such characters to be put into those boxes. And this is why I'm very leery of allowing either strangers to play them, nor would I play a Paladin under a Home Game GM that I've never met before. (PFS is a different story.)
Um...what?
Paladin's have a code. That is why they fall. It has nothing to do with alignment.That is only if you interpret the alignment chart as one of action and not essence.
To me looking at it as virtues and motives is far more sensical and lines up with the Lore concerning outsiders. Evil or Good is just something they are. It has little to do with action.
What do you mean?
Actions don't define your alignment. You do. Your motives and what your character is trying to achieve are far more important in determining their alignment than the actions they take.
Actually no, actions define it in pathfinder, not motives. Otherwise a paladin couldn't fall for committing an evil act while being mind controlled.
But they can.
A paladin also falls for shifting out of lawful good alignment zones or committing "an evil act."
Huh, guess it does have something to do with alignment.
Yes they fall for committing "evil" acts. That doesn't mean evil acts effect alignment. It's just more code nonsense.
Actions and some spells have alignments associated with them, but that is also because alignment is a physical things in PF. Creatures are made out of the stuff.
But it is only suggested that such spells and actions should eventually change your alignment. No mechanics are given. Such cases are solely for rule-0. I don't think anyone here would think a Lich-cleric casting CLWs enough could make it CG even if it occasionally burns orphans to death. And there are no mechanics that would actually allows this, only suggestions about how to handle aligned spells.
Yes they fall for committing "evil" acts. That doesn't mean evil acts effect alignment. It's just more code nonsense.Paladin's have a code. That is why they fall. It has nothing to do with alignment.That is only if you interpret the alignment chart as one of action and not essence.
To me looking at it as virtues and motives is far more sensical and lines up with the Lore concerning outsiders. Evil or Good is just something they are. It has little to do with action.
What do you mean?
Actions don't define your alignment. You do. Your motives and what your character is trying to achieve are far more important in determining their alignment than the actions they take.
Actually no, actions define it in pathfinder, not motives. Otherwise a paladin couldn't fall for committing an evil act while being mind controlled.
But they can.
A paladin also falls for shifting out of lawful good alignment zones or committing "an evil act."
Huh, guess it does have something to do with alignment.
If you are acting X alignment moreso than others, yes, your alignment is expected to eventually shift.
Actions and some spells have alignments associated with them, but that is also because alignment is a physical things in PF. Creatures are made out of the stuff.
But it is only suggested that such spells and actions should eventually change your alignment. No mechanics are given. Such cases are solely for rule-0. I don't think anyone here would think a Lich-cleric casting CLWs enough could make it CG even if it occasionally burns orphans to death. And there are no mechanics that would actually allows this, only suggestions about how to handle aligned spells.
This is where you're right. The only thing that the alignment rules actually cover is the things that you do. Spells and effects have subtypes that make them interact with other spells and effects, but there is nothing about casting protection from evil that will make you more good, just as there is nothing about casting protection from good that will make you more evil.
However, using any of those spells in keeping with an alignment will indeed influence your character's overall alignment. For example, if you are using circle of protection from evil in conjunction with planar binding to enslave elementals, you're in keeping with evil, and its going to make you more evil because you're oppressing others. Of course, if you're not Evil, it's probably because there is more to your character that hurting, oppressing, and killing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After some very good arguments it does appear to me that by RAW there are indeed situations where rigidly following the paladin code would be Evil and therefore cause a paladin to fall, but breaking the code in order to not do Evil would also cause the paladin to fall.
If Paizo had made it one way or the other, actually an Evil act to break the code or made the code more flexible, it would be fine. But they did neither. It is not objectively Evil to break the code, but breaking the code will cause you to fall whether it was for the greater good or not. This doesn't just make it hard (The argument: "It is supposed to be hard to be a paladin!") it makes it impossible. Eventually you will come to a no-win situation, unless the GM actively works to avoid it. Either way it is no fun.
I have said before that personally I would have a more flexible code, so obviously that isn't going to change for me.
I still think even a RAW impossible paladin would be a better companion than an anti-paladin though. ;-)
Edit: Oh, and I do still think it is better to let people die than commit an Evil act. Depending on how bad the Evil act is, of course. :-)
After some very good arguments it does appear to me that by RAW there are indeed situations where rigidly following the paladin code would be Evil and therefore cause a paladin to fall, but breaking the code in order to not do Evil would also cause the paladin to fall.
Nothing has come even close to convincing me of that. There is no time where "rigidly following the paladin code would be Evil". As Evil is defined in PF.
First things first.
Code of Conduct
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.
Ex-Paladins
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see atonement), as appropriate.
Yes, it is tied to alignment. If you're not lawful good you lose all class features. Thats straight from core. Its alignment dude.
2nd of all, alignment is based on your actions, whether you wish to accept that or not. The descriptions of alignments is given on the actions they take. Otherwise a pure evil character could sit there and cuddle children to sleep so long as he had evil motives at the end. But...
I don't see how you related it to alignment. Willfully committing an evil act makes you fall because of the code not because you suddenly changed alignment and no longer qualify for the class's alignment restriction.
That is only if you interpret the alignment chart as one of action and not essence.
To me looking at it as virtues and motives is far more sensical and lines up with the Lore concerning outsiders. Evil or Good is just something they are. It has little to do with action.
What do you mean?
Actions don't define your alignment. You do. Your motives and what your character is trying to achieve are far more important in determining their alignment than the actions they take.
Actually no, actions define it in pathfinder, not motives. Otherwise a paladin couldn't fall for committing an evil act while being mind controlled.
But they can.
I tend to take a "roll twice take worst" attitude towards actions and intentions.
Evil methods or actions with good intentions often work out to evil.
Good methods or actions with evil intentions often work out to evil.
If you are acting X alignment moreso than others, yes, your alignment is expected to eventually shift.
There are suggestions for this, but no actual mechanics for doing so.
These aren't even guidelines like CR or WBL, just suggestions of how to apply rule-0. Actions changing alignment has no rules, therefore it is not a rule. It's just a throwback to AD&D where half the mechanics explicit-ally told the player "the GM will figure out the specifics for his narrative".
Let's try examples. Let's say I am a LG fighter but I broke the law by lying to medieval Nazis, saying I didn't know where the innocents they wanted to murder were when I did. Even if the GM decides that I am CG now, that doesn't prevent me from still role-playing a LG character. It's just the GM trying to tell me how to role-play.
I don't see how you related it to alignment. Willfully committing an evil act makes you fall because of the code not because you suddenly changed alignment and no longer qualify for the class's alignment restriction.
Willfully committing an evil act makes you fall because it is willfully committing an evil act, not because of the code.
It is one of the three independent ways to fall: becoming not LG, wilfully commiting an evil act, or violating the code.
I don't see how you related it to alignment. Willfully committing an evil act makes you fall because of the code not because you suddenly changed alignment and no longer qualify for the class's alignment restriction.True, but you can actually commit enough neutral acts to turn neutral as well. Or chaotic for that matter. It doesn't come up as often but it can happen and you'll fall just as surely as anakin murdering the younglings.
Rules citation for that?
How many neutral action points do I need to change alignment?
Actions can't change your alignment. The GM might change your alignment because of extreme actions as suggested.
If neutral actions did actually change your alignment then everyone would be neutral do to the billions of neutral biological actions they perform everyday. More gross neutral action would be, sleeping, eating, every-step you take when walking, inhaling, exhaling, bathroom breaks, putting on armor, preparing spells (even aligned spells since it is only the casting that is aligned), looking at things, listening to things, smelling, tasting things, making saving throws, ect...
I don't see how you related it to alignment. Willfully committing an evil act makes you fall because of the code not because you suddenly changed alignment and no longer qualify for the class's alignment restriction.Willfully committing an evil act makes you fall because it is willfully committing an evil act, not because of the code.
It is one of the three independent ways to fall: becoming not LG, wilfully commiting an evil act, or violating the code.
The part about falling due to committing a willful evil act is in the paladin's code section, so I do not follow your distinction.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
After some very good arguments it does appear to me that by RAW there are indeed situations where rigidly following the paladin code would be Evil and therefore cause a paladin to fall, but breaking the code in order to not do Evil would also cause the paladin to fall.Nothing has come even close to convincing me of that. There is no time where "rigidly following the paladin code would be Evil". As Evil is defined in PF.
Yeah, but that's the thing. It doesn't have to be Evil. Just breaking the code, Evil or not, is enough to lose paladinhood. That sucks.
Woman presents ugly little daughter to paladin: "Isn't she beautiful!"
Paladin 1: "Yes she is." Fall.
Paladin 2: "No. She is ugly." Cause mental harm to child, very minor Evil. Still falls!
Paladin 3: "I'm sure she has a great personality!" Is he really sure? He probably isn't, the liar! Fall!
The code in pretty strait forward. And the rule that you Fall if you break it gives no leeway.
My original argument was that intentionally breaking the code is Evil. But I can't actually find were that is said anywhere. So apparently I was wrong.
Once again, paizo disagrees with you because it is most definitely a thing in PFS and that does not employ rule 0.If you are acting X alignment moreso than others, yes, your alignment is expected to eventually shift.There are suggestions for this, but no actual mechanics for doing so.
These aren't even guidelines like CR or WBL, just suggestions of how to apply rule-0. Actions changing alignment has no rules, therefore it is not a rule. It's just a throwback to AD&D where half the mechanics explicit-ally told the player "the GM will figure out the specifics for his narrative".
Let's try examples. Let's say I am a LG fighter but I broke the law by lying to medieval Nazis, saying I didn't know where the innocents they wanted to murder were when I did. Even if the GM decides that I am CG now, that doesn't prevent me from still role-playing a LG character. It's just the GM trying to tell me how to role-play.
PFS is a collection of "big-house" rules applied to pathfinder. You can't infer the PF general rules from it. Unless crafting is suddenly no longer a thing in rules and PCs need 3 exp to level.
Correct me if I am wrong but they have a whole system for alignment shifts (marks on character sheets and whatnot) that are found no where in the PF general rules.
Funny its pretty much universally true that almost all humans are somewhere in the neutral zone.I don't see how you related it to alignment. Willfully committing an evil act makes you fall because of the code not because you suddenly changed alignment and no longer qualify for the class's alignment restriction.True, but you can actually commit enough neutral acts to turn neutral as well. Or chaotic for that matter. It doesn't come up as often but it can happen and you'll fall just as surely as anakin murdering the younglings.Rules citation for that?
How many neutral action points do I need to change alignment?
Actions can't change your alignment. The GM might change your alignment because of extreme actions as suggested.
If neutral actions did actually change your alignment then everyone would be neutral do to the billions of neutral biological actions they perform everyday. More gross neutral action would be, sleeping, eating, every-step you take when walking, inhaling, exhaling, bathroom breaks, putting on armor, preparing spells (even aligned spells since it is only the casting that is aligned), looking at things, listening to things, smelling, tasting things, making saving throws, ect...
So I take it you have no actual rule citations?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but we all know you're a stubborn old codger DD. :P You wouldn't accept something that goes against your nostalgia if it was written in bold print right on the first page of the core rulebook :PAfter some very good arguments it does appear to me that by RAW there are indeed situations where rigidly following the paladin code would be Evil and therefore cause a paladin to fall, but breaking the code in order to not do Evil would also cause the paladin to fall.Nothing has come even close to convincing me of that. There is no time where "rigidly following the paladin code would be Evil". As Evil is defined in PF.
I resemble that remark! ;-)
If you are acting X alignment moreso than others, yes, your alignment is expected to eventually shift.There are suggestions for this, but no actual mechanics for doing so.
These aren't even guidelines like CR or WBL, just suggestions of how to apply rule-0. Actions changing alignment has no rules, therefore it is not a rule. It's just a throwback to AD&D where half the mechanics explicit-ally told the player "the GM will figure out the specifics for his narrative".
Let's try examples. Let's say I am a LG fighter but I broke the law by lying to medieval Nazis, saying I didn't know where the innocents they wanted to murder were when I did. Even if the GM decides that I am CG now, that doesn't prevent me from still role-playing a LG character. It's just the GM trying to tell me how to role-play.
From the PRD:
Changing Alignments
. . . In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation—the only thing the GM needs to strive for is to be consistent as to what constitutes the difference between alignments like chaotic neutral and chaotic evil. 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.
It's best to let players play their characters as they want. If a player is roleplaying in a way that you, as the GM, think doesn't fit his alignment, let him know that he's acting out of alignment and tell him why—but do so in a friendly manner. If a character wants to change his alignment, let him—in most cases, this should amount to little more than a change of personality, or in some cases, no change at all if the alignment change was more of an adjustment to more accurately summarize how a player, in your opinion, is portraying his character.
So its supposed to go as follows:
1 DM makes a judgment that someone is roleplaying in a way they think doesn't fit the stated alignment.
2 The DM tells the PC with an explanation of why.
3 If the PC wants to change their alignment the DM should let them.
I've had people argue to me that since it says "the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment" and "alignment is solely a label the GM controls" that 3 is not a PC choice to change under this section but a DM adjudication.
Once changed the LG roleplayed PC with a CG alignment will be hit by alignment mechanics as if he was CG.
I've already shown you flat out rules and then you just go to the base of the system saying "well what about that?"
You might as well ask why the coefficient of gravity is what it is. At this point pretty its pretty much just you on the other side of the fence. Twig's of the mind that you're wrong now, as am I and ashiel.
Paizo runs PFS as a blatant disagreement to you as well. I can't find a rules statement that no humans come with 6 arms all with claws. You want one of those next? At this point you're just being ridiculous and everyone else has accepted it.
I'm not following you.
I said that there are no mechanics for actions changing alignment outside of what is purely GM discretion.
You said that there is.
I asked for examples.
I have received none so far.
All this who's wrong and who's right thing is far too hostile of a discussion approach for me. I either understand you or I don't. Applying "right" and "wrong" values to a discussion about right and wrong seems counter-intuitive to me.
After some very good arguments it does appear to me that by RAW there are indeed situations where rigidly following the paladin code would be Evil and therefore cause a paladin to fall, but breaking the code in order to not do Evil would also cause the paladin to fall.Nothing has come even close to convincing me of that. There is no time where "rigidly following the paladin code would be Evil". As Evil is defined in PF.Yeah, but that's the thing. It doesn't have to be Evil. Just breaking the code, Evil or not, is enough to lose paladinhood. That sucks.
Woman presents ugly little daughter to paladin: "Isn't she beautiful!"
Paladin 1: "Yes she is." Fall.
Paladin 2: "No. She is ugly." Cause mental harm to child, very minor Evil. Still falls!
Paladin 3: "I'm sure she has a great personality!" Is he really sure? He probably isn't, the liar! Fall!
The code in pretty strait forward. And the rule that you Fall if you break it gives no leeway.
"All children are beautiful in the eyes of Shelyn" (or "their mother").
"Children are given the gift of beautiful souls."
"I will pray for the blessing of Sarenrae on your child."
"Here is a copy of The Birth of Light and Truth for your child's guidance."
"I am no judge of beauty, only Truth."
> A smile, kneels in front of child and lays hand upon the head of the child<
The part about falling due to committing a willful evil act is in the paladin's code section, so I do not follow your distinction.I don't see how you related it to alignment. Willfully committing an evil act makes you fall because of the code not because you suddenly changed alignment and no longer qualify for the class's alignment restriction.Willfully committing an evil act makes you fall because it is willfully committing an evil act, not because of the code.
It is one of the three independent ways to fall: becoming not LG, wilfully commiting an evil act, or violating the code.
I was picking it up under the ex paladins section where three things are listed as causing a fall, not being LG, willfully committing an evil act, and violating the code.
I see now that under the code the first two are part of the code as well but only willfully committing an evil act is called out there as causing a fall.
Odd that in the code only the willful act is called out for causing a fall and that in the ex paladin section they redundantly call out the LG and willful evil in addition to the code when they are also part of the code.
After some very good arguments it does appear to me that by RAW there are indeed situations where rigidly following the paladin code would be Evil and therefore cause a paladin to fall, but breaking the code in order to not do Evil would also cause the paladin to fall.Nothing has come even close to convincing me of that. There is no time where "rigidly following the paladin code would be Evil". As Evil is defined in PF.Yeah, but that's the thing. It doesn't have to be Evil. Just breaking the code, Evil or not, is enough to lose paladinhood. That sucks.
Woman presents ugly little daughter to paladin: "Isn't she beautiful!"
Paladin 1: "Yes she is." Fall.
Paladin 2: "No. She is ugly." Cause mental harm to child, very minor Evil. Still falls!
Paladin 3: "I'm sure she has a great personality!" Is he really sure? He probably isn't, the liar! Fall!
The code in pretty strait forward. And the rule that you Fall if you break it gives no leeway.
"All children are beautiful in the eyes of Shelyn" (or "their mother").
"Children are given the gift of beautiful souls."
"I will pray for the blessing of Sarenrae on your child."
"Here is a copy of The Birth of Light and Truth for your child's guidance."
"I am no judge of beauty, only Truth."
> A smile, kneels in front of child and lays hand upon the head of the child<
Failed to answer the question. GM considers empty platitudes dishonorable. FALL :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Way to dodge the question. Politaladins.
any GM who takes the paladin's code as seriously as you've all been talking about is a GM who isn't worth their salt and should be dumped immediately, also i love how you all seem to think a paladin's fall is a permanent thing
@Marroar Gellantara
to a paladin those wouldn't be false platitudes they would be the truth as the paladin believes thus no fail
any GM who takes the paladin's code as seriously as you've all been talking about is a GM who isn't worth their salt and should be dumped immediately, also i love how you all seem to think a paladin's fall is a permanent thing
@Marroar Gellantara
to a paladin those wouldn't be false platitudes they would be the truth as the paladin believes thus no fail
They aren't false. They are just empty.
If the GM thinks giving those out is dishnorable then you fall.
Also no one that isn't a t+%% would GM a paladin with the legalistic interpretations of the code presented here.
People are just pointing out how the code doesn't actually work.
People are just pointing out how the code doesn't actually work.
the code works fine as long as you don't play with a literalist dm
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty much. IMHO, if following the rules means the game breaks down, then those are not good rules and should be revised. As I noted, the 3.5 rule for the paladin code worked better. I won't say it was devoid of problems (the code should seriously be specific so we don't get threads about GMs preventing Paladins from using bows/crossbows and such) but it at least didn't create a damned if-damned if not scenario.
People are just pointing out how the code doesn't actually work.the code works fine as long as you don't play with a literalist dm
No, the code works fine if you don't follow the rules. That's not fine.
I think the main problem here is that a Paladin is not allowed to make a mistake. One violation of the code, even if it is unintentional, is all it takes for the Paladin to lose everything. Mistakes are one of the best ways that people learn. But Paladins are never allowed to learn, because if they do learn in that way, they are no longer a Paladin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People are just pointing out how the code doesn't actually work.the code works fine as long as you don't play with a literalist dm
The code works fine as long as you don't play with a Dick DM.
Don't play with Dicks. Don't be a Dick.
I think the main problem here is that a Paladin is not allowed to make a mistake. One violation of the code, even if it is unintentional, is all it takes for the Paladin to lose everything. Mistakes are one of the best ways that people learn. But Paladins are never allowed to learn, because if they do learn in that way, they are no longer a Paladin.
Atonement.
I think the main problem here is that a Paladin is not allowed to make a mistake. One violation of the code, even if it is unintentional, is all it takes for the Paladin to lose everything. Mistakes are one of the best ways that people learn. But Paladins are never allowed to learn, because if they do learn in that way, they are no longer a Paladin.Atonement.
Translated, this means: Stopping the adventure, seeking out a LARGE CITY or METROPOLIS, and paying 500 gp for the spellcasting service to get atoned. EDIT: Make that 3,000 gp, unless you were mind-controlled into falling.
Most people hate the Paladin because a good chunk of their peers deal with alignment like buttlords.
I hate the Paladin because I made one recently and I feel like I don't DO anything. Sure if it's a single target and evil I can smite but I only get so many smites, I'm full BAB and feat starved, most of my abilities are dedicated to not dying. I just feel like the Paladin is one of those classes that NEEDS a 15min workday or he's stuck healing, after two evil creatures I'm mostly done. Cant wait til 5th level when I get my once a day magus ability. I am very close to getting my Paladin killed heroically so I can roll up a Fighter.
I am so confused by this. Paladins have more things to do than quite a few martials. They can be more ballsy because of Lay on Hands, spend less time CC'd because of their saves. At 4th level you get access to spells which do things like allow you to move through spaces without provoking attacks, and at 5th level you get your weapon bond.
I'm just kind of flabbergasted. All fighters do is swing a sword. >_>
Aside from healing and not dying this is pretty much what my paladin does. Only less effectively because I'm saving up my smite for a boss fight or something. Granted this is still early levels and my first paladin ever but it has been the most boring class I've played so far. At least with a fighter I was able obliterate more than one guy a day.
I think the main problem here is that a Paladin is not allowed to make a mistake. One violation of the code, even if it is unintentional, is all it takes for the Paladin to lose everything. Mistakes are one of the best ways that people learn. But Paladins are never allowed to learn, because if they do learn in that way, they are no longer a Paladin.Atonement.
And if 9th-Level Clerics are extremely rare in the setting? Or you're playing an E6 Game?
On a related note, why isn't Atonement on the Paladin spell list? You'd think that another Paladin would be able to tell that one of his fellow Paladins had truly repented and could lead them back into the light.
Translated, this means: Stopping the adventure, seeking out a LARGE CITY or METROPOLIS, and paying 500 gp for the spellcasting service to get atoned. EDIT: Make that 3,000 gp, unless you were mind-controlled into falling.I think the main problem here is that a Paladin is not allowed to make a mistake. One violation of the code, even if it is unintentional, is all it takes for the Paladin to lose everything. Mistakes are one of the best ways that people learn. But Paladins are never allowed to learn, because if they do learn in that way, they are no longer a Paladin.Atonement.
any reasonable group would have no problem with this, also Atonement can also lead to F_ing epic quests
Translated, this means: Stopping the adventure, seeking out a LARGE CITY or METROPOLIS, and paying 500 gp for the spellcasting service to get atoned. EDIT: Make that 3,000 gp, unless you were mind-controlled into falling.I think the main problem here is that a Paladin is not allowed to make a mistake. One violation of the code, even if it is unintentional, is all it takes for the Paladin to lose everything. Mistakes are one of the best ways that people learn. But Paladins are never allowed to learn, because if they do learn in that way, they are no longer a Paladin.Atonement.
Or the Cleric just casts it next morning.
Or the Cleric just casts it next morning.Translated, this means: Stopping the adventure, seeking out a LARGE CITY or METROPOLIS, and paying 500 gp for the spellcasting service to get atoned. EDIT: Make that 3,000 gp, unless you were mind-controlled into falling.I think the main problem here is that a Paladin is not allowed to make a mistake. One violation of the code, even if it is unintentional, is all it takes for the Paladin to lose everything. Mistakes are one of the best ways that people learn. But Paladins are never allowed to learn, because if they do learn in that way, they are no longer a Paladin.Atonement.
Assuming you have a cleric.
I don't see how you related it to alignment. Willfully committing an evil act makes you fall because of the code not because you suddenly changed alignment and no longer qualify for the class's alignment restriction.True, but you can actually commit enough neutral acts to turn neutral as well. Or chaotic for that matter. It doesn't come up as often but it can happen and you'll fall just as surely as anakin murdering the younglings.
Well, neutral acts are always a bit of a tricky issue, because the vast majority of day-to-day actions are going to be neutral. You rushed your teeth, got dressed, went out to buy food, then cooked dinner. Along the way to the store you helped one beggar and one orphan. That's four neutral acts to two good ones. Paladin FALLS!
Or the Cleric just casts it next morning.Translated, this means: Stopping the adventure, seeking out a LARGE CITY or METROPOLIS, and paying 500 gp for the spellcasting service to get atoned. EDIT: Make that 3,000 gp, unless you were mind-controlled into falling.I think the main problem here is that a Paladin is not allowed to make a mistake. One violation of the code, even if it is unintentional, is all it takes for the Paladin to lose everything. Mistakes are one of the best ways that people learn. But Paladins are never allowed to learn, because if they do learn in that way, they are no longer a Paladin.Atonement.
Assuming you have a 9th level cleric. What's amazingly humorous though is that if we were playing together, my Neutral necromancer cleric could atone a Lawful Good Paladin, because atonement only cares about the caster's alignment and/or faith for clerics, which means that a Cleric of Asmodeous is perfectly capable of allowing a Paladin to be a Paladin again. Makes you wonder on whose authority you're getting atoned...
Still costs tons of money and requires you to have a bigass city sup 9th level, or any level that you lack a cleric in your party. I suppose you could cary around a scroll of atonement and just max UMD and atone yourself. However, in pretty much all cases that seems kinda...weird.