| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've noticed quite a few threads about Paladins and what causes them to Fall, etc. It seems that quite a few GMs set out to make a Paladin Fall, I have wondered why this is? Is there some hatred towards the class? Some weird thing that makes GMs want to punish players? Just what is it?
A couple things about Paladins and Falling, not what should make them fall or anything like that. This more about when. Should a Paladin be put into a situation where he can Fall? Certainly it is part of being a character. It happens in literature. How often should a Paladin be put into a situation where he can Fall, about as often as the Rogue is arrested, or the Wizard loses his spell components, or the Bard his instrument, or you do something to mess with any other character because of the class he is playing! Once or twice a campaign is often enough. If you are doing it every adventure, ask yourself why?
And why aren't you doing it to the Cleric, who has similar but not as strict rules. Are you putting the Barbarian into situations where he is forced to act Lawfully enough to make him change his alignment to Lawful? or the Monk to Chaotic? Has the Rogue been arrested for theft? Is the Druid stuck adventuring deep underground or in an extremely urban environment? Does every mage in the city cast silence on the Bard? Do the villagers stone the Witch when he enters the town?
If you as a GM are picking on the Paladin just because he is a Paladin, ask yourself why.
I don't get it either.
And in my group we treat the clerics (and inquisitors) the same as the paladins, if you piss your deity no spells for you.
Sure we had some falling (for both clerics and paladins) in my games but it was to most if not all of the group was in agreement that there was a gross violation.
EDIT: And druids too but i haven't been in a situation where a druid would lose his powers if he would take a particular action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have found a witch may I burn her!
I have found a witch may I burn her!
How do you know she is a witch?
OK, now that I've gotten that out of my system, I've been wondering the same thing as Vod... do some GMs have it in for paladins? No win scenarios where the character falls no matter what they do, expecting absolute morality ("You lied to the orc chieftain about how well the village was defended in order to stop an attack. You fall!"), and generally making the paladin one step away from becoming a second-rate fighter at all times.
Personally, I haven't seen that in the games I've played, but I've heard the horror stories often enough.
Of course, I *have* seen what Heaggles mentions, occasionally. Lawful stupid, people who play their paladins like they were Warhammer 40K inquisitors, and various wannabe Judge Dredd types.
Have I been missing something? How common are the jerk DMs or the clueless smite-happy kill-'em-all-and-let-Iomedae-sort-'em-out players?
If you have a problem in your campaigns with paladins falling then its probably a good idea to just suggest they just back off a bit on the dwarven ale.
Maybe buy them a snapleaf...
Weld some immovable rods to the sides of their platemail...
Well, I wouldn't go that far. The issue ultimately stems from Player V.S. GM attitude, when the GM is supposed to simulate the environment the players are currently habiting, not a "team" the players must kill. This is also vice-versa; the GM should also not view players as a "team" they must kill either, and this, I suspect, is the prime reason why GM's may feel the need to give Paladins a lose-lose situation.
Honestly, in a real life perspective, I look about how a Paladin falls in terms of equality and balance for their actions not just in behavior and decisions, but also how that impacts their code and the world they live in. A Paladin is generally going to be a tempered (that is, experienced or worked) individual that can carefully plot which is ultimately the best decision for the good of the world, and they make their decisions with rightful (and ultimately logical) thinking as well as being prudent in their actions.
Sometimes there are going to be choices where it may ultimately not matter which decision the Paladin makes, since either will result in Bad Thing A or Bad Thing B (assuming A and B are equal levels of Evil), and is something that any sensible GM would not punish the Paladin for. A Paladin should be punished for deliberately (or perhaps foolishly, in most cases) making choices for Bad Thing A or Bad Thing B to happen, when they could've just as sensibly chosen Good Thing A or Good Thing B instead.
Now, even with my generic example that I listed above, it's not going to be cut and dry as I've listed, so it's fairly easy to substitute things that may be easy (or even easier) compared to the example, or much more difficult to discern, and is something I believe players should also not misconstrue with "My GM hates Paladins and wears a 'I hate Paladins' T-Shirt to prove it".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone planning to play a paladin should give serious consideration to possible alignment conflicts with the GM. Lawful evil GMs are common, and naturally loathe the paladin and everything it stands for. (Chaotic evil GMs are not unheard of, but are less likely to use that kind of lawyerly mechanic to foil their enemy)
Using Detect Evil is advised, but should not be relied on. Many GMs are low level enough that they will not have an aura, and more powerful GMs often cast Undetectable Alignment on themselves in the early days of a game. Many GMs of this kind also take a dip in Oracle specifically to take the Tongues curse, which makes it impossible to use diplomacy to reason with them once combat has begun.
Smiting an evil GM can be cathartic, and is certainly not an evil act. It is not usually recommended, because many GMs are almost as powerful as high-level wizards, and are often petty and vengeful.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have decided: this will be the last paladin thread I will be reading.
\
On the flip side, I see a lot of DMs who would never have a Paladin fall. Whenever a Paladin would do something to fall, they either say "no, doing that would cause you to fall" or tell the player that he can't play a Paladin.
I have met many DMs who will brow beat a Paladin player into not taking actions that they think violates the code.
Seems nicer than tricking them.
I've had a GM that delighted in putting the players in moral dilemmas - especially paladins. They were often lose-lose situations. Unfortunately, his interpretation of the paladin's code and alignment was very black and white. And since he was the GM, his interpretation of the alignment trumped yours. If playing a paladin, you had to basically ask yourself, "What would Jesus do?" LOL! The idea of a "Batman-like" paladin was beyond his imagination or comprehension. At the end of the day, it became much more fun to be a fallen "Darth Vader-like" paladin, and become an Anti-Paladin.
As to why Paladins are put into situations where they will fall. Its the same reason "no killing" superheroes are put into situations where they "have" to kill someone. Its storytelling.
If you were reading a book about a hero who will be stripped of all his powers if he does X, then you can expect him to be put into situations where he would have to do X.
The issue with Paladins is that many players don't want to deal with lose lose situations. They want to play a knight in shining armor who charges into battle to save the day. Or they like the Paladin class mechanically. They may not even care about the code.
It's probably also because none of the other characters have to deal with suddenly being stripped of their most potent abilities.
Kind of disheartening, I imagine, to be the damage dealer guy of the group, then suddenly you can't do that very well at all, while the wizard is still wizarding and the rogue is still disarming traps like before.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The OP is a reasonable question. I think the root cause of the issue is the Paladin Code of Conduct. Let's examine the three core classes that can lose their powers.
Druids lose their abilities doing very specific actions: "changes to a prohibited alignment or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid." Or very vague: "ceases to revere nature." Therefore, players and GMs know pretty clearly what it takes to lose druid abilities.
Clerics lose their abilities doing the very vague actions of "grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god." Like the vague druid language, the vague cleric rules require the GM, acting as their god, explain to the player what their specific "code of conduct required by her god". However, in my experience, GMs very rarely proactively do this making it usually a non-issue.
Now Paladins have one specific way to lose their abilities, "ceases to be lawful good" and one relatively specific way "willfully commits an evil act." Let's examine evil.
Here's what OGC says about evil: "Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit... Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master." For argument sake, let's just say avoiding evil acts is fairly clear.
Lastly, the paladin loses their abilities by violating their code of conduct. By process of elimination, I would suggest that this code and its interpretation are the main reasons that the paladin gets the most grief. "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." While apparently specific actions like the druid, each of those actions can easily become traps by context and situation as numerously discussed and trolled on the Internet and at gaming tables everywhere.
my two coppers and cheers!
The whole "paladins may fall" thing s a really crappy mechanic, IMO, and it's one I wish Paizo had eliminated from Pathfinder in the first place. The conditions are poorly defined and open to interpretation, and it's really unclear why other classes who receive their powers from higher beings (clerics, inquisitors, witches, etc.) don't have any similar rules.
In answer to your question, the reason so many GMs seem to want their Paladins to fall is simply because the mechanic is there. The implication of the mechanic is that falling is a major problem for Paladins, so many GMs feel that they ought to bring it into the game.
A similar issue is how wizards frequently lose their spellbooks, or fighters keep getting captured and have to escape dungeons with no weapons or armor. The difference is simply that these issues aren't quite as debilitating as the paladin falling, although often just as arbitrary, so they don't generate as much weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth on the forums.
You might want to go back and reread the Cleric and Inquisitor class rules.
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds (see the atonement spell description).
and
An inquisitor who slips into corruption or changes to a prohibited alignment loses all spells and the judgment ability. She cannot thereafter gain levels as an inquisitor until she atones (see the atonement spell description). An inquisitor who becomes an ex-inquisitor can, with the GM’s permission, take the heretic archetype, replacing her class abilities with the appropriate archetype abilities. If the character atones or joins a different faith, she loses her heretic abilities and regains her previous inquisitor class abilities.
While not as strict as the Paladin code, both have rules for losing powers.
As to why Paladins are put into situations where they will fall. Its the same reason "no killing" superheroes are put into situations where they "have" to kill someone. Its storytelling.
If you were reading a book about a hero who will be stripped of all his powers if he does X, then you can expect him to be put into situations where he would have to do X.
The issue with Paladins is that many players don't want to deal with lose lose situations. They want to play a knight in shining armor who charges into battle to save the day. Or they like the Paladin class mechanically. They may not even care about the code.
I certainly would expect when reading a book about a Paladin for the Paladin to be put into a situation where the Paladin could Fall. I would not expect, nor would I keep reading if it happened EVERY chapter. Nor would I expect it to be a lose-lose situation. Both of those are bad story-telling.
Captain America and Superman are not put into situations where they have to or need to kill someone every issue. The Paladin shouldn't be put into a situation (baring shear stupidity) to Fall every game run.
|
Clerics and Inquisitors have codes and can lose their power if they break them.
But DMs don't go out of their way to engineer those two classes losing their abilities, nor do they deliberately interpret those classes' codes in such a way that ability loss is unavoidable.
As ninja'd...I mean...mentioned above, most superheroes have a code against killing, but every other issue doesn't present the hero the 'choice' of killing one person to save hundreds of others. As an occasional story, sure, but it is very occasional!
It should be just as rare for paladins, and just as common for clerics, inquisitors, Druids, etc.
In answer to your question, the reason so many GMs seem to want their Paladins to fall is simply because the mechanic is there. The implication of the mechanic is that falling is a major problem for Paladins, so many GMs feel that they ought to bring it into the game.
See, this is something I don't totally get. I've never GM'd for a Paladin before, but in general, I see no reason to purposely screw over a player's character. If a player is acting in a behavior that I do not believe to be fitting for the class, I would let them know. I don't think I would ever just 'spring' a fall on them because, at least in my opinion, that's not how the game is supposed to be played. A player doesn't want to make a character, invest in them, and then see all of their class features stripped with no warning. It's pretty likely not to be fun for them and, in my opinion, the game is supposed to be about having fun.
Jubal Breakbottle's assessment of the Code is pretty spot on though, I think. The listed actions of the Code are difficult to fulfill in some situations, and lose-lose scenarios for a Paladin become very easily possible. Interpreting it even through the exact words written, it's riddled with enough restrictions and in such a way that, if you're dealing with a '1-strike, you're out,' kind of GM, you can easily find a situation where you'll fall no matter what you choose.
...Huh. I sorta feel like I just described an infernal contract.
My suggestion is simple. If you are the kind of DM with rather strict or unusual or modern ideas about "Good" or a Paladins code, or if you have a player who plays fast & loose with them, then award him a Phylactery of Faithfulness.
Then there's no problems. The headband will warn him before he does anything to jeopardize his standing. If he still does it, then steps must be taken.
|
|
My suggestion is simple. If you are the kind of DM with rather strict or unusual or modern ideas about "Good" or a Paladins code, or if you have a player who plays fast & loose with them, then award him a Phylactery of Faithfulness.
Then there's no problems. The headband will warn him before he does anything to jeopardize his standing. If he still does it, then steps must be taken.
Even better, an intelligent phylactery! It can use it's own action to use it's own ability and tell the paladin in advance.
It won't take free will away from the paladin, but it will avoid sudden falls unless the player chooses to fall.
Note that this will not help if the player and DM have widely diverging ideas about how following the code interacts with the reality of the paladin living his life; nothing can guard against that! The only thing to do is prevent that by coming to an agreement before the game starts.
All classes have Achilles heels; I know I have seen more rogues arrested and clerics stripped of spells than paladins falling.
After reading more of these paladin threads than I probably should, I have come to the conclusion that people who like to play self righteous characters who force their black and white ideals on others are the same people who like to claim persecution the second they see evidence the world was not designed to favor those ideals. I am just a little disappointed in myself that it took me so long to draw this conclusion.
All classes have Achilles heels; I know I have seen more rogues arrested and clerics stripped of spells than paladins falling.
After reading more of these paladin threads than I probably should, I have come to the conclusion that people who like to play self righteous characters who force their black and white ideals on others are the same people who like to claim persecution the second they see evidence the world was not designed to favor those ideals. I am just a little disappointed in myself that it took me so long to draw this conclusion.
Except being arrested is class neurtral. And Rogues have class skills/talents to help against this (escape artist to slip through bars or out of manacles).
If a Paladin had class features to negate a fall (even if a % chance), we wouldn't have a issue.
|
Falling is a classic element of story for a hero bound to a code of high ideals. Temptation and corruption and how one stands against them are elements that can define any good aligned person paladin or otherwise. However if it is only the paladin being picked on and if evil PCs never have any reason to consider redemption then perhaps its a matter that runs a bit deeper then simply a desire for classic story elements.
|
Captain America and Superman are not put into situations where they have to or need to kill someone every issue. The Paladin shouldn't be put into a situation (baring shear stupidity) to Fall every game run.These characters frequently are put into situations where they seemingly have to kill. They get around this by finding a third option that isn't obvious at the start(and generally have high failure chances). If you replicate this with players, you will get a very different outcome. They will most likely fail their dice rolls or not think of a third option.
Of course, both Spidey and Cap have, on occasion, had to kill. Although I'm not really sure either would be a paladin, both seem more NG than LG to me. Cap may have lawful tendencies, but when those laws contradict his personal sense of right and wrong, he goes with his gut (reference Civil War).
All classes have Achilles heels; I know I have seen more rogues arrested and clerics stripped of spells than paladins falling.
After reading more of these paladin threads than I probably should, I have come to the conclusion that people who like to play self righteous characters who force their black and white ideals on others are the same people who like to claim persecution the second they see evidence the world was not designed to favor those ideals. I am just a little disappointed in myself that it took me so long to draw this conclusion.
Except being arrested is class neurtral. And Rogues have class skills/talents to help against this (escape artist to slip through bars or out of manacles).
If a Paladin had class features to negate a fall (even if a % chance), we wouldn't have a issue.
I remain skeptical of this idea, but I don't think we have to worry about seeing this mechanic in action because saying "how bad something is should be a matter of chance" seems antithetical to the class.
The two examples I gave were directly referencing words in the OP, but while I would admit that all classes can be arrested, I wouldn't go so far as to say all classes have an equal chance of being in a position to have it happen.
I think that the Paladin code is kinda hostile towards adventuring, to tell the truth.
Bingo. It is a separate memeplex that can work very well in a controlled environment, but they do not mix well with equally powered others.
|
|
I think that the Paladin code is kinda hostile towards adventuring, to tell the truth.Bingo. It is a separate memeplex that can work very well in a controlled environment, but they do not mix well with equally powered others.
A group of paladins only, great. A that mixes staunch LG characters with a paladin, still very workable. A group that throws in characters that aren't LG, you begin to see some problems. A group that has characters that are fully evil and/or chaotic, you've got an unworkable mess.
I will agree. A rogue has a much lower chance of being arrested then a Paladin or a fighter. High skill points + stealth as a class skill means a rogue is going to commit crimes much more stealthily than those classes.
Paladin class features are what cause them to fall.
If you let your full metal bruisers try to stealth about. I also do not let my casters do strength checks to lift rocks or my nomads make diplomacy checks to sell loot.
If our party needs to do something shady and sneaky done (unless we have a caster that can do it better) the rogue is being sent in to do it no matter how he likes it, lest he be the target of much ridicule and scorn. His class features dictate that he is the one that will do the dirty work. If a GM wants to create a lose/lose situation for a rouge, simply plant the desire to do something illegal that is too dangerous to be prudent but looks as if it may be possible.
This is why I removed the Lawful Good restriction from Paladins and instead gave them the same alignment restrictions as Clerics and Inquisitors in games I DM.
Clerics - The religious heart of a Diety's clergy.
Paladin - The righteous arm of a Diety's clergy.
Inquisitors - The zealous soul of a Diety's clergy.By removing the LG restriction, the paladin has about as much chance of falling as the other two.
If you are going to have any player that can loose everything with an alignment shift (especially a paladin!) talk to the player before the game starts about how often they would like to face fall scenarios. If they want to face it often once every level or two would be reasonable. If they don't want to face a fall scenario very often, every 4-6 levels they should be tempted to fall. If they NEVER want to face a fall scenario they should roll a new character.
I do like the idea about them being tied to the god's alignment, that would make things a lot easier.
to the second part: But what if your campaign isn't so simple? I ran a homebrew for years that if a paladin was present he would be in a no win situation most every setting. The major theme of the campaign was to push the characters out of their comfort zones and force them to think in ways they had never previously had to. Thinking that the world is set up with the intent to antagonize one player/class (as the OP suggests happens regularly) seems very narcissistic to me.
It's the Code of Conduct game mechanic that has the Paladin twisting. Remove that whole language and rely on the Lawful Good alignment and vague cleric language of doing right by their god, and no more issue.
From a game mechanics point of view just delete the Code of Conduct and rely on the language of the ex-Paladin paragraph.
Done.
Every Pally v. DM problem I have ever seen cam down to one thing, they didn't communicate. If you sit down and talk about what you expect from each other there are no suprizes. You might not like your dm's interpretation of the code(if so either suck it up or play something else) but at least you know what the ground rules are. If the dm doesn't stick to what you talked to then you have a place to start and argue from. Talk to each other thats the whole point of the game!
I have found a witch may I burn her!How do you know she is a witch?
She weighs the same as a duck, obviously [/end obligatory Monty Python reference]
In seriousness, it is simply so much easier for a paladin to fall even if you just go by alignment. Lawful Good carries a heavy burden. Can you even imagine situations where you force a character good and/or lawful without their cooperation? Does the BBEG turn good if he doesn't kick a puppy everyday? Does a barbarian turn lawful if he stays quiet in the library? It doesn't help that paladins can only be one alignment. Every other class with alignment restrictions can be 3-5 different alignments.
On one level, I can understand the position of placing this burden on the paladin. They are not merely supposed to be a sweet set of class abilities, but moral paragons. They gain their abilities from being white knights. There is still an interesting degree of interpretation in that. I have heard of someone on PFS doing a paladin/shadowdancer, which I could see being made into a SWAT team type character. If you imagine that a paladin is in many ways bound by a similar code of conduct as a police officer (and you can get past the image of the lose cannon cop stereotype), you can play one without becoming some kind of religious fanatic.
For how often they should be challenged: depends on the campaign and character. I can see the GM and player working together for a brooding and troubled kind of paladin. Recovering alcoholic after losing a previous party maybe? Otherwise, in realistic terms, the GM should only set out to test the paladin a couple of times per campaign. This of course does not preclude falling due to the player getting in touch with their inner sociopath. The player should act in good faith, and the GM should follow suit.