I've read the range of forums posts on this topic but i just wanted to ask how i can handle this, i don't want to be seen as taking something away from my player.
I'm running Rise of the Runelords, currently the party is made up of a Druid, Wizard, Ninja and the Paladin of Sarenrae. There have been a few none lawful good actions hes blurred the lines with always talking his way out of it (Along the lines of 'Thats not how i feel LG would act' and so on) with me not wanting to keep going because of it bogging down the play session.
So their now about level 9, in a biggish fight and he get's confused next round i roll and he attacks nearest creature, that being a 3 year old kid kills him in one cleaves him in two. Combat carries on they kill the monster and then they face what happened. The ninja and wizard instantly ask what happened why did he attack the kid while the wizard also talking about getting money to bring the kid back to life with the paladin has no remorse showing no sign of what he did just saying 'I had no control not my fault' I know the act of killing the kid while under confusion wouldn't make him fall but his complete no emotion over it all does not make me feel his action are in his LG alignment.
I've warned him now for a few sessions, but again i don't want to seem to be taking away power from players. I just wanted to ask what would you do what have you done in this situation?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If he is confused it is not his fault. However any good character (not nessessary lawful or a paladin) would and should feel remorse about this and try to rectify the situation. Normally if we are playing a good group we would all put in for a raise if we could as well as trying to help out the parents.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well he didn't have any control.
Quite likely since he had no power over what he did, he doesn't want there to be a huge deal about it and continue playing.
Each alignment is very broad and one or two instances of him doing something odd isn't enough to change it unless it is very drastic.
Characterwise, the Paladin is obviously sorry it happened and could be breaking up inside despite being stoic outside.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
He's completely right. He had no control over his actions, therefore he is not responsible. Whoever cast the Confusion on him is the responsible party.
There's nothing that says he has to feel bad about doing, well, ANYTHING. Just because he's a Paladin doesn't mean he has to be emotional.
Yeah... personally I would say he's playing 'wrong'... but at the same time I wouldn't condone stripping a player of his powers because someone thinks he's playing his character 'wrong'...
Kind of a catch 22...
I think that killing a kid under any circumstances... or even if he had nothing to DO with it, and the monster killed the kid directly would have hurt my paladin something fierce. There would be SOOOOOOO much roleplaying potential I can't even begin!!!
However, not all paladins are the same. In some cases NO SPOILERS PLEASE... A paladin may put all the blame on whoever was REALLY responsible. The monster... the person controlling the monster... the GM.. ;) Whatever the plot requires and go all vengencey on the 'guilty' person.
They could well be very stoic about the whole thing. He WAS just a weapon, it wasn't a choice of the matter...
He COULD well be in shock still... the reality of the situation still trying to settle on him.
But yeah... 'because the player didn't feel as bad as I think he should'... seems pretty weak excuse for talking about the character falling...
Also food for thought... Again please NO SPOILERS... We're running this game too. In OUR game we're level 11 I think, and I don't think we really HAVE access to raise deads... it's too high for people in our 'starting city' to cast, and we really don't hang out much in 'big cities'. I think at level 9 our druid started Reincarnating people... but that's had some mixed results so far.
So.... in many MANY situations in a fantasy world... dead civilians really SUCK... but it DOES happen. Many a paladin would focus more on avenging the death then finding a way to rework time and space and 'undo' the natural cycle of life and death...
Just saying.
I just wanted to ask what would you do what have you done in this situation?
I wouldn't make a big deal out of it. I'd allow it to be a big of a deal for the character as the player wanted it to be, but I wouldn't make him fall. Forcing someone to be punished for actions taken while under the influence of compulsion is pretty unnecessary, imo, and happens to be one of those things that can lead to people not playing paladins anymore.
'Thats not how i feel LG would act'
That's a red light btw. It means alignment is limiting actions and characterization.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
'Thats not how i feel LG would act'That's a red light btw. It means alignment is limiting actions and characterization.
Alternatively, it means the player in question wants the mechanical benefits of being a paladin without the downsides. As I read the statement, it was attributed to the player, not to Ictoo, the game master.
The logical next step, to me, is to ask "how would an LG character act?" I agree that an out-of-character discussion is important. While I agree that his understanding of LG is possibly different than Ictoo's, that doesn't mean that his understanding of LG is something the rest of the group would accept. Or even that he has an understanding of LG. He may just be power-gaming it ("hey, I get to play a lawful evil fighter with great healing and high saving throws!")
If nothing else, this is a discussion that needs to happen NOW, because BZ's link is correct, characters should not fall without having their players warned first. It's your perogative (and Saranrae's, in-game) to put the paladin on "alignment watch," but Saranrae would try to work things out first. Perhaps this is a good time for a dream-sequence.....
Hell, that can even make a good side-quest. Take a few hours and find the lost scroll of raise dead that Saranrae has directed him to by defeating the evil Lobster Cult in the abandoned temple of SeeFood. At that point, he can raise the kid, Saranrae's happy (and doing her job as a deity by protecting the weak).... or he decides selfishly to keep the scroll, even after being told by Saranrae what it's for, and at that point decisions start to have consequences.
|
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)Atonement Spell
This spell removes the burden of misdeeds from the subject. The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds. If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you.
I think it's pretty clear cut- he loses all his abilities until he seeks atonement. The longer he whines that it's not his fault and the longer he isn't sorry for what has happened, the longer he loses his powers.
You also might want to point out that whether the player is sorry or not, his character must be truly repentant for the spell to work, as per first sentence of spell.
Just show him the rules AND show him how to fix it. He may whine but you've shown him the way and all he has to do is follow. He can use the money saved from the Atonement to pay for a Raise Dead- also a 5th level cleric spell.
I've read the range of forums posts on this topic but i just wanted to ask how i can handle this, i don't want to be seen as taking something away from my player.
I'm running Rise of the Runelords, currently the party is made up of a Druid, Wizard, Ninja and the Paladin of Sarenrae. There have been a few none lawful good actions hes blurred the lines with always talking his way out of it (Along the lines of 'Thats not how i feel LG would act' and so on) with me not wanting to keep going because of it bogging down the play session.
So their now about level 9, in a biggish fight and he get's confused next round i roll and he attacks nearest creature, that being a 3 year old kid kills him in one cleaves him in two. Combat carries on they kill the monster and then they face what happened. The ninja and wizard instantly ask what happened why did he attack the kid while the wizard also talking about getting money to bring the kid back to life with the paladin has no remorse showing no sign of what he did just saying 'I had no control not my fault' I know the act of killing the kid while under confusion wouldn't make him fall but his complete no emotion over it all does not make me feel his action are in his LG alignment.
I've warned him now for a few sessions, but again i don't want to seem to be taking away power from players. I just wanted to ask what would you do what have you done in this situation?
FALL!
It's a dick move, but is how the class is balance is through RP restriction. A terrible way to balance IMO, but is one of the legacy problems inherited from 3.5.
You're free to ignore his actions, but he will essentially be playing a LG fighter with less feats, but sexier class features.
It's a dick move, but is how the class is balance is through RP restriction. A terrible way to balance IMO, but is one of the legacy problems inherited from 3.5.
Heads up, but 3rd edition didn't balance the paladin around its ability to fall, and by extension neither did pathfinder.
Since the act itself was out of his control and thus not subject to judgment, he's not eligible for falling.
That said, his lack of remorse is definitely cause for alarm for whatever divine forces grant him his power. A good way to warn him would be to have his patron visit him in a dream or some similar divine vision, warning him that his heart is growing dark and that he must be more discretionate lest his power fall away.
Unless the player does something that blatantly bad, he should get some fair warning that he's slipping.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't it sort of awkward if your deity is cool with you doing something while not under control but if you feel no remorse because you know you weren't in control then that means your in trouble?
There have been a few none lawful good actions hes blurred the lines with always talking his way out of it (Along the lines of 'Thats not how i feel LG would act' and so on) with me not wanting to keep going because of it bogging down the play session.
Talk to the player outside of game. It doesn't matter what the player views how LG would act, its your game so you have the final call.
I would say no-fall because he was magically compelled with a spell. However if he is all 'whatevez not my fault' (basically playing a C/N alignment) then I would have Sarenrae start to show displeasure. Remember that Sarenrae is all about redemption so if he shapes up, all is well in the world.
|
It's a dick move, but is how the class is balance is through RP restriction. A terrible way to balance IMO, but is one of the legacy problems inherited from 3.5.Heads up, but 3rd edition didn't balance the paladin around its ability to fall, and by extension neither did pathfinder.
Not the Fall itself, but it is balanced around the strict restrictions of the alignment and the concept of the class.
I know it is common on these forums to try to maximize player freedom and minimize and rules or "fluff" that might be so cruel as to impose any limitations on the players, but I think that in the case of the Paladin, that people really need to read the class description again.
Paladin
Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine. Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil. Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline. 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. Although their convictions might lead them into conflict with the very souls they would save, paladins weather endless challenges of faith and dark temptations, risking their lives to do right and fighting to bring about a brighter future.
Isn't it sort of awkward if your deity is cool with you doing something while not under control but if you feel no remorse because you know you weren't in control then that means your in trouble?
Objection, assumes facts not in evidence!
I don't see any reason to assume that Saranrae would be cool with the paladin's behavior. But it's a big step from "I'm not cool with that" to "fall NOW, b*tch!" and one that I don't think any deity would take lightly.
I mean, pffft, that's basic management skills. You're not happy when your subordinate screws up, but only a poor manager fires someone for their first mistake. You talk to them, figure out why they made it, figure out how to correct it, and how to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Having said that, if a subordinate screwed up and didn't seem to care about it,... that is serious grounds for concern. If the mistake's serious enough, that might end up promoting it to a firing offense.
Not the Fall itself, but it is balanced around the strict restrictions of the alignment and the concept of the class.It's a dick move, but is how the class is balance is through RP restriction. A terrible way to balance IMO, but is one of the legacy problems inherited from 3.5.Heads up, but 3rd edition didn't balance the paladin around its ability to fall, and by extension neither did pathfinder.
The class isn't balanced around strict restrictions. Fluff and roleplay can't balanced mechanics very well(if at all), and its not fighter + like it was in past editions, its a class of its own with a theme.
Having said that, if a subordinate screwed up and didn't seem to care about it,... that is serious grounds for concern. If the mistake's serious enough, that might end up promoting it to a firing offense.
The subordinate never screwed up though. Its not even that guy who showed up drunk one day. Can't think of a good real world analogy to mind control...
Having said that, if a subordinate screwed up and didn't seem to care about it,... that is serious grounds for concern. If the mistake's serious enough, that might end up promoting it to a firing offense.The subordinate never screwed up though. Its not even that guy who showed up drunk one day. Can't think of a good real world analogy to mind control...
No, it's that guy who took the pills the doctor gave him, not realizing that they would make him loopy. (Unexpected side effects and/or allergies happen. Doesn't mean that you get a freebie.)
I run a tighter ship than that. If it happened on your watch, you were responsible for it, and you screwed up. In a world with mind-control magics, when we sit down, we discuss whether or not we need to find a way to boost your Will save to keep this from happening again. We may decide that, no, that's not necessary, because those circumstances are unlikely to recur often enough to justify spending money on those items. We may discuss the tactics you used and whether you should have taken the spellcaster down earlier. Again, we may decide that your tactics were fine, and people got lucky. You may have some suggestions of your own that need to be considered, and that's fine, too.
And then part B of the discussion is "how do we fix it." If you don't care enough about your job to try to fix what you did, loopy or not, we have issues here....
No, it's that guy who took the pills the doctor gave him, not realizing that they would make him loopy. (Unexpected side effects and/or allergies happen. Doesn't mean that you get a freebie.)Having said that, if a subordinate screwed up and didn't seem to care about it,... that is serious grounds for concern. If the mistake's serious enough, that might end up promoting it to a firing offense.The subordinate never screwed up though. Its not even that guy who showed up drunk one day. Can't think of a good real world analogy to mind control...
He willingly took the pills though, which is why I don't think intoxication is a good way to put it. Usually mind control or confusion aren't under you control at all. If anything its the will of the dice gods. The upside is that eventually you become immune to it as a paladin.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Killing an innocent while under the influence of a Confusion spell is no different from killing an innocent while under the influence of a Domination spell. In either case the paladin is acting under outside influence and is not responsible for his actions. In my opinion there's no grounds for making the paladin fall for the actual killing. (But see below)
However, the paladin's complete lack of remorse, compassion or even interest in the violent death of a three-year-old is disturbing. At a minimum I would expect the paladin to take steps to return the body to his parents, arrange for a funeral, organize a Speak with Dead spell or something similar.
Think of it like you run over (and injure) a dog with your car (by accident). The dog ran into the road, you couldn't avoid it. Even though it clearly wasn't the driver's fault, a decent person will still try to get a hold of the owner, drive the dog to the vet etc.
In this particular example I use "injured" instead of "killed" because by level 9 Death is essentially just another transitory Condition.
I wasn't in the room so everything is based on the way OP presents it, but if it really went down that way I'd consider this a mark against the 'Good' part of the paladin's alignment. Not enough to actually shift his alignment, but a first step on a potentially very slippery slope.
If repeated acts like these happen I'd start sending "signs of displeasure" from his deity. He has disturbing dreams, he prays one morning and doesn't get any spells replenished (preferably a day that he won't see much action) and so on. If that doesn't reach him I'd let him fall - but also offer an option for Atonement. Note that Atonement is significantly cheaper in PF than it was in 3.5... Actually, noticed something interesting when I double-checked the text on Atonement.
...If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you...
My bolding. I might be wrong, but doesn't this imply that characters are still responsible and eligible for falling for actions done while "under the influence"? The difference between "no cost" and "2500 gp in incense" is whether or not the action that caused the need for Atonement was done intentionally.
His lack of concern of concern about the death of the child is something that I find disturbing. The concept of a paladin is someone who cares and protects the innocent. It doesn't matter that the paladin did not willingly kill the child, but he was the instrument of the child's destruction. The player's attitude does not mesh with the general concept of how a paladin should behave. He doesn't need to cry himself into unconsciousness, but a paladin would probably try to correct the child's death since it was caused by the paladins failure. He should try to raise the child, or if for some reason he cannot afford to he should at least hold a funeral for the child.
He willingly took the pills though, which is why I don't think intoxication is a good way to put it. Usually mind control or confusion aren't under you control at all. If anything its the will of the dice gods. The upside is that eventually you become immune to it as a paladin.
Well, the paladin willingly put himself in a position where he could be confused. That's part of why I run my group [explicitly] on the "it happened on your watch == it was your responsibility" standard, to forestall these kind of discussions. Discussions of "fault" aren't often useful, but discussions of "causation" get results.
Turn it around and look at it from Saranrae's perspective. What does she want to accomplish? Basically, good deeds for the benefit of all sapient life. What's her chosen method of accomplishing that? In this case, appointing a paladin as her personal champion to accomplish those deeds. Did those deeds get accomplished? No.
Okay, we have a problem. There's a serious gap between what the boss wants and what was delivered. That's an issue. That's an issue that will definitely concern the boss, and that should concern any conscientious subordinate. The paladin was "responsible" for the child's death in the sense that he caused it, and on the principle of "you break it, you buy it" should be concerned.
Ideally, he should fix it. This is where the boss can help, by providing resources to fix the problem. Saranrae's a goddess, so she has lots of resources. She may know where some toys are that can help fix it. She can send another cleric a vision that his help is wanted --"Mrs. Peel, we're needed" -- with the necessary spells. Maybe the paladin is needed too badly somewhere else to make it practical for him to clean up his own mess. Maybe cleaning up the mess is impossible and the best that can be done is some sort of mitigation.
But that's Saranrae's call to make -- and a paladin who doesn't even care enough to worry about what the boss will want is not showing himself to be suitable paladin material. From the core above, "[P]aladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve." Does this behavior embody Saranrae's teachings? If not, he's not acting as a paladin, and there's no reason for him to be a paladin.
Actually, noticed something interesting when I double-checked the text on Atonement.
...If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you...My bolding. I might be wrong, but doesn't this imply that characters are still responsible and eligible for falling for actions done while "under the influence"?
That does seem to be pretty clear that evil acts committed under magical compulsion still cause the paladin to fall. Looks like by RAW, Saranrae runs an even tighter ship than I do.
Well, the paladin willingly put himself in a position where he could be confused.
Someone's trying hard tonight. That's a pretty extreme step to take with unfortunate implications and it can still be very much out of someone's control.
But that's Saranrae's call to make
Since Saranrae isn't around it falls on the GM really. Or the player if you give the player power over fall or not, which isn't always an awful idea to be honest.
|
I cant believe that I am saying this but I agree with mrsin here it seems that you are trying to force the paladin to fall. lawful good does not necessarily mean lawful nice if you wanted some one to tuck you in a holy warrior may not have been the best ideal he has a mission to do. also I believe that it says willfully commits a unlawful act I don't think that compulsion is usually willful
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That does seem to be pretty clear that evil acts committed under magical compulsion still cause the paladin to fall. Looks like by RAW, Saranrae runs an even tighter ship than I do.Actually, noticed something interesting when I double-checked the text on Atonement.
...If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you...My bolding. I might be wrong, but doesn't this imply that characters are still responsible and eligible for falling for actions done while "under the influence"?
That's what it looks like as well. So paladins can fall even though they are not in control of their actions so to the OP case, yes the paladin falls and until he's repentive to his deed that he unattentional done but was still done by his hand, he stays fallen until he's repentative for the atonement spell to work.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't see a good-aligned character of ANY class being entirely unaffected and unconcerned with such a death. Dude isn't even interested in trying to raise the victim?
I've seen and played evil characters that were more paladin-like than that.
I wouldn't have a paladin fall because of a compulsion, but I would certainly question whether or not that particular PC should be a paladin to begin with.
It doesn't specifically say that the compulsion had to be magical - let's say that it was social, instead, and the villain demands that the Paladin kill the child... or ten children over there will suffer even more. Say, dropped into a lava pit. Actually, any sort of Sadistic Choice would probably work well here. In this case, it could be a wrong act committed because there was no way to avoid something even worse, and the Paladin just had to try the best they could to get the best result - and, preferably, try to improve it later. That's a case when I could see the fee being waived for them being under compulsion - but I don't think they should need atonement at all if it was literal mind-control, which they are not at fault for. To blame the Paladin or cause them to fall (at least to the extent of losing their powers) for something they did while literally under someone else's control is called "Blaming the Victim", and I don't think that's particularly in line with any ideals of general goodness.
Short version: I don't think he's at risk of falling for the mind-control bit, but he IS responsible for how he behaves afterwards. I think I agree with the "warning" side - have somebody, in-game, point out that they're moving away from the path of a Paladin... and that if they keep doing so, then everyone else will react accordingly. That's what I'd do, anyway, based on what I've heard here. ^^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would talk to him about becoming an anti-paladin. Not a Disney Evil Villain anti-paladin doing evil to see how evil that evil can be. Instead, he should still think that he's a paladin but is rather deeply deluded, gradually turning bitter and ultimately resentful. I'm sure you could work out motivations to keep him an active participant in the plot (vengeance, wrath, greed, etc) and the rest of the party probably doesn't have a paladin to be upset about there being an anti-paladin in the party.
I say take role-playing lemons and make role-playing lemonade.
edit: If you play it right the rest of the party wouldn't necessarily know he's turned anti-paladin for quite a while, especially if the now anti-paladin takes pains to conceal the change. Eventually he'll probably betray the rest of party (when they inevitably find him out) and have to roll up a new character but it'll be a great story arc to play out.
edit 2: I wouldn't switch directly to the anti-paladin alternate class rules. Instead he'll keep his abilities (lay on hands, smite evil, etc) at first and gradually change over as he accepts his new life.
Without getting involved in the argument of whether the paladin should fall, should you feel like showing Sarenrae disapproves without making him fall, there's always this solution:
[Sarenrae's] displeasure is most often made apparent through unexplained sunburns or periods of blindness that can last anywhere from only a few moments for minor transgressions to a lifetime for mortal sins.
I think that's probably one of the better in-game warnings you could give him.
|
|
The class isn't balanced around strict restrictions. Fluff and roleplay can't balanced mechanics very well(if at all), and its not fighter + like it was in past editions, its a class of its own with a theme.
The class most certainly IS balanced around it's restrictions. The restrictions are there for a reason, not just because the developers thought that they should be dicks to people who play the class... hence why all the abilities are lost if you violate the restrictions.
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 the atonement spell description in Spell Lists), as appropriate.
Note that it does not include the same "willfully" that was included in line about committing an evil act.
And the Paladin has been a class of it's own throughout most of it's existence, save for a period when it was altered to be a variation of the then nascent Cavalier class. In it's oldest iterations it also had the same strictures on alignment and behavior.
Remember, you must always play your paladin as tremendously sympathetic to the weak innocents that die like files, and be sure to be guilt-ridden over what they did when controlled by magic.
No stiff-upper-lip paladins that focus on the tasks at hand--like say combating evil and finding the next evil wizard before they kill again. You've got to play up the remorse and guilt when there is an innocent casualty. Like a stewardess has to engage in emotional performance.
Remember, paladin = stewardess.
I am sure I read this in the class description and rules.
I can't see a good-aligned character of ANY class being entirely unaffected and unconcerned with such a death. Dude isn't even interested in trying to raise the victim?
I've seen and played evil characters that were more paladin-like than that.
I wouldn't have a paladin fall because of a compulsion, but I would certainly question whether or not that particular PC should be a paladin to begin with.
Being busy and distracted by battle, fighting foes and the aftermath is against the paladin code. Fall. Always fall.
Dance paladin dance!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Blegh. Control is everything. I really dislike the idea of essentially forcing the Paladin to commit the act then punishing him for it when the player wants to sweep it under the rug and continue playing.
I think theres a difference in game expectations here. The Player may not want that gritty game where he needs to worry constantly about what his character does or FALLLLLLL. Most other characters don't carry that kind of weight around so theres really no reason to pile on that player for it. Chances are he just wanted to play a heroic paladin who fights evil and anything that doesn't fall into that purview isn't to his interests.
Play it however makes it most fun. For the GM and the Player.
Yes, he (probably) signed up to play a paladin, not someone on the carebear parade. Very sensible suggestions there Scavion.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remember, you must always play your paladin as tremendously sympathetic to the weak innocents that die like files, and be sure to be guilt-ridden over what they did when controlled by magic.
No stiff-upper-lip paladins that focus on the tasks at hand--like say combating evil and finding the next evil wizard before they kill again. You've got to play up the remorse and guilt when there is an innocent casualty. Like a stewardess has to engage in emotional performance.
Remember, paladin = stewardess.
I am sure I read this in the class description and rules.
There is a vast gulf of difference between being a focused champion of righteousness and a heartless sociopath.
I can't see a good-aligned character of ANY class being entirely unaffected and unconcerned with such a death. Dude isn't even interested in trying to raise the victim?
I've seen and played evil characters that were more paladin-like than that.
I wouldn't have a paladin fall because of a compulsion, but I would certainly question whether or not that particular PC should be a paladin to begin with.
Being busy and distracted by battle, fighting foes and the aftermath is against the paladin code. Fall. Always fall.
Dance paladin dance!
No one is making this argument.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"I shot a kid. He was 13 years old. Ohhh, it was dark, I couldn't see him. He had a ray gun, looked real enough. You know, when you're a rookie, they can teach you everything about bein' a cop except how to live with a mistake. Anyway, I just couldn't bring myself to draw my gun on anybody again."
-Sgt Al Powell
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No stiff-upper-lip paladins that focus on the tasks at hand--like say combating evil and finding the next evil wizard before they kill again. You've got to play up the remorse and guilt when there is an innocent casualty. Like a stewardess has to engage in emotional performance.
You can't show remorse and focus on the task at hand? These things are mutually exclusive?
I didn't realize that. Hmm. Learn something new every day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Grimdark Paladin who knows that in the War between Good and Evil, innocent lives will be lost. Perhaps he's had someone close he cared about die and is dulled to the emotional impact of death. Sure he can waste time being nice and making reparations to the family which is ultimately more or less inconsequential to the well being of the world at large or...he could y'know keep trying to save the world by fighting against the BBEG.
|
Are we taking account of whom he is a paladin of? I can see some gods being okay with the narrow focus, others being angry. I wouldnt imagine Sarenrae would be one of those whom would be okay with him blowing off the death of a child... unless say, the BBEG was some evil cultist of Ravagug whom was bent on freeing him or something
Are we taking account of whom he is a paladin of? I can see some gods being okay with the narrow focus, others being angry. I wouldnt imagine Sarenrae would be one of those whom would be okay with him blowing off the death of a child... unless say, the BBEG was some evil cultist of Ravagug whom was bent on freeing him or something
Keep in mind that unless you play PFS, you don't actually need to worship a god with a Paladin. So while Sarenrae may be annoyed about the Paladin's emotionlessness, she sure as hells doesn't have much of a say on whether he wields his powers of goodness or not. At any point could the Paladin decide "Y'know what, Sarenrae is kinda a wuss, I'm gonna go worship the MUCH more bad ass Ragathiel instead. Atleast He'd appreciate my objectivity."
Paladin would want to raise the kid, for sure.
Grimdark Paladin who knows that in the War between Good and Evil, innocent lives will be lost. Perhaps he's had someone close he cared about die and is dulled to the emotional impact of death. Sure he can waste time being nice and making reparations to the family which is ultimately more or less inconsequential to the well being of the world at large or...he could y'know keep trying to save the world by fighting against the BBEG.
Unfortuantly sarenrae who is the deity of fompassion and peace would have came down and told her champion, the person who is representing her to find that emotion to be compassion and care or reroll and play the fighter ur wanting to actually play :-)
J/king aside, it sounds like the player wants to play a fighter but likes the benefits superman of dnd brings. Unfortuantly those powers that superman (aka paladin) has comes with a price, and that's being the representative of said deity and following their tenets. Paladins get all these awesome powers but they are "caged" roleplaying wise because they have to be played following the religion of said deity. Paladins cannot be played any ol way they wanna be played, no they have to not only be played as lawful but also as someone who practices what ever deity they chose.
And tbh any paladin of sarenrae is gonna feel remorse for the child's death. They don't have to wail and blubber or go all emo, but they do need to feel something. By basically going about it as nothing, I'd give them a warning for repentence or have someone not answer their prayers the next morning and wake up with some nasty sunburns.
|
|
Are we taking account of whom he is a paladin of? I can see some gods being okay with the narrow focus, others being angry. I wouldnt imagine Sarenrae would be one of those whom would be okay with him blowing off the death of a child... unless say, the BBEG was some evil cultist of Ravagug whom was bent on freeing him or somethingKeep in mind that unless you play PFS, you don't actually need to worship a god with a Paladin. So while Sarenrae may be annoyed about the Paladin's emotionlessness, she sure as hells doesn't have much of a say on whether he wields his powers of goodness or not. At any point could the Paladin decide "Y'know what, Sarenrae is kinda a wuss, I'm gonna go worship the MUCH more bad ass Ragathiel instead. Atleast He'd appreciate my objectivity."
Which i understand and know. I have played a few paladins in my time, one of whom was a paladin of 'Justice' but it was stated he was a paladin of Sarenrae, so until he made that switch and attoned or whatever it is that you do when you decide to go from being a champion of one god to another, he would be a powerless paladin, In my opinion, obviously its just my opinion
Which i understand and know. I have played a few paladins in my time, one of whom was a paladin of 'Justice' but it was stated he was a paladin of Sarenrae, so until he made that switch and attoned or whatever it is that you do when you decide to go from being a champion of one god to another, he would be a powerless paladin, In my opinion, obviously its just my opinion
Paladin of Sarenrae means as much as me saying Fighter of Sarenrae. There is no atonement for deciding that you don't want to follow that god anymore. Ex-Paladin and The Code of Conduct both have no mention of needing to follow your deities' tenants or losing your powers.
So the God is meaningless in providing power since the Paladin gains his power from his Lawful Good alignment and following his Code of Conduct.