If a character never does anything good, should it be a good-aligned character ?
That seems a reasonable question to ask, a paladin always playing it neutral shouldn't be a paladin imo.
I'm having a hard time seeing any reason whatsoever why the Paladin should fall here.
He didn't break his Code. He did not commit an Evil act. He has not ceased to be Lawful Good.
Those are the conditions for falling.
"He didn't show enough remorse." is not something that will make you fall.
"He failed a saving throw." is not something that will make you fall.
"He picked his nose and wiped it on his friend's jacket." is not something that will make you fall.
This is not complicated, unless you're specifically looking for reasons why the Paladin should fall.
If that's what you're trying to do, save yourself and your player some heartache. Tell him to re-roll his character and ban Paladins from your table. A lot better in the long run than starting some long, drawn out process where every time the Paladin does something you think may have kinda sorta broken the Code if you look at it in the right light on the second Tuesday of November.
Good post, very thorough.
There are three listed ways for a Paldin to fall
A paladin who
(1.) ceases to be lawful good,
(2.) who willfully commits an evil act, or
(3.) who violates the code of conduct
loses all paladin spells and class features.Killing an innocent child violates the code of conduct. The paladin falls.
The character fails his save. Something bad happens.
As always, there are spells to counter a failed save- stone to flesh, restoration, raise dead... atonement.
Rules solved.Roleplaying
LG: "We must do everything we can to help those less fortunate than ourselves."
CE: "He was in the way. It's not my fault."Paladins take responsibility.
If this player wants the powers of a Paladin, without the LG mentality, he should be playing an anti-paladin.
Nope, you missed 2, and what willfully means. He didn't willfully commit the killing. No will, no evil act done by him, no falling.
There are three listed ways for a Paldin to fall
A paladin who
(1.) ceases to be lawful good,
(2.) who willfully commits an evil act, or
(3.) who violates the code of conduct
loses all paladin spells and class features.Killing an innocent child violates the code of conduct. The paladin falls.
The character fails his save. Something bad happens.
As always, there are spells to counter a failed save- stone to flesh, restoration, raise dead... atonement.
Rules solved.Roleplaying
LG: "We must do everything we can to help those less fortunate than ourselves."
CE: "He was in the way. It's not my fault."Paladins take responsibility.
If this player wants the powers of a Paladin, without the LG mentality, he should be playing an anti-paladin.The Code:
a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.Nothing in there about killing innocents.
You know why? Because that's covered by "Evil Acts". Killing a child is an evil act. No doubt.
However: " who willfully commits an evil act"
He did not willfully commit the act.
There is nothing in the Code that would cause him to fall in this scenario. Period.
There is, in fact, THE OPPOSITE. The Code itself absolves him of this crime by the very inclusion of that word "willful". This act was against his will, so he does not fall. This is simplicity itself.
He killed a child. It says right in the code that just because he was under a magical effect is no excuse. He still falls. BUT he does get to use the atonement spell for free.Actually, it does NOT say that right in the Code.
Here is the Code. Again.
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all...
Funny thing is, there's nothing in the clerics either about losing their powers due to being under the influence either. So why exactly is there a description for a freebie of not having to pay the costs if u was under the influence when said person did it?
Would the spell basically be telling us that the rules these holy people follow must be abide by even if they are not in control of themselves? That it doesn't matter the why, it just matters that it did?
I'm actually leaning more on that for the simple reasoning that these holy people get their powers by beimg representations of said deity if they follow one. So when a paladin or cleric under the control of an evil wizard makes said person murder or kill an innocent, from the outside view or the whatchamacallit represenetative is making said deity look bad. Could it possibly mean that the deities don't actually care the whys of what was done, that basically the vessel is one of hundreds if not thousands chosen to represent said deity and by doing so even under the influence be casting a bad shadow on said deities purpose or face to the outsiders? Could the deities really only care about what they are deities of and not care of the unfortunate how or why, just that the purpose of said deitiy was called into question so said deity took their hands off.
Just wondering
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Funny thing is, there's nothing in the clerics either about losing their powers due to being under the influence either. So why exactly is there a description for a freebie of not having to pay the costs if u was under the influence when said person did it?
A few reasons.
1.) As you said, a Cleric doesn't have the "willful" clause the Paladin does. They have to seriously f#@& up to fall, but it doesn't matter whether they were under their own control or not (by RAW, anyhow, RAI could be different).
2.) Atonement isn't just for Clerics and other Divine classes. If a man is mind controlled into killing his wife and child, he's probably going to feel pretty guilty about it. Going to the Pope (or whatever, you get the idea) and having his god say through him "You are absolved of any sin, my child" is big time peace of mind for the poor fellow. That wouldn't be possible if he had to pay a small fortune for that service.
Nope, you missed 2, and what willfully means. He didn't willfully commit the killing. No will, no evil act done by him, no falling.There are three listed ways for a Paldin to fall
A paladin who
(1.) ceases to be lawful good,
(2.) who willfully commits an evil act, or
(3.) who violates the code of conduct
loses all paladin spells and class features.Killing an innocent child violates the code of conduct. The paladin falls.
The character fails his save. Something bad happens.
As always, there are spells to counter a failed save- stone to flesh, restoration, raise dead... atonement.
Rules solved.Roleplaying
LG: "We must do everything we can to help those less fortunate than ourselves."
CE: "He was in the way. It's not my fault."Paladins take responsibility.
If this player wants the powers of a Paladin, without the LG mentality, he should be playing an anti-paladin.
Lawful; He is not standing trial or facing the legal ramifications for having killed a small child.
Good; he is not showing any degree of remorse or care that his hands cleaved a small child in half.
This paladin has ceased to be lawful, or good. He simply doesn't care what happened.
He falls.
The death of a young child by the hands of a paladin isn't your run of the mill humbug day. This is a dramatic and life altering event.
If this happened to any sane, good person, they would be scarred for life. But, a paladin??
Wow. Things just got real.
By playing the character as though the character simply doesn't care, he has made the choice to fall.
That is all it should take. The player has decided to play the character with a demeanor, attitude, and alignment unbefitting of a paladin. Thus, he falls.
Change his alignment, probably LN is the closest one step shift in this case. Then he has zero rebuttals about technicalities. He isn’t LG anymore, can’t stay a paladin until he corrects himself.
Morality and codes are the weakness of the paladin. Not abiding by them is like ignoring the AC of an unarmored character. Why should anyone have to suffer the downsides of getting hit? I want my character to never sustain any injuries at all, who are you to tell me how to play my character? I should be able to play my invulnerable low AC character if I want to. I can’t have penalties! Who are you to say my guy just got hit? I get to say when my guy gets hit, he is MY character!
He broke the code by killing an innocent, no it wasn't his fault, Because it wasn't his fault, he doesn't have to pay the cost of the atonement spell, but he still needs the atonement spell.
They would not get a discount on it if it wasn't their fault, if they didn't need one if it wasn't their fault.
He actually didn't break the code. The code reads, "...punish those who harm or threaten innocents."
Do you send the gun or the man who shot it to jail? This is pretty obvious. Without the source of the Confusion what would have changed? The Child obviously wouldn't have died. The Paladin didn't really kill the child. Whomever cast the confusion did.
So the Paladin focusing on the task at hand and hunting down the creature who was the source of the confusion is well within the bounds of his Code.
Do you know what happens to murder weapons? They don't get redistributed and go back out on the street. Fyi.
Without the paladin there, the kid wouldn't have been killed by the paladin. What is your point? You take away from the picture any of the relevant pieces, and things would have been different. Uh, yeah, obviously.
The paladin really did kill the child.(excepting this is all make believe) He was confused, but he still did it.
Was there a chance to resist this magic? Yes there was. Was it possible to resist this magic? Yes it was. Did he resist this magic? No he didn't.
His will was not strong enough. In a moment of weakness, he dropped his inner walls and let evil into his mind, where it played with his thoughts and senses, confusing him. In this altered mind frame, he cut down and murdered a small child.
That is brutal.
But he still did it.
*facepalm*
Try this on for size: a kidnapper takes a random woman off the street, and threatens her life if a random man doesn't kill a random child. The three victims are unrelated and do not know each other. The random man kills the random child. The kidnapper is ultimately to blame. But his blame does not and should not absolve the random man for his a) unlawful killing and b) his failure to protect the random child by breaking a solemn vow he took to protect innocents. It doesn't matter that he was compelled to do it. He did it. Yes, he can be forgiven, and not ultimately held accountable. But for him to not even demonstrate any concern for the act is a failure to "judge those who fall short of their duties". That's pulled straight out of the Lawful alignment text. He fell short. Not his fault, but he fell short of his duty to protect innocents. That might not bother some people, and that's okay, but a paladin? The ideal Lawful Good warrior? Not something they should shrug off with "wasn't my fault".
This is a shining example of an always fall situation thus whatever the Paladin does, he shouldn't fall. Exactly the sort of scenario an antagonistic DM would put in if there was a Paladin. Personally I'd just attack the kidnapper as the child has potentially more life to live.
Also saying Bad Example and not even thinking about it is really lame.
Theres a difference between being told to do something and being completely unable to control your actions due to the actions of another.
Also my last example was more to the folks who said that it was the Paladin's fault for failing his Will save.
Again this is a huge difference in gameplay expectations. Likely the player isn't interested in this kind of stuff and would just like to get back to slaying evil and being a hero. He doesn't want the game to get bogged down by this kind of DM Fiat.
Step 1, don't subject yourself to an antagonistic DM. Unless that is something you enjoy, for whatever reasons.
Okay, so... This isn't an always fall situation.
First of all, killing a random child to save a random woman isn't an option for him. He cannot kill a random child without committing an evil act, ie killing a random child.
So, if he wants to remain a paladin with all the benies, we take that option off the table right away.
So, what is left? Well, he could do everything in his power to try to save the random woman in another way, being a holy warrior, that'd likely be vanquish the evil kidnapper before he can kill her, or at least try.
And, ha... you think this guy wants to get back to being a hero? Ha, haha... well, he'd have to start being a hero first, wouldn't he?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for actually caring and being so demanding that a player be sympathetic right then, please stop telling others how they should play their characters.This line bugs me a little. I don't think anyone is telling him or suggesting that he has to play his character a specific way. I'm certainly not.
But there are consequences to actions. Am I telling you how to play your character if I say falling 500ft is going to kill him unless he does something to slow his fall?
I don't think so.
This paladin, likewise, needs to do something to slow his fall. Because it sounds like he is falling.
Or not. Playing an Ex-Paladin can be pretty interesting. Especially if he is actively trying to either reestablish paladin-hood or even swing the other direction, growing more and more bitter and twisted about being held to too high a standard and being forsaken and damned by the self serving gods he had once devoted himself to.
He can do whatever he wants. But actions have consequences. That is the nature of actions. This conversation is simply about what those consequence should/could/would be.
So say the dm rules he falls, and he gets atonement and that takes up time and some sessions and all that. He plays the fallen paladin until he is no longer fallen. Then he is back with his full abilities.
Then he gets hit with another enchantment spell (maybe it is confusion, maybe it is domination) and falls again for something he didn't choose to do. What type of yo-yo rule is this? Why allow the paladin to lose their abilities for something they didn't do? When it can be exploited over and over again. Please consider that. It is not a tough code to live by, it is a code you fail when something beyond your control comes up.
Do you see how stupid "you fall for something you didn't do" is in a setting with powerful behavior altering enchantment magic?
On actions having consequences that he should own up to, he didn't make the act. Magic...
Say my fighter get a Blindness spell cast on him and goes blind cuz he fails a save. And after going through the difficulties of being blind and tracking down a healer and finally getting the spell effect removed... he goes back out adventuring again and some lame wizard cast Blindness on him again. What kind of lame yo-yo rule is this?
I mean, why allow the fighter to lose his ability to see if it isn't his fault. Especially when this could be exploited over and over. Consider that.
Do you see how stupid "You lose your ability to see for something you didn't do" is in a setting with powerful condition delivering spells?
Uh, welcome to Pathfinder. Bad stuff happens to people who fail saves. ™
Paladins get ALL their class features/spells from following their code of conduct and keeping their Lawful Good alignment. See the Ex-Paladins line on losing spells due to breaching one of those things. Only Clerics get their spells explicitly from their deity. So deity power doesn't exactly come into play with Paladins except in fluff text.
That isn't true.
Not only is that whole 'god' thing all over the fluff, it is in their abilities too.
And this whole 'lets all ignore the fluff, because hur hur' is not a very legit argument.
If you somehow managed to miss the fact that paladins are servants of gods, that's your bad. It is perfectly clear, and obviously the case that they are.
It is even in several of the abilities...if the fluff isn't clear enough.
"At 20th level, a paladin becomes a conduit for the power of her god"
"Upon reaching 5th level, a paladin forms a divine bond with her god."
There are reverences to "prayers" there are references to "faith"... I mean, the class is simply riddled with godliness.
/sigh
In "The Code" it says "act with honor". It gives some examples of how one would act with honor, and includes the clause "and so forth"
Let us look at what "Honor" is;
": good reputation : good quality or character as judged by other people
: high moral standards of behavior"
Killing a small child, in plain view of other people, will besmirch the paladin's "good quality, as judged by other people". Shrugging it off as though it means nothing and isn't his problem is most certainly not "High moral standards".
The paladin is not acting with honor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to clarify, the paladin in question here is my character.
Over 9 levels I have had to deal with constant questioning, second guessing and meddling with everything my guy does.
Everyone wanted me to be whiter than white and pious, even to the point where if an npc is needlessly giving me abuse (wig seller! ) and I react by telling said npc to #*@$ off. That makes me fall from grace.
I saw my paladin more as a soldier of his god, up holding the code but not acting like a priest or a saint.
I upset the dm by killing a vampire child, apparently I " wouldn't have done that" well sorry the child ceased to be human or even alive when it was made vampire and I destroyed it like I would all evil undead.
Regarding the confusion episode, I had waded into a flooded river to save these kids, whilst wearing full armour. Massive monster turns up, huge save for the confusion effect and It made me attack and kill the child.
The monster then later fled , my paladin wanted to immediately go after it and hunt it down, the rest of the party and the dm completely shat all over that option and instead demanded I stand around wailing over the killing of the child. My guy would have done something to aid the family or the child but the constant arguments about what I should be doing had got very old.
At that point I couldn't be bothered anymore and in the subsequent session I went out of my way to get him killed, which also upset the dm as he had already planned my fall and subsequent rise again.
I am enjoying the campaign story and will continue with a new character I just hope this one doesn't make the dm even angrier than he usually is.
;) I still love you iktoo even though you didn't love my paladins choices in life.
|
Nope, you missed 2, and what willfully means. He didn't willfully commit the killing. No will, no evil act done by him, no falling.There are three listed ways for a Paldin to fall
A paladin who
(1.) ceases to be lawful good,
(2.) who willfully commits an evil act, or
(3.) who violates the code of conduct
loses all paladin spells and class features.
Nope, you missed (3.) Any one of those 3 acts will make him fall. That's why there's a comma before the 'or' at the end of part (2.)
The Code:
a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.Nothing in there about killing innocents.
You know why? Because that's covered by "Evil Acts". Killing a child is an evil act. No doubt.
However: " who willfully commits an evil act"
He did not willfully commit the act.
There is nothing in the Code that would cause him to fall in this scenario. Period.
There is no part of the Paladin's code that allows slaying an innocent child.
She respects legitimate authority, none of which says kill the child.Act with honor- killing children still doesn't count.
Help those in need- note there is no "when convenient" attached here. Note there is only one conditional here at all.
And everyone's favourite- punish those who harm or threaten innocents. Such as those who kill an innocent child, say.
Killing a child is an Evil Act AND it is against the code. The paladin falls.
Wizards lose their magic to spell resistance or in an antimagic zone.
Fighters have many foes with Damage Reduction.
Rogues only get sneak attack under some circumstances.
Paladins lose their abilities when they kill innocent children.
If someone is not comfortable with the fact that there are some limitations on being a Paladin, they may want to choose a different class. I'm not sure which one though, since most classes can be nerfed by a bad save of one kind or another.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remy save your breath.
You are up against a segment of the player base that doesn't believe that there should be restrictions on anything, let alone how one plays their character. Browse the post history of some of the staunch "everything is fluff and doesn't matter, a paladin can be a raging buttnugget if he wants and doesn't answer to anyone" crowd. What you will find is a trend of continuous, excessive permissiveness. Everything should be allowed if it benefits the players, any form of restriction is bad wrongfun.
This isn't a crowd you will convince, no matter what you quote or present, because they only care about their fun... they want Superman without the Kryptonite.
Just shrug it off and move on and at your table, be it as a Paladin player or DM, make sure the flavor and limitations you believe should be there are enforced. They have made up their mind that that is the way they want to play, and nothing will change that.
No matter what anyone says, it is a judgement call of each individual DM to determine what a particular moral compass entails. Some will be strict and some won't care and most will fall somewhere in the middle. Some will hold a Paladin to a higher responsibility, some will only care how much damage they can pump out.
Better to just move on and set the standards you want for your game and let them do the same.
And to the OP, that is my advice to you... you do what YOU feel is right in the given situation.
On a small side note, a Paladin can make many mistakes and "stumble" along the way, that is what prayer or the free Atonements are for. Just because you suffer a setback or have a failing, does not mean you "fall". The fact that they care enough to make amends for their limitations, their failings is what makes them Paladins. It is when they stop caring and give up their code that they should actually fall.
...As for actually caring and being so demanding that a player be sympathetic right then, please stop telling others how they should play their characters.This line bugs me a little. I don't think anyone is telling him or suggesting that he has to play his character a specific way. I'm certainly not.
But there are consequences to actions. Am I telling you how to play your character if I say falling 500ft is going to kill him unless he does something to slow his fall?
I don't think so.
This paladin, likewise, needs to do something to slow his fall. Because it sounds like he is falling.
Or not. Playing an Ex-Paladin can be pretty interesting. Especially if he is actively trying to either reestablish paladin-hood or even swing the other direction, growing more and more bitter and twisted about being held to too high a standard and being forsaken and damned by the self serving gods he had once devoted himself to.
He can do whatever he wants. But actions have consequences. That is the nature of actions. This conversation is simply about what those consequence should/could/would be.
So say the dm rules he falls, and he gets atonement and that takes up time and some sessions and all that. He plays the fallen paladin until he is no longer fallen. Then he is back with his full abilities.
Then he gets hit with another enchantment spell (maybe it is confusion, maybe it is domination) and falls again for something he didn't choose to do. What type of yo-yo rule is this? Why allow the paladin to lose their abilities for something they didn't do? When it can be exploited over and over again. Please consider that. It is not a tough code to live by, it is a code you fail when something beyond your control comes up.
Do you see how stupid "you fall for something you didn't do" is in a setting with powerful behavior altering enchantment magic?
On actions having consequences that he should own
I don't care what you have to say anymore. You repeat yourself over and over. If you want to make paladins fall again and again in your games, regardless of what they do, go and do it. I am sure the players will be thrilled.
Just to clarify, the paladin in question here is my character.
Over 9 levels I have had to deal with constant questioning, second guessing and meddling with everything my guy does.
Everyone wanted me to be whiter than white and pious, even to the point where if an npc is needlessly giving me abuse (wig seller! ) and I react by telling said npc to #*@$ off. That makes me fall from grace.
I saw my paladin more as a soldier of his god, up holding the code but not acting like a priest or a saint.
I upset the dm by killing a vampire child, apparently I " wouldn't have done that" well sorry the child ceased to be human or even alive when it was made vampire and I destroyed it like I would all evil undead.
Regarding the confusion episode, I had waded into a flooded river to save these kids, whilst wearing full armour. Massive monster turns up, huge save for the confusion effect and It made me attack and kill the child.
The monster then later fled , my paladin wanted to immediately go after it and hunt it down, the rest of the party and the dm completely shat all over that option and instead demanded I stand around wailing over the killing of the child. My guy would have done something to aid the family or the child but the constant arguments about what I should be doing had got very old.
At that point I couldn't be bothered anymore and in the subsequent session I went out of my way to get him killed, which also upset the dm as he had already planned my fall and subsequent rise again.
I am really glad you posted here. Very glad we can get your side of it. I for one don't side against you, and I am not interested in getting all high and mighty about your conduct as you played your warrior of god how you wanted. Good luck sir, play hard.
Good call on killing the vampire child. The rules are clear on what it is. I also had a char forced into being CE because the char killed an evil monster child as an act of mercy.
As I expected, trying to stay the cause and hunt the foe was shut down with the demands you should be mournful. Your char had a job to do, the cause of justice, and I don't think you did anything wrong. Sounds like you are being a bit railroaded as well, which is never fun. Dms don't get to play the player characters, but some take a while to get this and some never learn. Play on and good luck.
Remy save your breath.
Haha ^.^ But I have lots of breath to spare! >.>
I played an ex-paladin character before, that character was a lot of fun. He only had one level of paladin, the rest was fighter... but he still 'mostly' lived according to the paladin code, but often fell just a little short. He still had morning prayers, he was very devout and honored the gods, and tried to do the right thing... but just wasn't quite there, not like he was when he was younger, when he was naive about everything, before he learned about the cruelties of life in the real world.
I liked him.
I’ve tried a genuine paladin a few times, and I always skirt the boundaries of falling. For me, it is the lawfulness that always gets me. If I had to assign myself, as a person, an alignment, it would be CG… so playing that rigidly dutiful, structured side always wears on me. Plus, I kinda like to do tricky things, like break into the lord’s keep, free all the slaves, and help smuggle them out of the country. Etc. Robin hood style play is where I find the most enjoyment.
CG is very enjoyable, I agree with you there.
I don't care what you have to say anymore. You repeat yourself over and over. If you want to make paladins fall again and again in your games, regardless of what they do, go and do it. I am sure the players will be thrilled.
Ouch.
For the record... I was repeating you, but substituting the paladin with a fighter and falling with being blinded...
There are pretty similar parallels there, feel free to ignore them.
I am really glad you posted here. Very glad we can get your side of it. I for one don't side against you, and I am not interested in getting all high and mighty about your conduct as you played your warrior of god how you wanted. Good luck sir, play hard.Good call on killing the vampire child. The rules are clear on what it is. I also had a char forced into being CE because the char killed an evil monster child as an act of mercy.
As I expected, trying to stay the cause and hunt the foe was shut down with the demands you should be mournful. Your char had a job to do, the cause of justice, and I don't think you did anything wrong. Sounds like you are being a bit railroaded as well, which is never fun. Dms don't get to play the player characters, but some take a while to get this and some never learn. Play on and good luck.
I'm glad he posted too. It is always helpful to hear all sides of a story.
Now that we know his intention was to bring holy wrath down upon the true culprit, it is safe to say he didn't 'just shrug it off' like it was implied earlier.
I would still question his devotion one way or the other if he was swayed into inaction however.
By not chasing down the monster, and not dealing with the death, he essentially is letting the death of the innocent child (by his hands) go unavenged. Something needs done to set things right, and if he just stands around... or
tries to get himself killed...
Then he isn't being very Paladin-y still.
I could see a paladin declaring his intent to hunt down the fiend, and his party hesitating... to which he'd call them cowards and march off to face the monster alone if need be, even knowing the odds aren't on his side.
Or decide to try to repent and make amends for his weakness, staying with the boy, trying to raise him, or ensure his soul is cared for, etc.
Just… some kind of caring, and some kind of action. As presented earlier, both of those were explained as absent.
But, regarding the vamp child... yeah, kill that parasite. They're undead abominations, they are evil through and through. Smite it. Kill it with fire.
Dm Under, we finally agree on something.
Just to clarify, the paladin in question here is my character.
Over 9 levels I have had to deal with constant questioning, second guessing and meddling with everything my guy does.
Everyone wanted me to be whiter than white and pious, even to the point where if an npc is needlessly giving me abuse (wig seller! ) and I react by telling said npc to #*@$ off. That makes me fall from grace.
I saw my paladin more as a soldier of his god, up holding the code but not acting like a priest or a saint.
I upset the dm by killing a vampire child, apparently I " wouldn't have done that" well sorry the child ceased to be human or even alive when it was made vampire and I destroyed it like I would all evil undead.
Regarding the confusion episode, I had waded into a flooded river to save these kids, whilst wearing full armour. Massive monster turns up, huge save for the confusion effect and It made me attack and kill the child.
The monster then later fled , my paladin wanted to immediately go after it and hunt it down, the rest of the party and the dm completely shat all over that option and instead demanded I stand around wailing over the killing of the child. My guy would have done something to aid the family or the child but the constant arguments about what I should be doing had got very old.
At that point I couldn't be bothered anymore and in the subsequent session I went out of my way to get him killed, which also upset the dm as he had already planned my fall and subsequent rise again.
I am enjoying the campaign story and will continue with a new character I just hope this one doesn't make the dm even angrier than he usually is.
;) I still love you iktoo even though you didn't love my paladins choices in life.
Interesting. There's two sides to every story.
I am really glad you posted here. Very glad we can get your side of it. I for one don't side against you, and I am not interested in getting all high and mighty about your conduct as you played your warrior of god how you wanted. Good luck sir, play hard.Good call on killing the vampire child. The rules are clear on what it is. I also had a char forced into being CE because the char killed an evil monster child as an act of mercy.
As I expected, trying to stay the cause and hunt the foe was shut down with the demands you should be mournful. Your char had a job to do, the cause of justice, and I don't think you did anything wrong. Sounds like you are being a bit railroaded as well, which is never fun. Dms don't get to play the player characters, but some take a while to get this and some never learn. Play on and good luck.
I'm glad he posted too. It is always helpful to hear all sides of a story.
Now that we know his intention was to bring holy wrath down upon the true culprit, it is safe to say he didn't 'just shrug it off' like it was implied earlier.
I would still question his devotion one way or the other if he was swayed into inaction however.
By not chasing down the monster, and not dealing with the death, he essentially is letting the death of the innocent child (by his hands) go unavenged. Something needs done to set things right, and if he just stands around... or
tries to get himself killed...
Then he isn't being very Paladin-y still.
I could see a paladin declaring his intent to hunt down the fiend, and his party hesitating... to which he'd call them cowards and march off to face the monster alone if need be, even knowing the odds aren't on his side.
Or decide to try to repent and make amends for his weakness, staying with the boy, trying to raise him, or ensure his soul is cared for, etc.Just… some kind of caring, and some kind of action. As presented earlier, both of those were explained as absent.
But, regarding the...
Did you miss the part where he claimed that he tried and wanted to go after the monster, but the party and dm stopped him saying he should grieve and perform instead of chasing and taking down the monster?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... the DM should state up-front about what they expect from a Paladin character (with a focus on how they view the moral aspect), and the player can either agree or make a different character? Seems reasonable enough.
No. Even then you're still just playing what your DM is telling you to. Some folks want to play the character they want to play and not have someone acting like it's their character and telling them what they should be doing or acting like.
Instead we're just stuck. Since we have all these DMs who expect the Paladin player to play exactly as they want them to, you're essentially just an NPC who rolls the dice for him.
So... the DM should state up-front about what they expect from a Paladin character (with a focus on how they view the moral aspect), and the player can either agree or make a different character? Seems reasonable enough.No. Even then you're still just playing what your DM is telling you to. Some folks want to play the character they want to play and not have someone acting like it's their character and telling them what they should be doing or acting like.
Instead we're just stuck. Since we have all these DMs who expect the Paladin player to play exactly as they want them to, you're essentially just an NPC who rolls the dice for him.
That's a very CN way of looking at it.
They have moral restrictions, else penalties. Not; moral restrictions, full stop.
Big difference.
If you want to play a bloodthirsty warrior who slays innocents and laughs at the carnage... don't play a paladin, your powers won’t last very long. Unless you like the idea of playing a powerless paladin, then go for it.
I wanna play a character with a 5 strength that is still strong enough to rip trees out of the ground and smash through steel walls. Who are these DM guys to tell me my character can't! They all seem to expect I need to be weak or something. They're just restricting me from having fun and playing the way I want to. For no reason!! It is crazy. If I can't do these things, I may as well just be an NPC. Pft.
Did you miss the part where he claimed that he tried and wanted to go after the monster, but the party and dm stopped him saying he should grieve and perform instead of chasing and taking down the monster?
No I didn't.
Did you miss the part where he didn't though?
He didn't go hunt it down... instead, he tried to get himself killed off.
That isn't paladin behavior, that is insane behavior. (Not the player, the character)
TIL: I am the bad guy for pointing out exactly what the Code says for circumstances like this.
TIAL: It is your fault for not using your psychic powers to manipulate how the dice fall on the table.
Already this is a very educational day, especially combined with yesterday's lesson of "Blind people can see".
TIL: I am the bad guy for pointing out exactly what the Code says for circumstances like this.
TIAL: It is your fault for not using your psychic powers to manipulate how the dice fall on the table.
Already this is a very educational day, especially combined with yesterday's lesson of "Blind people can see".
I think yesterday we learned that "People with the ability to see, can see".
TIAL: It is your fault for not using your psychic powers to manipulate how the dice fall on the table.
Tell that to Fighters and rogues who are expected to somehow not fail will saves or effectively lose all their class features for a fight.
So why exactly is there a description for a freebie of not having to pay the costs if u was under the influence when said person did it?
My opinion on this? Either A) It's a hold over from an earlier edition. There are a lot of things in this game that is a cut/paste error. However the Paladin class itself DOES say 'willfully' commit an evil act...
OR.... my personal preference B) Roleplaying.
I see 'Atonement' much the way that others would view weekly confession. It's just something that the character would DO... Was the killing his FAULT?? No. Not in the eyes of his god. Should the character still FEEL bad? Absolutely.
So if the character FEELS bad for something that's NOT HIS FAULT... the game doesn't feel the need to CHARGE him for it. Go, find a priest. Get absolved... get back to the fight.
However, as it didn't break the code, he never lost his powers.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Has anyone bothered to stop and ask the question of whether the character -actually- feels remorse for what happened? There is quite a vast difference between showing no emotion, and having no emotion.
Let me just say that I firmly dissagree with the notion that a paladin should show remorse for that action. I firmly disagree with that notion that any class "should" show any kind of emotion in <certain context>, because IMO what a character should and should not feel, should not be dependent on their class, but on the personality and nature of the character in question.
Maybe his character is grieving, absolutely torn to shreds about what went on, but he is just locking it away, keeping it as a hard lump in his chest for the rest of his life, because he has to maintain a facade of absolute calm, jaded fatalism, to give himself the resolve to do what he does.
For that matter, why should remorse have anything to do with his alignment? Can you not be of a certain alignment unless you have EVERY.SINGLE.SOLITARY little cliché that the opinionated community attributes to that alignment down? MUST each and every LG character in the setting be an arthurian glory-fantasy? Maybe the world has LG people who have alot of very neutral, or maybe even boarderline evil quirks or standpoints, but they remain LG, because there is more to their alignment and personality, than what is arbitrarily categorized as alignment A or B by a measure of how little people can deal with it?
Take the local lawman of a town. He is the shining example of goodly goodness. Whatever YOU define as the personality and traits of a LG character, this guy is that. But he has these 10 little flaws, 10 things, in a sea of good and just character-traits, that don't mesh. Things that you don't like. Like he has a complete non-tolerance policy for kidnappers and people who harm children, and will not show mercy, and in fact extensively torture such people, before granting them execution. Is he NOT LG? Does that fact that he EMBODIES EVERY GOOD AND LAWFUL QUALITY YOU CAN THINK OF, -except- 10 character traits that stand in stark contrast, deny him access to the LG alignment, because it offends you too much?
If there is supposed to be moral fallout from this paladin and his not showing compassion, regret or remorse (I don't know WHY there would be, but whatever, it's your game, you run it however you want, as long as your players are having fun) then I advice you make absolutely certain you're not doing it to satisfy some form of personal need to see his character expressed in a certain fashion. That you don't do it because he did something you don't like, or because in your perspective, he is missing out on character-growth. Do it because you think EVERY paladin in your entire setting is not allowed to be remorseless. Do it because you think that EVERY paladin in your setting, must insist that his god fix his mistakes for him. Do it because you think EVERY paladin must behave a certain way in certain situations. And make sure your player knows you hold these standpoints. And make sure they're okay with these standpoints, if they were unaware of them at character creation. Because if you don't have these things down, you're not being fair to your player, and you're not "just playing it by the book".
I urge you to remember that every time you insist something happen "because alignment", you're artificially contracting the scope of what that alignment can be, how it can be expressed, and how it can be experienced by your players.
Anyway... that was quite the rant. Fitting for my 500th post. Hope it helps.
-Nearyn
So... the DM should state up-front about what they expect from a Paladin character (with a focus on how they view the moral aspect), and the player can either agree or make a different character? Seems reasonable enough.No. Even then you're still just playing what your DM is telling you to. Some folks want to play the character they want to play and not have someone acting like it's their character and telling them what they should be doing or acting like.
Instead we're just stuck. Since we have all these DMs who expect the Paladin player to play exactly as they want them to, you're essentially just an NPC who rolls the dice for him.
Yarr, paladins are in an awkward place a lot of times. They have expectations to deal with. Putting forth those expectations can help a lot though. Its not just those expectations though, you can also have the guy who thinks a paladins life has to be hard or that he has to be constantly in question, or tested. You also have people who unintentionally put them in situations which come off as fall-fall, even after saying that they'll never use a fall-fall situation, and that just won't go over well. Paladins can easily lead into a class where your constantly hunting for reasons to make them fall. Oddly enough I've seen players outraged at a lenient GM with a paladin too. Paladins have all sorts of crazy going on when they're at the table sometimes.
That said, sometimes it goes well. We see a lot of extremes that stand out while on the internet, but of course not the game that goes perfectly well. Sort of like the news, it can be boring when everything is okay. Some of us also have houserules about the paladin to mitigate issues or change the class entirely. I like putting the code and should I fall in the players hands for instance.
Wizard dominates Warrior and uses him to go on a murder rampage. Who is to blame? The Warrior or the Wizard explicitly controlling him?The wizard. But if the warrior was a holy man who has a code of conduct that explicitly requires him to "punish those who harm or threaten innocents", I would expect him to show a greater level of concern for his actions (whether willingly performed or not) than "meh". Killing an innocent is a violation of the paladin code of conduct. The only upside for the paladin is that doing it under some form of external control makes it easier to be forgiven.
Consider the movie "The Iron Giant". Despite its protests to the contrary, the titular character IS a gun. It is a sentient gun, however, and ultimately decides it doesn't want to serve as it was created to serve. It could be argued that the "bump" on its head damaged its systems enough to enable it to override its programming.
The point being, there is a scene where it ALMOST disintegrates the human child Hogarth with a plasma blast (Hogarth aims a toy gun at it and this triggers its assault programming). When it realizes what it almost did, it reacts in horror and runs away, obviously very disturbed.
Now imagine what would have happened if it had hit Hogarth.
None of this means that the Paladin is evil, of course -- in fact, an argument could be made that his reaction to killing the child was more a violation of Law than Good (what would his code demand of him given the situation?)
Can a Paladin be a complete sociopath, so long as they stick to the code? That's a good question.
He broke the code by killing an innocent, no it wasn't his fault, Because it wasn't his fault, he doesn't have to pay the cost of the atonement spell, but he still needs the atonement spell.
They would not get a discount on it if it wasn't their fault, if they didn't need one if it wasn't their fault.
He actually didn't break the code. The code reads, "...punish those who harm or threaten innocents."
Do you send the gun or the man who shot it to jail? This is pretty obvious. Without the source of the Confusion what would have changed? The Child obviously wouldn't have died. The Paladin didn't really kill the child. Whomever cast the confusion did.
So the Paladin focusing on the task at hand and hunting down the creature who was the source of the confusion is well within the bounds of his Code.
So your argument is that killing innocents is allowed in the paladin code? Because the Paladin DID kill the child, he was not in control of his actions, and that's WHY he gets a free atonement spell.
EDIT: Atonement specifically references people who do things while under magical compulsion.
So your argument is that killing innocents is allowed in the paladin code?
Are you arguing the code doesn't?
I don't believe in fall-fall. As long as the paladin attempts to make a correct choice, they are not in danger from ambiguous situations. Indeed, because a paladin can actually sense evil, and has had a lot of experience navigating difficult choices, they probably have a confidence in their rightness most people lack. Like, surgeons. They probably feel bad when they botch a surgery, but they don't necessarily feel awful remorse. In fact, it would probably make their jobs harder if they did, and make them less good as surgeons.
If you want to treat it as a ritual uncleanness thing, that would be fine as a rule in your games, but that actually makes it less of an alignment thing. even an evil character could have a supernatural power that fails if they accidentally kill a child. Some versions of Baba Yaga are forbidden from harming the innocent.
He broke the code by killing an innocent, no it wasn't his fault, Because it wasn't his fault, he doesn't have to pay the cost of the atonement spell, but he still needs the atonement spell.
They would not get a discount on it if it wasn't their fault, if they didn't need one if it wasn't their fault.
He actually didn't break the code. The code reads, "...punish those who harm or threaten innocents."
Do you send the gun or the man who shot it to jail? This is pretty obvious. Without the source of the Confusion what would have changed? The Child obviously wouldn't have died. The Paladin didn't really kill the child. Whomever cast the confusion did.
So the Paladin focusing on the task at hand and hunting down the creature who was the source of the confusion is well within the bounds of his Code.
So your argument is that killing innocents is allowed in the paladin code? Because the Paladin DID kill the child, he was not in control of his actions, and that's WHY he gets a free atonement spell.
EDIT: Atonement specifically references people who do things while under magical compulsion.
As a GM I dont need the atonement spell, if that the character does indeed show some kind of emotion, regret or whatever other fitting emotionnand deals with it in some way that is enough for me to not 'fail' as a good character.
People should understand that playing a good character can and should be hard sometimes, often it means doing things that go against your basic nature, feel compassion when none is deserving, regret when it is not truly your fault, sacrifice for others without expecting anything in return etc.
Evil characters do basically anything they want and are just selfish people with few if any true friends. Not every evil person wants to kill puppies but if they did want to kill puppies it is unlikely he'd care what anyone thinks of it beyond getting away with it.
Neutral characters are somewhere in between,they care about others but probably more about themselves. They would sacrifice and are compassionate with those they are close to them but are largely indifferent towards others and will usually not inconvenience themselves greatly to help them.
You dont have to be NOT-EVIL to be a paladin though, you have to be GOOD. I think most paladins would not fall because they did something evil, rather that they did not go out off their way to do the good/right thing.
I don't believe in fall-fall. As long as the paladin attempts to make a correct choice, they are not in danger from ambiguous situations.
Depends a lot on who you play with. I've met plenty of GMs who put you into a fall-fall and will indeed make you fall for either decision. Sometimes I've really made the GM angry by taking the third option they never saw coming too.
Never said anything about fall fall situations, just that the games rules are quite clear, that if you do an evil deed under some form of magical compulsion you still by RAW need an atonement spell. personally I wouldn't bother with the atonement spell if the character actually already showed remorse.
What makes it so funny? I'm having trouble seeing how its hilarious. Then you turn around and say its mental gymnastics and grunt. By RAW paladins don't need a deity, its not some crazy corner case or mental gymnastics, or rules lawyering.Also, the argument that paladins don't need their God at all is hilarious! They're paladins, presumably they care a lot to train so hard. Rule-lawyers are bloody annoying.
The mental gymnastics going on in this thread. Ugh
1) Most of you are ignoring that this specific paladin does have a god. Dedication to law and good don't mean much if you can turn your back on a whim.
2) It is rules lawyering. You're picking that parts of 'RAW' you like and ignoring the spirit and intentions of the class. Paladins have more specific fluff than any other base classes I can think of, because a generic 'holy warrior' is what the cleric is for.
For clarity, I've always preferred the middle road. Paladins need to be held to some kind of standard or they're rendered meaningless, but GMs should always warn players when they're getting close to the line.
In this specific case, the Paladin shouldn't fall (he was under compulsion), but his deity is certainly not happy and if he doesn't feel bad (which he should, it's a child), she'll be sending him signs until he atones-- which happens to be a spell in this game. Luckily, it'd be free. Hooray.
Everyone should remember this is supposed to be about the situation described by the OP, not a general discussion on Paladins.
So... the DM should state up-front about what they expect from a Paladin character (with a focus on how they view the moral aspect), and the player can either agree or make a different character? Seems reasonable enough.No. Even then you're still just playing what your DM is telling you to. Some folks want to play the character they want to play and not have someone acting like it's their character and telling them what they should be doing or acting like.
Instead we're just stuck. Since we have all these DMs who expect the Paladin player to play exactly as they want them to, you're essentially just an NPC who rolls the dice for him.
The DM creates the world. He represents NPCs, gods, and physics. He can ban entire classes and races if he wants to. This is a cooperative game, it's not all about you.
Tormast, Thanks for posting. It's always good to have perspective. Sounds like your group has some issues that need to be worked out, or at least have a discussion about expectations for the future. Paladins can be tricky, that's partly why I've never played one myself.
The DM creates the world. He represents NPCs, gods, and physics. He can ban entire classes and races if he wants to. This is a cooperative game, it's not all about you.
Not all about the DM either. All depends on the type of gaming your running. Ideally the physics are handled by the game system. Who creates what is also up in the air, because you could be using published materials such as APs and the Golarion setting or you could be using group storytelling. Every group is different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Never said anything about fall fall situations, just that the games rules are quite clear, that if you do an evil deed under some form of magical compulsion you still by RAW need an atonement spell. personally I wouldn't bother with the atonement spell if the character actually already showed remorse.
That is really silly however. By your ruling, Every time the Paladin was compelled or mind controlled he'd lose all his powers full stop. He'd have to go find someone to cast Atonement for him to get his powers back. And be completely worthless to the party till he did it.
Atonement is for when he actually breaks his Code of Conduct or falls from Lawful Good.
The Code states that you never willingly commit an evil act. He didn't. That obviously points out that the Developers didn't want you to fall for actions you had no control of.
1) Most of you are ignoring that this specific paladin does have a god. Dedication to law and good don't mean much if you can turn your back on a whim.
It still doesn't matter because he still doesn't gain power from his God. Can he and should he turn his back on his God when they're being lame? YES, The Gods don't always know best. Can he turn his back on being Lawful Good and fighting evil wherever it lays? No, not without falling.
Basically, the question is, Should the Paladin fall for actions he had no control over?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The DM creates the world. He represents NPCs, gods, and physics. He can ban entire classes and races if he wants to. This is a cooperative game, it's not all about you.
Whats the point of playing if you don't have control of your character? I am ALL sorts of happy for cooperation. I play Dota 2 way too much for that not to be so. However, I don't touch other people's characters and I expect them not to touch mine. This is like someone playing a Dwarf and forcing them to be a greedy drunk when they would rather not be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread made me brush up on the alignment descriptions. What I walked away with was that a Barbarian can fall for being truthful and honoring tradition, jeez. Wonder if that has ever happened in any game.
the games rules are quite clear, that if you do an evil deed under some form of magical compulsion you still by RAW need an atonement spell.
The Code:
"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."
I'll just keep posting it until the people who keep saying this actually read it.
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."
This part does not care about the willingness of the paladin. So let's say if a pally is under the effects of confusion and confusion causes them to do something dishonorable (like killing children) or prevents them from helping someone in need (like the dead child who was threatened by a monster before you killed him) you can fall.
This part does not care about the willingness of the paladin. So let's say if a pally is under the effects of confusion and confusion causes them to do something dishonorable (like killing children) or prevents them from helping someone in need (like the dead child who was threatened by a monster before you killed him) you can fall.
We're getting into territory that's very silly like "A Paladin that fails while trying to help someone/punish evil falls".
Don't push this into very silly territory, it's hard to climb out again and get back to a reasonable discussion.
Worse than that, it implies that the first line is utterly irrelevant. Wasted space. It might as well not be there.
Because Evil actions are always "dishonorable", therefore any Evil act a Paladin does while mind controlled makes him fall, regardless of the text SPECIFICALLY SAYING THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN.
"A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act."
Not willingly committing certain acts is not covered there. That statement just presents a fall condition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act."
Not willingly committing certain acts is not covered there. That statement just presents a fall condition.
Well that is very much ignoring the intent given by the developers. By stating that they cannot fall from any evil action committed unwillingly, I can say with certainty that they don't intend for the Paladin to fall due to actions beyond his control.