they don't intend for the Paladin to fall due to actions beyond his control.
Maybe they do. Why don't you ask James Jacobs or someone else about it?
they don't intend for the Paladin to fall due to actions beyond his control.Maybe they do. Why don't you ask James Jacobs or someone else about it?
Because every time someone asks them a question along the lines of "Is this very clear piece of text what you actually MEANT to write or..." they lose yet more faith in the community.
Because every time someone asks them a question along the lines of "Is this very clear piece of text what you actually MEANT to write or..." they lose yet more faith in the community.they don't intend for the Paladin to fall due to actions beyond his control.Maybe they do. Why don't you ask James Jacobs or someone else about it?
Actually the last time I asked a dev if a feat means what the text says, I was wrong. I and everyone but 2 people I was talking to about that feat was wrong.
(It was greater feint by the way. It works only for melee attacks from the feint-er. It doesn't cause the target to lose their dex bonus to any other kind of attack.)
Because every time someone asks them a question along the lines of "Is this very clear piece of text what you actually MEANT to write or..." they lose yet more faith in the community.they don't intend for the Paladin to fall due to actions beyond his control.Maybe they do. Why don't you ask James Jacobs or someone else about it?Actually the last time I asked a dev if a feat means what the text says, I was wrong. I and everyone but 2 people I was talking to about that feat was wrong.
(It was greater feint by the way. It works only for melee attacks from the feint-er. It doesn't cause the target to lose their dex bonus to any other kind of attack.)
Not to digress, but can you quote that response from JJ?
Actually the last time I asked a dev if a feat means what the text says, I was wrong. I and everyone but 2 people I was talking to about that feat was wrong.
(It was greater feint by the way. It works only for melee attacks from the feint-er. It doesn't cause the target to lose their dex bonus to any other kind of attack.)
And the fact that you needed to ask that question kinda proves my point for me about reading stuff and comprehending it in context.
This entire argument can be solved by pointing one thing out...
Paladins are required to punish those who harm innocents. Nothing about that says how, who, or why; they are required to do it anyway. Now, we have a scenario where a paladin harmed an innocent... by their code, the paladin has to punish themself for it.
Not to digress, but can you quote that response from JJ?Because every time someone asks them a question along the lines of "Is this very clear piece of text what you actually MEANT to write or..." they lose yet more faith in the community.they don't intend for the Paladin to fall due to actions beyond his control.Maybe they do. Why don't you ask James Jacobs or someone else about it?Actually the last time I asked a dev if a feat means what the text says, I was wrong. I and everyone but 2 people I was talking to about that feat was wrong.
(It was greater feint by the way. It works only for melee attacks from the feint-er. It doesn't cause the target to lose their dex bonus to any other kind of attack.)
Sure
Oh we have a misunderstanding. By "pump fake" I meant that as a way to feint an opponent at range with greater feint to make them lose their dex bonus to all attacks until the start of your next turn through an over reaction to the maneuver.
So did you say?
It's intended that you feint in melee range.
Greater feint does just remove the dex mod to AC. So if a rogue feints the target with greater feint, his fighter buddy can hit that target without that target having its dex mod to AC.Feint works for melee attacks, not ranged attacks. Nothing in the wording of Greater Feint mentions ranged attacks, so it still only helps you with melee attacks.
Likewise, Feint only affects attacks you make against the feinted creature—YOU tricked him, not everyone. Greater Feint makes no mention of "all creatures treat him as flat-footed" or the like, so it works the same as a normal feint. ALL Greater Feint does is extend the duration of the feint maneuver. For you, the one who made that maneuver.
Beyond that, and beyond my interpretation, I suppose you'll need to take the question over to the rules forum.
That's correct. That has no impact on whether or not you can trick an opponent into moving in any direction while you move in another direction though. Tricking a foe into moving in the wrong direction is not what feint does, in any of its incarnations. It's an interesting idea for a new combat maneuver... but it would be a really tricky one to pull off, since when you reverse it and use it against PCs, that basically lets the GM move the player characters as he wishes and that can get ugly and weird.Ah ok, some of us were under the impression that greater feint just removed the target's dex bonus to AC until the start of your next turn.How would that change anything? All Greater Feint does is extend the duration of the bonus you get against a target with your melee attacks.What about when someone uses greater feint?Since feinting is an action that modifies melee attacks, the implication is that you need to be close enough to the creature to actually make a melee attack. This action doesn't really account for tricking a person into thinking you're going to move in one direction when you really want to move in another if there's no immediate followup melee attack.RAI question.
Do you have to be next to a creature to feint it? Like can you do a Peyton Manning pump fake to feint an enemy?
Oh we have a misunderstanding. By "pump fake" I meant that as a way to feint an opponent at range with greater feint to make them lose their dex bonus to all attacks until the start of your next turn through an over reaction to the maneuver.
So did you say?
It's intended that you feint in melee range.
Greater feint does just remove the dex mod to AC. So if a rogue feints the target with greater feint, his fighter buddy can hit that target without that target having its dex mod to AC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This entire argument can be solved by pointing one thing out...
Paladins are required to punish those who harm innocents. Nothing about that says how, who, or why; they are required to do it anyway. Now, we have a scenario where a paladin harmed an innocent... by their code, the paladin has to punish themself for it.
Which that sounds kinky...
I say his self punishment is clearly falling! :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except the Paladin is not responsible for the harming. His mind was magically tampered with.
Mind control has no real world equivalent, before someone brings it up with "Well if you're held hostage and you kill someone aren't you responsible for their death?"
Except the Paladin is not responsible for the harming. His mind was magically tampered with.
I don't see how that matters. The code transcends all logic and sense of justice.
I don't see how that matters.
I know you don't, but I don't know how many more ways I can explain it to you.
The code transcends all logic and sense of justice.
I think it's just the person reading it that is "transcending" logic.
I don't see how that matters.I know you don't, but I don't know how many more ways I can explain it to you.
You could try using the rules as opposed to appealing to a general sense of morals :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Disregarding the current argument, I found it quite enlightening to see the paladin's player's side of things 5 pages in. Along the way I'd gotten the impression from the OP and the other player that the paladin really just didn't give a s!*$, which to me was a red flag that he might be slipping into neutral territory. I also had the impression that combat was well and truly over, which apparently it wasn't; the paladin did care, but the player himself was frustrated about the different expectations of what a paladin is meant to be and do.
Having this different perspective really put it into a new light where I was certain he didn't deserve to fall, which really highlights the importance of communication. And if you've tried communication already, maybe having the "problematic" player(s) give their version early on would help the quality of responses given as well.
I also learned that my own GM is a lot more lenient with what constitutes Good alignment than myself, which gave me some food for thought and something to consider.
Why am I saying this? I don't know, I guess I wanted to adress the original issue of what we forum members would've done in the situation, and at the same time just let people know that in the midst of the heat of one of the much hated paladin discussions, one of us may have come out of it with a new perspective on alignments.
That said, if someone hacks your paizo account and submits something to a paladin thread, did you write that post?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That said, if someone hacks your paizo account and submits something to a paladin thread, did you write that post?
Apparently. Heh.
I don't see how that matters.I know you don't, but I don't know how many more ways I can explain it to you.
The code transcends all logic and sense of justice.I think it's just the person reading it that is "transcending" logic.
Try explaining it with less contempt. I hear that helps.
Try explaining it with less contempt. I hear that helps.
Obviously not because it didn't work the first 3 times I explained it.
It's really hard to explain something any clearer than "This is the exact wording of what you are arguing with me about and it proves you wrong".
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...
Thank you for your thoughtful post. I enjoyed reading it.
Disregarding the current argument, I found it quite enlightening to see the paladin's player's side of things 5 pages in. Along the way I'd gotten the impression from the OP and the other player that the paladin really just didn't give a s~@%, which to me was a red flag that he might be slipping into neutral territory. I also had the impression that combat was well and truly over, which apparently it wasn't; the paladin did care, but the player himself was frustrated about the different expectations of what a paladin is meant to be and do.
Having this different perspective really put it into a new light where I was certain he didn't deserve to fall, which really highlights the importance of communication. And if you've tried communication already, maybe having the "problematic" player(s) give their version early on would help the quality of responses given as well.I also learned that my own GM is a lot more lenient with what constitutes Good alignment than myself, which gave me some food for thought and something to consider.
Why am I saying this? I don't know, I guess I wanted to adress the original issue of what we forum members would've done in the situation, and at the same time just let people know that in the midst of the heat of one of the much hated paladin discussions, one of us may have come out of it with a new perspective on alignments.
That said, if someone hacks your paizo account and submits something to a paladin thread, did you write that post?
Good response man.
Not having the full picture of course colors the nature of the responses. With a fuller view of the situation, it is absolutely justified for the paladin to run off and give chase to the monster responsible. After all "punish those who harm or threaten innocents."
I think most of the people who responded with 'he falls' were either responding to the impression of indifference given, or that he did nothing about the situation. I still think these are valid opinions, too. If a paladin simply doesn't respond to or care about such a tragedy, especially when they were so integral and played a part in it... this indicates a non-lawful-good behavior.
What is strange, here, is that his initial reaction to hunt down the monster was a good one. But, he didn't do it.
Even by the paladin player's own post, his character didn't do anything about the situation. He simply behaved suicidally instead.
That seems... bad.
There is clearly a disconnect between the player and the group, and expectations. If you start getting suicidal with a character as a way to express your displeasure... it is time to have a chat together about how to resolve the tension in the group amicably for all involved.
This entire argument can be solved by pointing one thing out...
Paladins are required to punish those who harm innocents. Nothing about that says how, who, or why; they are required to do it anyway. Now, we have a scenario where a paladin harmed an innocent... by their code, the paladin has to punish themself for it.
Your reading of "willingly" has been rather willy-nilly.
@Remy: His character didn't do anything because his player was choosing to not have that character be in the picture any more. Not a character problem any more.
I think it was less about him "expressing his displeasure" and more being frustrated, tired of being frustrated all the time while doing an activity that's supposed to be fun, and decided to remove one of the two factors contributing to the frustration. Since the two factors are the GM and the character, and there's no game without the GM, he doesn't have many options (as talking it out hasn't worked before).
It was the best solution to the problem, IMO. Player gets a new character, GM stops riding his ass about his character falling all the time, everyone's happy. Sorta, I guess, kinda.
Try explaining it with less contempt. I hear that helps.Obviously not because it didn't work the first 3 times I explained it.
It's really hard to explain something any clearer than "This is the exact wording of what you are arguing with me about and it proves you wrong".
I understand, it can be frustrating when you feel you have made an excellent point and it gets ignored or misunderstood, or worse, it gets misrepresented.
But the healthiest response, for you the poster and the quality of discussion and the readers, is to take a moment to de-stress before getting too negative. Let the vitriol slip away, gather your thoughts, and reply cordially.
Maybe that seems a waste of time when you just got to tell that random guy why his random post is all wrong. But in the end, it helps everyone, because it keeps the boards a constructive and "fun and friendly place".
@Remy: His character didn't do anything because his player was choosing to not have that character be in the picture any more. Not a character problem any more.
I think it was less about him "expressing his displeasure" and more being frustrated, tired of being frustrated all the time while doing an activity that's supposed to be fun, and decided to remove one of the two factors contributing to the frustration. Since the two factors are the GM and the character, and there's no game without the GM, he doesn't have many options (as talking it out hasn't worked before).
It was the best solution to the problem, IMO. Player gets a new character, GM stops riding his ass about his character falling all the time, everyone's happy. Sorta, I guess, kinda.
Yeah, at that point it was more the responsibility of the game breaking down because of clashing expectations.
Taking out your ooc frustration with the game by becoming suicidal ic isn't the healthiest option for resolving the situation though. And once you start bringing out of game drama into the game through character actions things can go sideways fast.
That was what I meant by 'expressing his displeasure', since the less 'expressive' method of handling an intentional character change is to simply discuss it with the GM.
@Remy: His character didn't do anything because his player was choosing to not have that character be in the picture any more. Not a character problem any more.
I think it was less about him "expressing his displeasure" and more being frustrated, tired of being frustrated all the time while doing an activity that's supposed to be fun, and decided to remove one of the two factors contributing to the frustration. Since the two factors are the GM and the character, and there's no game without the GM, he doesn't have many options (as talking it out hasn't worked before).
It was the best solution to the problem, IMO. Player gets a new character, GM stops riding his ass about his character falling all the time, everyone's happy. Sorta, I guess, kinda.
Character suicide can actually be a very strong message. I heard of an entire party suiciding over a terrible dm trying to tell them all what to do. They murdered each other Raze-style (new film) and the survivor burned himself to death in a pot of... stew I believe. It was a heavy railroad, so they threw themselves under the tracks.
Then they all had a laugh. Everyone that is except the dm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't acknowledge there's anything such thing as an unwilling evil act. If it's unwilling, it's not evil. Or good. Or anything. Like I said, that's more of a ritual purity issue than a good/evil thing.
@Remy: His character didn't do anything because his player was choosing to not have that character be in the picture any more. Not a character problem any more.
I think it was less about him "expressing his displeasure" and more being frustrated, tired of being frustrated all the time while doing an activity that's supposed to be fun, and decided to remove one of the two factors contributing to the frustration. Since the two factors are the GM and the character, and there's no game without the GM, he doesn't have many options (as talking it out hasn't worked before).
It was the best solution to the problem, IMO. Player gets a new character, GM stops riding his ass about his character falling all the time, everyone's happy. Sorta, I guess, kinda.
Character suicide can actually be a very strong message. I heard of an entire party suiciding over a terrible dm trying to tell them all what to do. They murdered each other Raze-style (new film) and the survivor burned himself to death in a pot of... stew I believe. It was a heavy railroad, so they threw themselves under the tracks.
Then they all had a laugh. Everyone that is except the dm.
That seems sort of a bad way to deal with things. The OP and paladin player could have talked things out and come to some sort of agreement about how to handle things and/or redone the character as something else if paladin didn't work for them.
If the game has gotten to the point where the players are killing themselves to get out of things, or the GM is trying to kill players off because they are frustrated, then maybe everyone should take a bit of time to talk it out and either stop playing together or sort out the problems. Because it won't get better if people start getting upset over the TPKs or suicides.
The OP and paladin player had a different opinion on what a paladin is and how they should react/act about things. A conversation and some compromise could have fixed a lot of this.
I have to agree with RJGrady. This goes beyond whether or not he was in control of himself at the time (we know he wasn't), but to the world-at-large, he slew an innocent.
In a fantasy world, if the paladin had a great reputation, and he could call on the counsel of wizards to explain to kings/magistrates/priests and constabulary that "yes, this warrior was affected by a powerful enchantment at the time. He had no idea what he was doing" then he could possibly be forgiven by the powers-that-be. Magic is eerie and dangerous stuff.
And he would STILL have his reputation to consider. He would STILL be a man who slew an innocent. He is tainted. Plain and simple.
Does he lose his paladinhood? (I've come to detest the term "fall" as it's been abused and overused). Nah. Well, how about he "feels his relationship with his deity slip away" until he atones and rediscovers his grace? Use it as a plot hook, not a penalty for something that sort of happened upon him in spell combat and a failed saving throw.
@Remy: His character didn't do anything because his player was choosing to not have that character be in the picture any more. Not a character problem any more.
I think it was less about him "expressing his displeasure" and more being frustrated, tired of being frustrated all the time while doing an activity that's supposed to be fun, and decided to remove one of the two factors contributing to the frustration. Since the two factors are the GM and the character, and there's no game without the GM, he doesn't have many options (as talking it out hasn't worked before).
It was the best solution to the problem, IMO. Player gets a new character, GM stops riding his ass about his character falling all the time, everyone's happy. Sorta, I guess, kinda.
Character suicide can actually be a very strong message. I heard of an entire party suiciding over a terrible dm trying to tell them all what to do. They murdered each other Raze-style (new film) and the survivor burned himself to death in a pot of... stew I believe. It was a heavy railroad, so they threw themselves under the tracks.
Then they all had a laugh. Everyone that is except the dm.
That seems sort of a bad way to deal with things. The OP and paladin player could have talked things out and come to some sort of agreement about how to handle things and/or redone the character as something else if paladin didn't work for them.
If the game has gotten to the point where the players are killing themselves to get out of things, or the GM is trying to kill players off because they are frustrated, then maybe everyone should take a bit of time to talk it out and either stop playing together or sort out the problems. Because it won't get better if people start getting upset over the TPKs or suicides.
The OP and paladin player had a different opinion on what a paladin is and how they should react/act about things. A conversation and some compromise could have fixed a lot of this.
From what's been said by the OP and player in question, it sounds like the efforts to talk things out reached an impasse.
Honestly, that's always been my biggest issue with the Paladin and the alignment system in general. Any time you make morality a part of the game mechanics, you're going to run into the problem that different people have very different ideas about morality. Sometimes people can handle those disagreements in a calm and reasonable manner, but all you have to do is look at this very thread to see plenty of examples of people who just can't come to an agreement on how moral issues should be handled.
I love the idea of a Paladin who lives by a moral and ethical code, but when it comes to actually playing the game all those rules create a minefield of potential problems. It's rather telling that one of the most common pieces of advice for first-time players of paladins is to have a long talk with the GM to hammer out all the potential moral pitfalls.
A human LG paladin encountering a very alien LG culture can also be a challenge to cherished notions and what LG is normally considered by a player or the dm. Local superstitions and religions that differ to the norm, there is a lot of potential scope as to what LG is.
Your reading of "willingly" has been rather willy-nilly.This entire argument can be solved by pointing one thing out...
Paladins are required to punish those who harm innocents. Nothing about that says how, who, or why; they are required to do it anyway. Now, we have a scenario where a paladin harmed an innocent... by their code, the paladin has to punish themself for it.
This is the section of the Paladin's code that applies to this scenario:
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 know my English is far from perfect, but I do not see the word "willingly" in that section. But I do admit I may be missing it in my reading, so I will need your aid on this.
Please copy the section I posted and paste it in your post with the word "willingly" bolded. Thank you ahead of time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the section of the Paladin's code that applies to this scenario:
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.
At least now we know what the problem is, you keep referencing the wrong section.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can do this!
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.
willingly
At least now we know what the problem is, you keep referencing the wrong section.
This is the section of the Paladin's code that applies to this scenario:
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.
You keep referencing irrelevant sections.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can do this!
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.willingly
I can too!
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Now the really awkward thing is what to do if the GM rules that the paladin has to punish himself... Can I have help with this one? Our cleric of calistria volunteered a few weeks ago.
Anyways, wasn't the point that killing a child under compulsion doesn't break it RAW?
At least now we know what the problem is, you keep referencing the wrong section.
This is the section of the Paladin's code that applies to this scenario:
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.
Please point out where, in the rules, it says that section does not also apply to the paladin themselves in regards to actions they take.
I am not asking to challenge; I'm asking so I have a better idea of the paladin class.
Please point out where, in the rules, it says that section does not also apply to the paladin themselves in regards to actions they take.
I am not asking to challenge; I'm asking so I have a better idea of the paladin class.
It does apply.
It does not apply HERE.
Because what applies HERE is the thing that is specifically spelled out in the Code as being an exception to a general rule.
A Paladin falls if he:
-Ceases to be of lawful good alignment
-Willingly commits an evil act.
-Fails to respect legitimate authority.
-Fails to act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)
-Refuses to help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends)
-Refuses to punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
6 separate catalysts for a fall.
None of which were fulfilled here.
He has not ceased to be Lawful Good.
He did not willingly commit an evil act.
He did not fail to act with honor (did not lie, or use poison)
He did not refuse to help those in need (indeed, he unwillingly committed an evil act in the attempt to do so).
He did not refuse to punish those who harm or threaten innocents (in this case the person who put the children in this circumstance in the first place, and magically controlled someone to harm an innocent).
The last one is iffy, in that he initially wanted to, but the player decided he was done with b@#!*$#* like this coming up at every session so he offed the character instead. However, the point is moot in that case, and has no bearing on this specific scenario.
Please point out where, in the rules, it says that section does not also apply to the paladin themselves in regards to actions they take.
I am not asking to challenge; I'm asking so I have a better idea of the paladin class.
It does apply.
It does not apply HERE.
Because what applies HERE is the thing that is specifically spelled out in the Code as being an exception to a general rule.
A Paladin falls if he:
-Ceases to be of lawful good alignment
-Willingly commits an evil act.
-Fails to respect legitimate authority.
-Fails to act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)
-Refuses to help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends)
-Refuses to punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
6 separate catalysts for a fall.
None of which were fulfilled here.
He has not ceased to be Lawful Good.
He did not willingly commit an evil act.
He did not fail to act with honor (did not lie, or use poison)
He did not refuse to help those in need (indeed, he unwillingly committed an evil act in the attempt to do so).
He did not refuse to punish those who harm or threaten innocents (in this case the person who put the children in this circumstance in the first place, and magically controlled someone to harm an innocent).
The last one is iffy, in that he initially wanted to, but the player decided he was done with b@%~!@%~ like this coming up at every session so he offed the character instead. However, the point is moot in that case, and has no bearing on this specific scenario.
The paladin harmed an innocent, did they not? Where in the portion of the moral code that deals with punishing those who harm innocents does it make exceptions for those who harmed innocents while under magical compulsion?
I note the moral code does not proscribe what the punishment has to be, either.
The paladin harmed an innocent, did they not?
I think Rynjin's point was that there was nothing in the code he broke by killing the kid under magical compulsion. The fact he may under certain interpretations need to punish himself is a whole nother' problem which will be solved later at the church of calistria... small fee included for the service, of course. Though I suppose a really strict reading would say punching yourself in the face is punishing enough.
The paladin harmed an innocent, did they not?
Which is an evil act.
However, it was not a willingly carried out evil act.
It really is that simple.
Where in the portion of the moral code that deals with punishing those who harm innocents does it make exceptions for those who harmed innocents while under magical compulsion?
Where in the Code does it say a Paladin falls for harming an innocent?
It doesn't.
Because that's covered by evil acts.
I note the moral code does not proscribe what the punishment has to be, either.
No, it doesn't.
Probably because the punishment is that the GM immediately comes crying to these boards and triggers a 5 page argument about whether or not he should punish his player for having the SHEER GALL to fail a save.
And really, isn't that torture enough?
I think I am not communicating what I am thinking of clearly enough.
The point of the questions I am asking are not to have the Paladin fall; if they fall because they are punishing themselves and subconsciously disconnect their paladin powers, that's on their heads. And it's acceptable.
By the code, punishing themselves in other words is acceptable. Just like it would be acceptable to deal with the party fighter slaughtering children while under magical compulsion by giving the fighter a slap on the wrists and telling them not to do it again.
In all such cases, they are keeping to the code.
That is why I feel that last section of it is the relevant section; nothing else actually addresses the crime that happened.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the Paladin falls then the PC is better off being allowed to bring in a new character.
If the character was not in control of his character's actions then he shouldn't be punished for it. It is about as moronic as dominating a paladin, having him kill a child, then making him fall because of that. Does that sound fair? No? Well then, you have your answer.
Keep in mind that Paladins don't have to fawn over everyone who is helpless. They can be remorseless, they can be cold, and they can understand that Good is not Nice. They understand that people will die, and that is just how it is. If you're in the wrong place at the wrong time, and stand next to the confused Paladin who kills you then that is what happened. Too bad.
His lack of remorse for something that he didn't decidedly do isn't a sign that he deserves to fall. A kid died. Yeah, what about the other ones who die of diseases, malnourishment, crime, prostitution, slavery, and so forth all around Golarion every day? Are paladins supposed to shed tears over that or just accept that it happened, and not care? It happens. The world is a dangerous place
And no, I don't care about the wording of the Paladin's code. If you want to castrate your Paladin because he doesn't care nor accept responsibility for actions his character took by accident that were out of his control then you're punishing your player without good reason in my book. Furthermore, he will feel like you are punishing him without good reason and there should be backlash from it in some way. Once you steal his reason for being a paladin he can do anything he wants and go to any depths of depravity.
Basically, if you're going to make him fall for arbitrary reasons then let him reroll or retrain to something else. If you want a Paladin in your party then doing punish him for reasons that will feel arbitrary.
Additional:
What you may want to do is start saying things like, "<Paladin's name> feels bad for the child," or "<Paladin's name> finds such action distasteful and refuses to do it. If he wants to do it he can take said action that is decidedly against his code of conduct, which may or may not result in him falling from grace."
However, start doing that and the Paladin will start fighting in a more suicidal manner so the Player can bring in someone else that isn't going to be hijacked by the DM all the time. Just a suggestion.
You are allowed to implement small aspects into the PCs. Perhaps his seeming non-caring nature towards the child is instead a front for him actually caring but not showing it. Perhaps the Paladin has insecurity problems, and believes that if he shows that he cares he will look weak.
If the Paladin falls then the PC is better off being allowed to bring in a new character.
If the character was not in control of his character's actions then he shouldn't be punished for it. It is about as moronic as dominating a paladin, having him kill a child, then making him fall because of that. Does that sound fair? No? Well then, you have your answer.
Keep in mind that Paladins don't have to fawn over everyone who is helpless. They can be remorseless, they can be cold, and they can understand that Good is not Nice. They understand that people will die, and that is just how it is. If you're in the wrong place at the wrong time, and stand next to the confused Paladin who kills you then that is what happened. Too bad.
His lack of remorse for something that he didn't decidedly do isn't a sign that he deserves to fall. A kid died. Yeah, what about the other ones who die of diseases, malnourishment, crime, prostitution, slavery, and so forth all around Golarion every day? Are paladins supposed to shed tears over that or just accept that it happened, and not care? It happens. The world is a dangerous place
And no, I don't care about the wording of the Paladin's code. If you want to castrate your Paladin because he doesn't care nor accept responsibility for actions his character took by accident that were out of his control then you're punishing your player without good reason in my book. Furthermore, he will feel like you are punishing him without good reason and there should be backlash from it in some way. Once you steal his reason for being a paladin he can do anything he wants and go to any depths of depravity.
Basically, if you're going to make him fall for arbitrary reasons then let him reroll or retrain to something else. If you want a Paladin in your party then doing punish him for reasons that will feel arbitrary.
Additional:
What you may want to do is start saying things like, "<Paladin's name> feels bad for the child," or "<Paladin's name> finds such action...
Absolutely yes on the bringing in another character if you fell for something you didn't choose to do.
Just to clarify a few things, i never railroad it's always open to the party were they go. When he wanted to chase after the monster it was the group that told him not too(over riding quest to save a town that he could have left it get flooded, he could always look for the monster later.)
I called him out on the vampire kid after the fact because i just wanted to know what his plan was, he spent time killing it while it was chained up(Being no threat at that time, i had no problem with him killing it, it's evil at the end of the day and that's his job) and it ended in two of the party being killed.
I enjoyed his paladin he kicked ass and took a lot of names, I enjoyed RP with him he was played very well in places BUT he did have a few questionable decisions that I as the DM wouldn't say were within his LG alignment (When alignment comes up it's always debated and i see this being the only real time it would come up) And again he's a paladin they have to be LG as a rule i never want to tell my players how to play but am i meant to let a paladin play as CG? It comes down to fact he was confused that didn't put in my mind that he would fall it was after the fact.(i'd also warned him a few times about his potential fall)
I do feel bad that he felt this way, wish he would have spoken to me out of game and we would have worked it out - i did have a plan for his fall and potential rise. But he has decided to start anew and i can't wait to see what he makes.
I'd also like to thank everyone for the information and debates that have gone on I've read everyone.
The paladin harmed an innocent, did they not?I think Rynjin's point was that there was nothing in the code he broke by killing the kid under magical compulsion. The fact he may under certain interpretations need to punish himself is a whole nother' problem which will be solved later at the church of calistria... small fee included for the service, of course. Though I suppose a really strict reading would say punching yourself in the face is punishing enough.
"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."
If you unwillingly break the code you still fall. Paladins just don't fall from unwilling doing evil acts. Breaking the code is not inherently an evil act, it's just breaking the code. You break the code, you fall.
If falling is something you can't handle then don't play paladins with GMs who follow the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"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."
If you unwillingly break the code you still fall. Paladins just don't fall from unwilling doing evil acts. Breaking the code is not inherently an evil act, it's just breaking the code. You break the code, you fall.
If falling is something you can't handle then don't play paladins with GMs who follow the rules.
None of the code you quoted was broken by the Paladin.
So no fall should occur.
The paladin harmed an innocent, did they not?I think Rynjin's point was that there was nothing in the code he broke by killing the kid under magical compulsion. The fact he may under certain interpretations need to punish himself is a whole nother' problem which will be solved later at the church of calistria... small fee included for the service, of course. Though I suppose a really strict reading would say punching yourself in the face is punishing enough."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."
If you unwillingly break the code you still fall. Paladins just don't fall from unwilling doing evil acts. Breaking the code is not inherently an evil act, it's just breaking the code. You break the code, you fall.
If falling is something you can't handle then don't play paladins with GMs who follow the rules.
So we can put you in the group of people who believe that if the Paladin gets dominated and "acts dishonorably", they fall full stop huge game derailment. Likely it gets the party killed AND once the Paladin breaks free he's lost all his powers, so y'know, he dies too.
So cool. Punishments beyond what the failure of the spell dictates.
Also completely ignoring the intent of the developers to not fall for unwilling evil acts. Which pretty much all of the Code is done to break it.
Also completely ignoring the intent of the developers to not fall for unwilling evil acts. Which pretty much all of the Code is done to break it.
Ah yes, because you KNOW what the intent of the devs was.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also completely ignoring the intent of the developers to not fall for unwilling evil acts. Which pretty much all of the Code is done to break it.Ah yes, because you KNOW what the intent of the devs was.
Yes.
Because it's what they wrote in the Code.