I'm suddenly confused. What exactly is it you're advocating Marthkus?
-Nearyn
I'm suddenly confused. What exactly is it you're advocating Marthkus?
-Nearyn
"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 break that you fall. It has nothing to do with the willingness that you break that code. If you do break the code do to magical compulsion then you can use the atonement spell for free.
The paladin falls when she commits willing acts of evil. The rest of the code is devoid of willingness. For example if a spell changes the pally's alignment to CE, then she falls. Did the paladin want to change his alignment? No, but she still broke the code.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TO the OP:
It seems that what bothered you is how the player role played the post encounter.
Some context may be missing, but i would caution you.....
You are asking for trouble. By requiring more "drmatic role playing" (my words) you seriously risk loosing control of the game.
The character will be more worried about raising the money for a resurection (that may not work) making ammends to the parents.... Or praying for forgivensss from the community.
The characters are more worried about what they should do vs. what stories you want to tell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm suddenly confused. What exactly is it you're advocating Marthkus?
-Nearyn
"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 break that you fall. It has nothing to do with the willingness that you break that code. If you do break the code do to magical compulsion then you can use the atonement spell for free.
The paladin falls when she commits willing acts of evil. The rest of the code is devoid of willingness. For example if a spell changes the pally's alignment to CE, then she falls. Did the paladin want to change his alignment? No, but she still broke the code.
Then tell me what you think the Developers were trying to prevent when they include the phrase "Willingly commits an evil act." Is it that hard to believe they didn't want you to fall for actions committed against your will? It makes absolutely no sense at all?
Really?
Using one portion of the code while ignoring another seems dishonorable. (That made me giggle a little, MARTHKUS YOU FALL!)
| 2 people 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 break that you fall. It has nothing to do with the willingness that you break that code. If you do break the code do to magical compulsion then you can use the atonement spell for free.
The paladin falls when she commits willing acts of evil. The rest of the code is devoid of willingness. For example if a spell changes the pally's alignment to CE, then she falls. Did the paladin want to change his alignment? No, but she still broke the code.
Honestly, it sounds WAY to vague for me to agree with that. Half of what adventurers do could constitute 'innocents getting hurt,'
A paladins job is to make sure as FEW innocents get hurt as possible, and punish those responsible when he can.
I'm playing Kingmaker right now with a paladin... there have been multiple wars and battles where innocent people have been hurt and killed. People may well blame the 'king' for that. Doesn't mean he didn't do all he could to minimize the death toll.
In this kind of society... innocents get hurt ALL the TIME. If it wasn't his FAULT they got hurt.. if he did everything he could to STOP them from getting hurt... then there should be no fall.
In this case... yes, the paladin was the one who hit the kid... but it wasn't his action. It was the spell that did it.
It seems like this definition would just be ripe with unintended abuse.
He can be commanded to spit at the local judge... does he lose his powers? If he doesn't help pull the crops in from every farm he passes? does he lose his powers? When doe the 'game' actually get to progress if he has to help every person who needs aid for anything?
I'm all for the holy warrior being bound by morals... but TOO strict and focused of interpretation is a game killer.
Aaah~ okay!
"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 break that you fall. It has nothing to do with the willingness that you break that code. If you do break the code do to magical compulsion then you can use the atonement spell for free.
That is correct, by RAW.
The paladin falls when she commits willing acts of evil. The rest of the code is devoid of willingness.
Again, correct by RAW.
For example if a spell changes the pally's alignment to CE, then she falls. Did the paladin want to change his alignment? No, but she still broke the code.
She does not actually break the code by being Chaotic Evil, although if her alignment is magically changed it is likely that she -will- break her code at some point. What causes the fall in your example is not a breach of the code, but the change from Lawful Good. You likely knew this, but I'm just being thorough.
I am no longer confused. Thank you.
-Nearyn
The problem with the whole original scenario here is that the GM seems to not have noticed that the player in question does not have ever been seem to be playing a Paladin in the first place. He's more like a Star Wars RPG Jedi with "lightsaber syndrome".
Thats what it seemed like to me when I read the post.
I saw it mentioned that the player came and gave their side some place, though I didn't see the actual post. Without his thoughts it's hard to know. However, the original post paints the picture of someone (the character) who was never behaving like a Paladin in the first place and the GM is now finally addressing that issue. It seemed like a case of giving the player some leniency unto the point where the GM finally had it and said essential, "You're not even playing a paladin".
The GM problem needed to sit down and explain what the expectations of paladin behavior included, and the should decide based on those expectations whether he wants to play a paladin with such restrictions. However, hindsight is 20/20 and people often fail to discuss such issues as paladin behavior before the start of the game. I think a fiar compromise if the player and GM do not see eye to eye on acceptable behavior for a paladin after the game has started is to allow the player to build a new characterwith the same approximate wealth and the same level and experience as the paladin and remove the offending character from the party.
Thats what it seemed like to me when I read the post.
I saw it mentioned that the player came and gave their side some place, though I didn't see the actual post.
Back on page 5 he showed up :)
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.
For example if a spell changes the pally's alignment to CE, then she falls. Did the paladin want to change his alignment? No, but she still broke the code.She does not actually break the code by being Chaotic Evil, although if her alignment is magically changed it is likely that she -will- break her code at some point. What causes the fall in your example is not a breach of the code, but the change from Lawful Good. You likely knew this, but I'm just being thorough.
"Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good."
If you're not lawful good you aren't a paladin.
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.
So we can put you in the group of people who believe that if the Fighter gets dominated and 'kills the party Wizard, the wizard dies full stop huge game derailment. Likely it gets the party killed AND once the Fighter breaks free he's lost all his party members, so y'know, he dies too.
>.>
Quite right
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Falling ain't so bad. I had to murder a lot of people to stay pure.
Another way to look at the code is like this; It is there to prevent Paladin powers from being misused.
If a Paladin fails a save to a Evil Vampire's Dominate Person ability, he could very well be under their control for DAYS. In this time, he could be raiding villages, killing orphans, and generally rampaging the countryside.
The very first evil act would shut his powers off. Otherwise, he'd be using them to slaughter innocents and further evil causes... for days.
The vampire doesn't get to have a full powered Paladin thrall, he only gets a ex-paladin (ei a warrior) thrall.
If the paladin manages to be freed from this mental control, he can seek out atonement to get his powers restored.
So whether or not it is magical control or personal failings, the powers of a paladin don't get to be used for evil deeds. The code is a fail-safe to prevent that from happening.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the paladin manages to be freed from this mental control, he can seek out atonement to get his powers restored.
Why can't he just get his powers back when he stops being controlled? I'd imagine omnipotence would make that a little easy.
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.
I have actually read it, I don't consider killing innocents to be acting with honour. yes it wasn't willingly However as atonement states, the bonus he gains for it not being willing is that he gets to not pay the costs, not that he doesn't need the spell.
If the paladin manages to be freed from this mental control, he can seek out atonement to get his powers restored.Why can't he just get his powers back when he stops being controlled? I'd imagine omnipotence would make that a little easy.
Omnipotence is the GM. Gods are not Omnipotent in Pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The paladin in question is still Lawful Good. Did not willfully commit an evil act, did not show disrespect for authority, act with dishonor (failing a Will save is not a dishonorable act), did not refuse to help those in need, and did not refuse to punish those who harm innocents.
There was nothing done by the paladin that broke the code.
Another way to look at the code is like this; It is there to prevent Paladin powers from being misused.
Well the code is actually there because its a holdover from previous editions. Paladins used to be a sort of Fighter+, but that ended in 3rd. Its there for legacy rather than balance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The paladin in question is still Lawful Good. Did not willfully commit an evil act, did not show disrespect for authority, act with dishonor (failing a Will save is not a dishonorable act), did not refuse to help those in need, and did not refuse to punish those who harm innocents.
There was nothing done by the paladin that broke the code.
You forgot about the Code's hidden line:
"Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents. Finally, your GM will have a single, specific, unalterable, invariable idea of how a paladin must be played to maintain his powers, to which you must adhere."
It astonishes me how many people constantly miss that line.
The paladin in question is still Lawful Good. Did not willfully commit an evil act, did not show disrespect for authority, act with dishonor (failing a Will save is not a dishonorable act), did not refuse to help those in need, and did not refuse to punish those who harm innocents.
There was nothing done by the paladin that broke the code.
Yeah, by this point we've firmly established that personal opinion gets caught up in this entirely too much.
You're not wrong. But neither is someone who says that killing an innocent, for any reason, is too bad to allow a paladin to remain all supercharged.
Therein lies the rub. Because a player could feel one way, and the DM the other way... and both aren't wrong.
The paladin in question is still Lawful Good. Did not willfully commit an evil act, did not show disrespect for authority, act with dishonor (failing a Will save is not a dishonorable act), did not refuse to help those in need, and did not refuse to punish those who harm innocents.
There was nothing done by the paladin that broke the code.
Killing an unarmed defenseless child is not dishonorable? OK you are free to believe that.
The paladin in question is still Lawful Good. Did not willfully commit an evil act, did not show disrespect for authority, act with dishonor (failing a Will save is not a dishonorable act), did not refuse to help those in need, and did not refuse to punish those who harm innocents.
There was nothing done by the paladin that broke the code.
Killing an innocent is dishonorable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Killing an innocent is dishonorable.The paladin in question is still Lawful Good. Did not willfully commit an evil act, did not show disrespect for authority, act with dishonor (failing a Will save is not a dishonorable act), did not refuse to help those in need, and did not refuse to punish those who harm innocents.
There was nothing done by the paladin that broke the code.
Losing a will save is dishonorable. Honor is one of those weird things that happens to be entirely subjective. Failing a diplomacy or other skill check could be dishonorable even!
Therein lies the rub. Because a player could feel one way, and the DM the other way... and both aren't wrong.
True. The "ect" in honorable really pisses me off. They specify that using poison makes you fall, but what about sneak attack?
Also what is respect legitimate authority? Is it always obey the law or is it MLK's spending-your-night in jail after civil disobedience? What's the difference between legitimate and not legitimate authority?
Punishing those who harm innocents can mean anything. Do you now have the authority to be judge jury executioner? Does it have to be an appropriate punishment or can you just slap a person on the wrist?
What happens when you turn in a crook and he gets away free do to corrupt courts? The wrong doer was not punished, but are you still expected to respect the authority of the court that said he did no wrong?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Losing a will save is dishonorable. Honor is one of those weird things that happens to be entirely subjective.Killing an innocent is dishonorable.The paladin in question is still Lawful Good. Did not willfully commit an evil act, did not show disrespect for authority, act with dishonor (failing a Will save is not a dishonorable act), did not refuse to help those in need, and did not refuse to punish those who harm innocents.
There was nothing done by the paladin that broke the code.
So your argument is that you feel that killing an innocent is in some cases an honorable thing to do?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Killing an innocent is dishonorable.The paladin in question is still Lawful Good. Did not willfully commit an evil act, did not show disrespect for authority, act with dishonor (failing a Will save is not a dishonorable act), did not refuse to help those in need, and did not refuse to punish those who harm innocents.
There was nothing done by the paladin that broke the code.
The paladin didn't kill an innocent. The spellcaster who cast Confusion killed the innocent.
So your argument is that you feel that killing an innocent is in some cases an honorable thing to do?
Just because its not honorable doesn't make it dishonorable. I'd say its not honorable, but at the same time I wouldn't say its dishonorable while your under mental control. Circumstances make a large difference, and again, subjective subject matter.
Killing an innocent is dishonorable.The paladin in question is still Lawful Good. Did not willfully commit an evil act, did not show disrespect for authority, act with dishonor (failing a Will save is not a dishonorable act), did not refuse to help those in need, and did not refuse to punish those who harm innocents.
There was nothing done by the paladin that broke the code.
The paladin didn't kill an innocent. The spellcaster who cast Confusion killed the innocent.
This is just false, the spellcaster used his magic to force the paladin to do the act. just because someone was forced to do something does not mean they did not do it. Not being a willing participant does not void the need of an atonement spell, this is covered under the atonement spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Killing an unarmed defenseless child is not dishonorable? OK you are free to believe that.The paladin in question is still Lawful Good. Did not willfully commit an evil act, did not show disrespect for authority, act with dishonor (failing a Will save is not a dishonorable act), did not refuse to help those in need, and did not refuse to punish those who harm innocents.
There was nothing done by the paladin that broke the code.
And of course, take away the confusion spell and the child would never have died. So did the Paladin kill the child or the Confusion spell?
Again. There are two sides to this for the most part. Those who think the Paladin should fall for actions beyond his control, and those who don't.
In regards to Vampire control, I believe the MrSin has the right way of it. I like the idea of the power of the Paladin being unusable by evil and as soon as he breaks free, he regains them accompanied by a beam of light and a chorus of angels.
So your argument is that you feel that killing an innocent is in some cases an honorable thing to do?Just because its not honorable doesn't make it dishonorable. I'd say its not honorable, but at the same time I wouldn't say its dishonorable while your under mental control. Circumstances make a large difference, and again, subjective subject matter.
Well put. Thanks for the more coherent explanation.
Killing an innocent is dishonorable.The paladin in question is still Lawful Good. Did not willfully commit an evil act, did not show disrespect for authority, act with dishonor (failing a Will save is not a dishonorable act), did not refuse to help those in need, and did not refuse to punish those who harm innocents.
There was nothing done by the paladin that broke the code.
The paladin didn't kill an innocent. The spellcaster who cast Confusion killed the innocent.
So, should a pally be dominated and sent out to kill all the peasants, he will ravage the land with all of his powers and full support from his God?
K. If that is how you want to look at it.
Killing an innocent is dishonorable.The paladin in question is still Lawful Good. Did not willfully commit an evil act, did not show disrespect for authority, act with dishonor (failing a Will save is not a dishonorable act), did not refuse to help those in need, and did not refuse to punish those who harm innocents.
There was nothing done by the paladin that broke the code.
The paladin didn't kill an innocent. The spellcaster who cast Confusion killed the innocent.
So, should a pally be dominated and sent out to kill all the peasants, he will ravage the land with all of his powers and full support from his God?
K. If that is how you want to look at it.
Never said any of that. Don't know why you think I did.
This is just false, the spellcaster used his magic to force the paladin to do the act. just because someone was forced to do something does not mean they did not do it. Not being a willing participant does not void the need of an atonement spell, this is covered under the atonement spell.Killing an innocent is dishonorable.The paladin in question is still Lawful Good. Did not willfully commit an evil act, did not show disrespect for authority, act with dishonor (failing a Will save is not a dishonorable act), did not refuse to help those in need, and did not refuse to punish those who harm innocents.
There was nothing done by the paladin that broke the code.
The paladin didn't kill an innocent. The spellcaster who cast Confusion killed the innocent.
How is it just false? Spellcaster caused the child to die. Without the spellcaster, the child would not have died.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Should the Paladin Fall?
Nope. Not a “fall” action, under someone else control.
Read Zenith’s link and line one is “If you did not warn him, he should not fall. This is the most important rule.” Basically, the way to handle this is simple. Every Paladin needs a Phylactery of Faithfulness. If you have the Phylactery warn him, and he still does it- then, and only then is there a “fall” issue.
How is it just false? Spellcaster caused the child to die. Without the spellcaster, the child would not have died.This is just false, the spellcaster used his magic to force the paladin to do the act. just because someone was forced to do something does not mean they did not do it. Not being a willing participant does not void the need of an atonement spell, this is covered under the atonement spell.Killing an innocent is dishonorable.The paladin in question is still Lawful Good. Did not willfully commit an evil act, did not show disrespect for authority, act with dishonor (failing a Will save is not a dishonorable act), did not refuse to help those in need, and did not refuse to punish those who harm innocents.
There was nothing done by the paladin that broke the code.
The paladin didn't kill an innocent. The spellcaster who cast Confusion killed the innocent.
yes the spellcaster caused the child to die, AND the paladin killed the child. These facts are not exclusive. by your logic the spellcaster isn't at fault, it's whoever taught him magic.
Just curious: Has anyone reading this thread been moved from their original position/perspective?
I doubt it.
SOS
yes the spellcaster caused the child to die, AND the paladin killed the child. These facts are not exclusive. by your logic the spellcaster isn't at fault, it's whoever taught him magic.How is it just false? Spellcaster caused the child to die. Without the spellcaster, the child would not have died.This is just false, the spellcaster used his magic to force the paladin to do the act. just because someone was forced to do something does not mean they did not do it. Not being a willing participant does not void the need of an atonement spell, this is covered under the atonement spell.Killing an innocent is dishonorable.The paladin in question is still Lawful Good. Did not willfully commit an evil act, did not show disrespect for authority, act with dishonor (failing a Will save is not a dishonorable act), did not refuse to help those in need, and did not refuse to punish those who harm innocents.
There was nothing done by the paladin that broke the code.
The paladin didn't kill an innocent. The spellcaster who cast Confusion killed the innocent.
Sure why not. I'm sure when a rash young wizard summons a horrible demon, I'm sure his Master gets a lot of fallout for it.
The point is that the Spellcaster is ultimately to blame. Yes the Spellcaster is mostly at fault because they had the choice and deliberately caused it to happen. The Paladin had no such ability. He was completely helpless to prevent it from happening.
yes the spellcaster caused the child to die, AND the paladin killed the child. These facts are not exclusive. by your logic the spellcaster isn't at fault, it's whoever taught him magic.How is it just false? Spellcaster caused the child to die. Without the spellcaster, the child would not have died.This is just false, the spellcaster used his magic to force the paladin to do the act. just because someone was forced to do something does not mean they did not do it. Not being a willing participant does not void the need of an atonement spell, this is covered under the atonement spell.Killing an innocent is dishonorable.The paladin in question is still Lawful Good. Did not willfully commit an evil act, did not show disrespect for authority, act with dishonor (failing a Will save is not a dishonorable act), did not refuse to help those in need, and did not refuse to punish those who harm innocents.
There was nothing done by the paladin that broke the code.
The paladin didn't kill an innocent. The spellcaster who cast Confusion killed the innocent.
Sure why not. I'm sure when a rash young wizard summons a horrible demon, I'm sure his Master gets a lot of fallout for it.
The point is that the Spellcaster is ultimately to blame. Yes the Spellcaster is mostly at fault because they had the choice and deliberately caused it to happen. The Paladin had no such ability. He was completely helpless to prevent it from happening.
yes the paladin was unwilling, that was never in question.
And what does he get because he was unwilling, he doesn't have to pay for the atonement spell. THAT is what he gets because he was unwilling as per the atonement spell. Basically he just has to say he's sorry and mean it and he can go on his merry way.
To clarify, If being unwilling meant you didn't need an atonement spell, it wouldn't specifically point out in the atonement spell that they can get it cast for free if they were unwilling, it would simply state it wasn't needed.
Just curious: Has anyone reading this thread been moved from their original position/perspective?
Of course not. This is the gamer equivalent to talking about religion. CAPS LOCK AND BOLD MAKES ME MORE RIGHT!
When all else fails drag the opposing viewpoint into a corner case and beat it up.
Killing an unarmed defenseless child is not dishonorable? OK you are free to believe that.The paladin in question is still Lawful Good. Did not willfully commit an evil act, did not show disrespect for authority, act with dishonor (failing a Will save is not a dishonorable act), did not refuse to help those in need, and did not refuse to punish those who harm innocents.
There was nothing done by the paladin that broke the code.
And of course, take away the confusion spell and the child would never have died. So did the Paladin kill the child or the Confusion spell?
Again. There are two sides to this for the most part. Those who think the Paladin should fall for actions beyond his control, and those who don't.
In regards to Vampire control, I believe the MrSin has the right way of it. I like the idea of the power of the Paladin being unusable by evil and as soon as he breaks free, he regains them accompanied by a beam of light and a chorus of angels.
Stop making the 'taking away' argument. It is a bad, bad argument.
Taking away the paladin would have stopped the paladin from killing the kid.
Taking away the kid would have stopped the paladin from killing the kid.
Taking away the sword would have stopped the paladin from cutting the child in half with the sword.
So??
He still did it. And you can remove any part to make the whole thing not happen. But all parts where there, and it DID happen.
Edit:I don't mean to say you're wrong about what is ultimately responsible. But the 'taking away' logic allows us to blame the kid for the whole mess if we want to. It is just a bad argument.
To clarify, If being unwilling meant you didn't need an atonement spell, it wouldn't specifically point out in the atonement spell that they can get it cast for free if they were unwilling, it would simply state it wasn't needed.
You are really caught up in the Atonement spell huh?
Alright then. Try this one.
Restore Class: A paladin, or other class, who has lost her class features due to violating the alignment restrictions of her class may have her class features restored by this spell.
So Atonement doesn't actually restore the Paladin's powers since its the Code of Conduct that was broken.
The Paladin permanently loses his powers.
EDIT: This is probably also a good rules question to see if it was intended to be this way. RAW its right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He still did it. And you can remove any part to make the whole thing not happen. But all parts where there, and it DID happen.
I don't see it as the paladin doing anything. His corpse was a puppet in the moment. The player had no control nor did the character. The character did nothing. Now that corpse did. That make sense? in an awkward fashion at least?
Stop making the 'taking away' argument. It is a bad, bad argument.
Taking away the paladin would have stopped the paladin from killing the kid.
Taking away the kid would have stopped the paladin from killing the kid.
Taking away the sword would have stopped the paladin from cutting the child in half with the sword.
So??
He still did it. And you can remove any part to make the whole thing not happen. But all parts where there, and it DID happen.
Take Away the Paladin and the entire town may have just been destroyed. -_-
Context woo! The Kid isn't take away-able. Neither is the Sword since it's part of the Paladin's gear. Replace the Paladin and the kid still dies. The case is even worse when you consider a scenario with a Sorcerer who can either confuse the Paladin and have him kill the kid, or if the Paladin isn't there, just kills the kid. For the exact same resources.
He still did it. And you can remove any part to make the whole thing not happen. But all parts where there, and it DID happen.I don't see it as the paladin doing anything. His corpse was a puppet in the moment. The player had no control nor did the character. The character did nothing. Now that corpse did. That make sense? in an awkward fashion at least?
Confusion doesn't kill people, animate their body, control the undead corpse, run out of duration, kill the undead form, and resurrect them.
Killing a child by choice is dishonorable. Killing a child under the control of a spell is not dishonorable - as volition is necessary for honor to come into play.
So the 'honor clause' in the code was not broken. And thus no portions of the code were broken.
QED
"ATONEMENT
School abjuration; Level cleric 5, druid 5
Casting Time 1 hour
Components V, S, M (burning incense), F (a set of prayer beads or other prayer device worth at least 500 gp), DF
Range touch
Target living creature touched
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes
This spell removes the burden of misdeeds from the subject. The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds. If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you. However, in the case of a creature atoning for deliberate misdeeds, you must intercede with your deity (requiring you to expend 2,500 gp in rare incense and offerings). Atonement may be cast for one of several purposes, depending on the version selected.
Reverse Magical Alignment Change: If a creature has had its alignment magically changed, atonement returns its alignment to its original status at no additional cost.
Restore Class: A paladin, or other class, who has lost her class features due to violating the alignment restrictions of her class may have her class features restored by this spell.
Restore Cleric or Druid Spell Powers: A cleric or druid who has lost the ability to cast spells by incurring the anger of her deity may regain that ability by seeking atonement from another cleric of the same deity or another druid. If the transgression was intentional, the casting cleric must expend 2,500 gp in rare incense and offerings for her god's intercession.
Redemption or Temptation: You may cast this spell upon a creature of an opposing alignment in order to offer it a chance to change its alignment to match yours. The prospective subject must be present for the entire casting process. Upon completion of the spell, the subject freely chooses whether it retains its original alignment or acquiesces to your offer and changes to your alignment. No duress, compulsion, or magical influence can force the subject to take advantage of the opportunity offered if it is unwilling to abandon its old alignment. This use of the spell does not work on outsiders or any creature incapable of changing its alignment naturally.
Though the spell description refers to evil acts, atonement can be used on any creature that has performed acts against its alignment, regardless of the actual alignment in question.
Note: Normally, changing alignment is up to the player. This use of atonement offers a method for a character to change his or her alignment drastically, suddenly, and definitively."
That's a fun little note for GMs who like tell people what their alignment is.