| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Never make a paladin fall unles you provide explicit warning to the player of the consequences of their potential actions before they are actually carried out.
For what it's worth, Torag the Lawful Good Dwarven god actually doesn't allow for the surrender of "their people's enemies". He gets pissed off if you let the bad guy live.
So in short...I'm sorry but you handled this incorrectly.
As to what happens when a paladin falls...they retain the paladin class but do not have access to any of their class features. They can retrain existing levels if they desire. If they level they cannot take more levels in paladin. This effectively makes the a warrior (the NPC class) of equivalent level as they only have BAB and saves from their paladin levels while fallen.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A paladin while fallen is a fallen paladin, which has no abilities. That is why atonement is "so cheap" because a paladin has nothing really while fallen. If you want an atonement arc, they are an NPC warrior for the duration. They don't get alternate abilities while fallen. And making them a different class doesn't make sense. Oh I fell and now I'm better at something else for awhile.
Well, as you said, his rage was somehow justified, so no need for an epic atonement for a lesser fault.
If the Paladin really repents, as the atonement calls, it must be enough.
Another case is when the Paladin does not repent, and works willingly against his deity laws. Or does an evil act with the intention of doing evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Never make a paladin fall unles you provide explicit warning to the player of the consequences of their potential actions before they are actually carried out.
For what it's worth, Torag the Lawful Good Dwarven god actually doesn't allow for the surrender of "their people's enemies". He gets pissed off if you let the bad guy live.
So in short...I'm sorry but you handled this incorrectly.
As to what happens when a paladin falls...they retain the paladin class but do not have access to any of their class features. They can retrain existing levels if they desire. If they level they cannot take more levels in paladin. This effectively makes the a warrior (the NPC class) of equivalent level as they only have BAB and saves from their paladin levels while fallen.
While I agree on the Torag bit (seriously, how are dwarves and gods like that 'LG'?), lets assume this was with a god that was more love and forgiveness (like Sarenrae).
Personally, I find that the paladin's actions were out of line. She let a prisoner goad her into committing a crime. The guy had surrendered, his means of resistance were likely taken, and the party would likely soon hand him over to the proper authorities (which likely means noose). By all rights, he likely did not have the means to actually act out any of those threats. It was lip service from a loser with anger issues.
So the fact that she let her anger get the better of her, and that she did so in a lethal manner (why not just punch his teeth in so he can shut hit rat mouth better?)... yeah, good reason to fall. That was poor judgment, and likely something you should focus on with this little quest. She has shown that you can be taunted into ignoring her duties, and as such she had to responsibilities taken from her before she could mess up something critical. She needs to prove that she has realized this mistake, and that she will exercise more discretion in the future.
Funny story about that, happened to my first character ever way back in 3.0. I was a paladin and had the tough choice of going into a tower located on the 9th level of Hell. The only creatures allowed inside where of Lawful Good alignment, meaning I was the only one out of the whole group that could go in.
I battled alone all the way to the very top, solving puzzles and slaying nasty guardians along the way all under the pretense trying to save the world from preventing the Nine Hells from escaping. Finally, I reached the top and found a massive gem sitting alone on a pedestal. I knew that this was what I had came for so I removed it. Immediately, I was given the vision of Asmodeous himself laughing in glee and watched in horror as he murdered my deity before my very eyes. I immediately lost my powers afterwards.
Needless to say, I was pissed. The DM really had to work to calm me down, assuring me that it was all part of the plot. We ended up taking a couple weeks off because of such a huge event. It also alloted me the time to think of what direction my character would take with this. Ultimately, I came to a conclusion that he simply couldn't give up the fight, letting evil win.
I RP'ed it so that my character did fall into a terrible depression. He took some time to enter a reflective state, thus he became a monk. It was a natural progression of everything that happened. Ultimately, the GM allowed me to blend certain class abilities together. As the story progressed, some of my "lost" paladin abilities started coming back. In the end, that character ascended to Celestia to replace the fallen patron. It was a tough campaign, but it made me glad to stick it out until the very end. The story was completely worth it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since both the player and GM seem to be ok with the paladin having fallen for her acts people need to let go of the issue of whether the paladin should have fallen. I know everyone’s first instinct is to get into a paladin should/should not fall argument, but that is not what the original poster is asking.
It also seems that both the player and GM want to have this be more than just find a 9th level cleric and pay the fine. As a condition of casting the Atonement the cleric could require the paladin to complete a quest. Failure to complete the quest would cause her to fall all over again and make it even harder to regain her paladin status. Once the Atonement is cast the paladin would again be a full paladin. Abounding the quest would break the paladin’s code in so many ways it is not funny.
Another way to do it would be to have her earn back her class abilities. In order to regain smite evil she may need to defeat an evil opponent by herself. To regain lay on hands she may need have to fight to defend someone with little or no defenses knowing she is going to get hurt.
If you really want to test the paladin setup the quest, but also setup a situation where the paladin is faced with a choice between completing the quest and doing what is right. If the paladin does what is right thinking that she is going to permanently lose her paladinhood, she proved she is worthy of it and regains her abilities.
Seems to me the worst you could do in the scope of the rules is charge them 2,500 gp....but to tell you the truth I think I would make the cost lvl dependent as a high lvl pally really should know better.
IMO, letting individual players have their own story arcs are a fantastic thing to do from time to time. It really gets the players into the game.
Of course, from my perspective it goes unsaid but is understood that everyone gets their own arc.
Anyway, we're not here to talk about paladin falls. The issue in this thread isn't to let storyist know that him and his paladin player are Doing It Wrong.
We're here to talk about what class a paladin can play that isn't just some dud while he's working for atonement.
Personally, I say give him the fighter class features but retain his skill list. Once he goes atones, he loses his Bonus feats, Bravery(lol) and Training, and gains paladin abilities instead.
Problem solved.
The other guys do have a point that you should weigh whether your non-paladin players are up to spending some time playing "paladin redemption". Subjecting them to unwanted hours upon hours of AHM RIGHTEOUS' being a special snowflake is bad form. If they think it's fun, or at least merited, great. Otherwise, there's an atonement spell right over there, get on with it.
I haven't read all posts and this may have been said, but...
I was very surprised that Pathfinder had made the process as easy as having a cleric cast an atonement spell.
I think the problem is on how you read that.
Not that the devs aren't at fault for writing (or copy/pasting) it just like that, and this is one of the reasons why I'd like to see more game-improving stuff in every new Pathfinder book, rather than just additional unnecessary character options.But anyway, it says "use Atonement" and you read "hey, let's get to the nearest temple, pay some money and everything's alright again". No. Totally no, unless you're playing an imaginary videogame rather than a role-playing game.
First, a Cleric who can cast Atonement (9th level or higher), like any character of equivalent level, doesn't hide beneath just any pebble. Finding one can already be a quest by itself. More so if you're looking for one of a friendly faith, rather than one of any faith. Even more if it has to be exactly your faith. Maybe you can only find one by following rumors of an old hermit living on a mountain, for example.
But even assuming that such NPC is the PC's uncle and will come running as soon as you call him with your Whispering-Wind-Cellphone, unless he's an idiot he'll require proof of good will from his subject (the ex-Paladin), and that may be another quest.
So, the quest ("epic" can depend on personal views) is already there, basically, if the world has any consistency and doesn't work like a videogame.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So here's the part that I need advise on - what "Class" does she become while she's atoning? I don't want to leave here without any abilities because I'm not sure if that's fair. When I played D&D, a paladin would become a fighter of equal level while she was atoning for her actions. Pathfinder doesn't do that. The paladin is still Lawful Good - she simply broke one tenet of her god's code - so she's not an anti-paladin. And I can't find a class that would be suitable for her to play while not a Paladin. Does anyone out there know of a class, official or not, that I could use until she became a paladin again?
Honestly, a Paladin without powers... is still KINDA awesome. Full BAB, Good Saves, Weapons/Armor/Shield....
I think it would be a disservice to allow the paladin to just 'respec' for the game if the goal is indeed to get her powers back
On the same note, as DM... you should push this to the front of the campaign. Don't make the player got months upon months without her powers... but give her a quest or something that involves clearing out a small dungeon of undead without her smites or heals and have the character REALLY appreciate how much she misses her god's favor....
This is frankly an awesome opportunity. If you switch to fighter or Ranger... there's frankly too much paperwork and they may actually like the new class better and be ticked when those feats/abilities leave... So basically, WHAT is the point here? If you want her to do a quest and get her powers back... then do it.
Make the quest hurt a bit, but don't make it TOO impossible.
Never make a paladin fall unles you provide explicit warning to the player of the consequences of their potential actions before they are actually carried out.
For what it's worth, Torag the Lawful Good Dwarven god actually doesn't allow for the surrender of "their people's enemies". He gets pissed off if you let the bad guy live.
So in short...I'm sorry but you handled this incorrectly.
As to what happens when a paladin falls...they retain the paladin class but do not have access to any of their class features. They can retrain existing levels if they desire. If they level they cannot take more levels in paladin. This effectively makes the a warrior (the NPC class) of equivalent level as they only have BAB and saves from their paladin levels while fallen.
If the player is having fun, then he didn't handle it incorrectly. It's completely up to him how trigger-happy the paladin's deity is on the 'Fall' button.
The paladin is severely handicapped while fallen. You should consider her basically a level below other party members; two if above 10th level. A quest to recover her powers is a good idea but it should be achievable and sensible, and ideally related to the event that caused the fall. Maybe find a way to bring the slain person back to life? This could be easy if they're high level, but more difficult if they're low level.
And this is why playing paladins is a total nightmare with half of all GMs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is a Paladin.
The Paladin would find a priest of their faith and confess their transgression. Priest makes wise words and meditates on the issue for a day.
Have the priest request a service of the Paladin. If the Paladin agrees, the priest casts the atonement (for the normal donation amount to the church) and then gives the task they want completed.
Since it is a Paladin, the priest would just accept their word that they will do it. No need for any magical enforcement.
If the God is displeased, they can show it by withholding the spells. As the Paladin shows their continued commitment, the god resumes giving spells. Assuming they did not choose one of the non-spellcasting archetypes, this somewhat reduces the Paladin's power without totally gimping them.
My advice would have been different if the GM and player were not both looking for an atonement quest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could try having another deity approach the paladin?
I like this one the best personally. Have a cleric of a god more...compatible...with the paladin's ethos approach the paladin and offer to help them regain their powers but in the service of a diety with a more...grimdark...view on Lawful Good.
You could try having another deity approach the paladin?
"I can feel your anger. It give you focus... makes you stronger."
-Supreme Chancellor Palpatine...what? You never said it was going to be a good deity. Also, this is a legitimate method of giving a face to the problem that caused this fall.
Have a literal devil on your paladin's shoulder (whether he wears a tacked on halo is another story). Have them 'advise' your paladin, and try to lead them down an increasingly disturbing path that goes away from his quest of redemption. Define the qualities you want by defining the opposite.
If the player is having fun, then he didn't handle it incorrectly. It's completely up to him how trigger-happy the paladin's deity is on the 'Fall' button.The paladin is severely handicapped while fallen. You should consider her basically a level below other party members; two if above 10th level. A quest to recover her powers is a good idea but it should be achievable and sensible, and ideally related to the event that caused the fall. Maybe find a way to bring the slain person back to life? This could be easy if they're high level, but more difficult if they're low level.
A 'bit' handicapped perhaps... but I don't agree with it being THAT bad.
They still have the best BAB in the game. And they have {what looks like) second best Saves... even without the Divine Grace. AC doesn't change. Smite Evil only worked on 4 baddies a day, and in Pathfinder a LOT of your powers come from magic gear... Spells? Mine rarely casts them, that standard action is too valuable to play buffer... I have a few favorites, but I've never run out on an adventuring day yet...
Depending on what kind of quest or mission the paladin goes on, they may not even really notice the 'loss of level' Especially if they have a Rogue or sorcerer or fighter or pretty much anyone really... They're still competitive and going to be swinging harder and hitting more often then other classes would. Rangers and Barbarians that are full powered would suddenly outshine him as front fighter... but otherwise??? He's pretty much still the man.
For that matter they HAVE level drain monsters in these games, and those can be down right CRIPPLING....
One of my personal favorite 'instant quests' would be for the church to need his help protecting a noble from point A to Point B... Make it as dangerous or not as you like... but it's something that he didn't really plan on doing, and he doesn't get paid for it.
COmplete your mission, get back to the campaign....
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's see:
Components V, S, M (burning incense), F (a set of prayer beads or other prayer device worth at least 500 gp), DF
Ok, so the priest listens to his story and then pats him on the shoulder "no worries son, we can fix this in no time - all I need is some incense" -the paladin sets off to get some from the market, but there is none to be found. Turns out there are bandits in the region and caravans are being waylaid. "If only somone would find their stronghold and bring them to justice!" -a nearby townsperson says.
After the deed is done and maybe it turned out to be more complicated the paladin returns to the kindly old priest "ah you foubd some incense, good boy. Now all I need are my prayer beads ... where did I put them? Oh, I remember: I must have left them up on the shrine on the mountain" the priest points out the window st a massive mountain. "But the going is rough and there are stories of bad things going on there, are you sure you want to go ALL they way up there? We coild just forget about it?"
The former paladin looks out the window, then at the priest -who raises an eyebrow, and then at his hands ....
After a long time he mumbles "Right then ..." and leaves towards the mountain.
As the former paladin sets out towards the dragons' mountain with his friends the priest waches them go with a worried expression "God be with you, son."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When paladin fall she does not turn into other class, she just full BAB class with good Fort and Will saves and martial weapon proficiency.
To restore power she need level 9 cleric of her deity, who will most likely not gonna cast atonement on everyone who asks and will require her to prove that she really "atones" (most likely thru some quests). From what i understand the hardship that paladin goes thru without his abilities is kind of a test - if paladin still determined to be paladin even without his powers then get them back.
Or at least this is how i rule it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I generally don´t like the idea of characters having to pay for atonement - it smacks too much of indulgence selling. It makes some sense in case the cleric or paladin fell because of avarice, but overall I´d prefer a test instead. Chances are a cleric of that high level that s/he´s able to cast that spell should have a good enough connection with The Big Guy/Gal/Idea that they would not know how to get their attention.
I wonder if this whole encounter will teach the paladin player that there is a thing called nonlethal damage, particularly when you want to deck someone without killing them. Perhaps the OP could spring a bar fight on the party afterwards, mentioning that drawing real weapons there is generally a problem?
Gods have nothing to do with Paladins. You don't answer to some imperfect immortal in the clouds. Your business is between you and the cosmic forces of Good and Law.
The cleric to cast the spell is hidden in the mountains surrounded by giants and monsters and even a tribe of crazed barbarians/cannibals. Have them interact with the tribe and show that they are vicious and cruel. Once the party finds the cleric in a remote temple in the mountains, have him greet them and welcome them but then have a tribesman or tribesman child stumble upon the temple servely cursed and in massive pain. Have the cleric look at the curse and sayhe cannot get rid of it but it coukd "transfer" the curse to someone else. If the expaladin accepts, the paladin is redeemed for their selfless and caring act and the curse is lifted. Have it implied without lying that the cleric couldnt cure it but actually could and this was a test that the deity pulled to test the paladin as the deity has already given the cleric a heads up the paladin was on their way there and their purpose.
|
So, I need some advise. I am DMing a long running Pathfinder campaign set in my own world. Recently, I used the actions of the paladin in my group to strip away her paladin powers because she upset her patron god - in a fit of rage, she killed a enemy that had surrendered. Her actions were completely in character and made sense in the moment - the enemy had been taunting her with what he would do to her son.
When she killed him, I jumped on the opportunity and relieved her of paladin abilities, without reading the rules for how to atone. After the game (which is now on break for the holidays), I got together with the paladin and we looked up what would come next. I was very surprised that Pathfinder had made the process as easy as having a cleric cast an atonement spell.
After talking it out, we decided that this wouldn't do. The paladin wanted to make it an epic arc for her character as she came to terms with what she thought was right verses what her patron God thought was right. We even discussed several options for her character.
So here's the part that I need advise on - what "Class" does she become while she's atoning? I don't want to leave here without any abilities because I'm not sure if that's fair. When I played D&D, a paladin would become a fighter of equal level while she was atoning for her actions. Pathfinder doesn't do that. The paladin is still Lawful Good - she simply broke one tenet of her god's code - so she's not an anti-paladin. And I can't find a class that would be suitable for her to play while not a Paladin. Does anyone out there know of a class, official or not, that I could use until she became a paladin again?
She is a warrior without the bonus feats. No change required. A fallen Paladin is still a viable martial character (who should invest in some healing potions).
If she stays fallen for awhile, use it as an opportunity to multi-class into something else. Otherwise continue your redemption arc as you said.
Another alternative to your arc - Champions who are true believers aren't easy to come by. Perhaps another Deity or his followers will court the Paladin who is more in line with the Paladins belief systems. Maybe evil/chaotic deities may do the same thinking she can be turned to the Anti-paladin side. Although doubtful she would take it, the temptations she avoids may make her redemption all the much sweeter.
Perhaps it is a new deity that can only grant minor spells thus far due to minimal followers. Although lacking in the power department, she can champion the faith and bring the "light/justice/faith/teachings of <insert deity name> into the world" whose powers grow as believers are converted. Since your player seems onboard with the RP element more than then quick fix, you can use the opportunity to tell a unique story.
Going to agree with several people that this is a valid fall: if the paladin's code (which the GM says there was, specific to the deity) says "mercy to surrendered foes" then the player was all sorts of warned about a code violation. And went ahead anyway.
I'm also going to agree with everyone saying "don't just let them pay cash" for atonement. Especially if the player wants their own arc based around actual atonement. I suppose that if the player just said "I can't be arsed with that, I want to just pay and be done", then I'd allow it, but this is an opportunity for story, with willing player participation!
I think I'd try to come up with a plotline wherein the paladin actually atones for their sin - actively doing something to compensate for killing the guy.
This is an absolutely perfect paladin roleplaying opportunity.
Edit: oh, and yes, nothing is gained during the fall. HD, BAB, Base Saves, Feats, and Skills are all that's left.
Going to agree with several people that this is a valid fall: if the paladin's code (which the GM says there was, specific to the deity) says "mercy to surrendered foes" then the player was all sorts of warned about a code violation. And went ahead anyway.
The OP didn't say whether or not mercy was specified in this paladin's code. Or if they did I missed it.
If their god was a god of mercy like Sarenrae, then yes the paladin acted out of accordance with their deity. And I could see Sarenrae temporarily removing the paladin's powers and sending them on a quest related to mercy.
In general, killing a defenseless captive does run counter most interpretations of LG as alignment and good in general. Killing someone because of your momentary desires generally tends to be in the province of the evil alignments -if nothing else it does not speak well of the character´s impulse control.
I mean, we aren´t talking about swearing at the guy, slapping his face or any other "normal" reaction to a taunt. The image I got was that the paladin drew a weapon and murdered a prisoner for taunting her, and that is the sort of behavior I tend to associate with the villainous crowd.
You could try having another deity approach the paladin?I like this one the best personally. Have a cleric of a god more...compatible...with the paladin's ethos approach the paladin and offer to help them regain their powers but in the service of a diety with a more...grimdark...view on Lawful Good.
I like this idea, too. The OP said the paladin is still lawful good (one mistake does not change your alignment), and you could easily argue that the paladin was protecting her family by the killing the bad guy. ("You know I own the judge, right? I'll never go to prison, and the next time you're off slaying a monster, I'll torture your child to death! Ha-ha, go ahead, turn me in! I'll still win." hm.... sounds like I need to defend an innocent, here--not much different than killing a cowed goblin because you know he'll start mayhem again the second you turn your back. )
Read that way, if I were the paladin, I would be really pissed at my deity for pulling my powers. Even if the deity only did it temporarily, I would be dusting off the old resume and posting it on Heroes.com.
Going to agree with several people that this is a valid fall: if the paladin's code (which the GM says there was, specific to the deity) says "mercy to surrendered foes" then the player was all sorts of warned about a code violation. And went ahead anyway.The OP didn't say whether or not mercy was specified in this paladin's code. Or if they did I missed it.
If their god was a god of mercy like Sarenrae, then yes the paladin acted out of accordance with their deity. And I could see Sarenrae temporarily removing the paladin's powers and sending them on a quest related to mercy.
It's a bit broken up in the OP, and not outright stated, but...
in a fit of rage, she killed a enemy that had surrendered. Her actions were completely in character and made sense in the moment [...] The paladin wanted to make it an epic arc for her character as she came to terms with what she thought was right verses [sic] what her patron God thought was right. [...] The paladin is still Lawful Good - she simply broke one tenet of her god's code [...].
So, the paladin thought that killing a surrendered enemy was just, but her God disagreed, and it is noted that she broke one tenet of her god's code. Since the only action we're aware of is killing a surrendered enemy, it stands to reason that this is the tenet she broke. Not killing a surrendered enemy is also called mercy. So I short-handed it to "show mercy".
In general, killing a defenseless captive does run counter most interpretations of LG as alignment and good in general. Killing someone because of your momentary desires generally tends to be in the province of the evil alignments -if nothing else it does not speak well of the character´s impulse control.
I mean, we aren´t talking about swearing at the guy, slapping his face or any other "normal" reaction to a taunt. The image I got was that the paladin drew a weapon and murdered a prisoner for taunting her, and that is the sort of behavior I tend to associate with the villainous crowd.
At the very least, CG inquisitors that are really pushing a line as antiheroes.
Just remember as a good general rule: WWBD?
What wold Batman do?
It's a bit broken up in the OP, and not outright stated, but...
in a fit of rage, she killed a enemy that had surrendered. Her actions were completely in character and made sense in the moment [...] The paladin wanted to make it an epic arc for her character as she came to terms with what she thought was right verses [sic] what her patron God thought was right. [...] The paladin is still Lawful Good - she simply broke one tenet of her god's code [...].So, the paladin thought that killing a surrendered enemy was just, but her God disagreed, and it is noted that she broke one tenet of her god's code. Since the only action we're aware of is killing a surrendered enemy, it stands to reason that this is the tenet she broke. Not killing a surrendered enemy is also called mercy. So I short-handed it to "show mercy".
Alright fair enough. I missed that line.
However, the important question is did the player know this in advance? Was he was warned about the paladin character's deity's code?
While lawful good deities aren't going to encourage slaughter, killing a surrendered evil enemy isn't necessarily unlawful or un-goodly. See Good is Not Nice and Good is Not Soft.
If the player wasn't aware of this specific tenet before, then I would still call this unfair. If he knew and decided to proceed anyway then it is fair, and the paladin has fallen.
Injure the prisoner such that he was crippled for life and his remaining years would be worse than simply dying and knowing peace and freedom from pain? No wait, that's Frank Miller's Batman, you're probably thinking DCAU Batman.Just remember as a good general rule: WWBD?
What wold Batman do?
Either seems fine. No one ever said lawful good was nice.
That actually sounds like it would have been a better solution to this whole 'prisoner making death threats' thing. It might be rather hard for the prisoner to escape and go after the paladin's kid if he doesn't have kneecaps. It even seems like it would fit into a Torag paladin's 'mess with me and get wrecked' policy. And Sarenrae, while she is big on kindness and second chances, I say this guy should get a second chance with a desk job while in a wheelchair. So there are a lot of creative interpretations for many paladin codes with that.
So yes, WWBD?
I have to say, that without a warning every time it can be easy to forget some things.
No paladin I have ever played has hesitated to kill a surrendered enemy that was still a potential threat. Evil men will use surrender as a means to later catch the party off guard and kill them or escape. My view on evil, especially the kind the threatens kids, is to exterminate it. It is irresponsible to leave people like that alive. Of course, this is just my personal view point. But that doesn't make it evil or necessarily unlawful (remember lawful doesn't mean you follow the laws of a country necessarily).
Your paladin player may have a similar view point.
I would ask you player if they were actually okay with falling or not? Did the player go through with the action knowing that the character would fall? Or did they forget and get caught up in the moment?
Falling should be a decision the player makes, not the GM.*
*Unless a player is warned and decides to act anyways and refuses to accept their fallen status. But then you have a problem player, and this is really a different issue.
I have to say, that without a warning every time it can be easy to forget some things.
No paladin I have ever played has hesitated to kill a surrendered enemy that was still a potential threat. Evil men will use surrender as a means to later catch the party off guard and kill them or escape. My view on evil, especially the kind the threatens kids, is to exterminate it. It is irresponsible to leave people like that alive. Of course, this is just my personal view point. But that doesn't make it evil or necessarily unlawful (remember lawful doesn't mean you follow the laws of a country necessarily).
Your paladin player may have a similar view point.
I would ask you player if they were actually okay with falling or not? Did the player go through with the action knowing that the character would fall? Or did they forget and get caught up in the moment?
Falling should be a decision the player makes, not the GM.*
*Unless a player is warned and decides to act anyways and refuses to accept their fallen status. But then you have a problem player, and this is really a different issue.
And that is how we differ, I suppose. Personally, when I see how great paladins are at tanking, I think "Hmmm...I want to go talk to those nice giants to see if they are friendly. I mean, I can handle it if the answer is 'no'."
I am not lawful stupid here though. In the whole 'diplomat' role above, I would also take on the role of 'decoy' while everyone else goes around and uses ready actions to 'shoot anything that goes for good-two-shoes'.
I will agree that morality can allow the refusal to take prisoners. Our justice system is built around an extremely strong, fast responding police prescience with access to cars (so they can get there in 'minutes' rather than 'hours'). In the more feudal system with a lack of centralized government and oversight outside of the cities... yeah, justice gets a bit dicier. So handling prisoners can be a danger and a hassle (particularly for adventurers). But eh, it depends on the paladin order, I suppose (breaking your order's vows seems like it can also cause falling).
Also, I never said prisoners need kneecaps. Or unbroken arms. That takes care of problems, and you can leave it to the clerics in town to sort out the details later.
"The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds."
So it isn't quite as simple as break the law, pay a fine. How one demonstrates true repentance, and setting right the misdeeds can vary, but in general some sort of service or quest is appropriate. In mythology, whatever the ostensible purpose of a quest is, its true function is usually the transformation of the questor. The heroic journey.
By the rules, a Paladin that falls looses everything and become pretty much a warrior of the same level. However, I don't see anything wrong with a partial fall in which you let the Paladin keep some features. For example, you could nix the spell casting, lay on hands, and smite but keep the saving throw bonus, divine bond etc. The God is all about mercy after all, showing a little to the poor Paladin might be in good taste.
I have to say, that without a warning every time it can be easy to forget some things.
No paladin I have ever played has hesitated to kill a surrendered enemy that was still a potential threat. Evil men will use surrender as a means to later catch the party off guard and kill them or escape. My view on evil, especially the kind the threatens kids, is to exterminate it. It is irresponsible to leave people like that alive. Of course, this is just my personal view point. But that doesn't make it evil or necessarily unlawful (remember lawful doesn't mean you follow the laws of a country necessarily).
Your paladin player may have a similar view point.
I would ask you player if they were actually okay with falling or not? Did the player go through with the action knowing that the character would fall? Or did they forget and get caught up in the moment?
Falling should be a decision the player makes, not the GM.*
*Unless a player is warned and decides to act anyways and refuses to accept their fallen status. But then you have a problem player, and this is really a different issue.
And that is how we differ, I suppose. Personally, when I see how great paladins are at tanking, I think "Hmmm...I want to go talk to those nice giants to see if they are friendly. I mean, I can handle it if the answer is 'no'."
I am not lawful stupid here though. In the whole 'diplomat' role above, I would also take on the role of 'decoy' while everyone else goes around and uses ready actions to 'shoot anything that goes for good-two-shoes'.
I will agree that morality can allow the refusal to take prisoners. Our justice system is built around an extremely strong, fast responding police prescience with access to cars (so they can get there in 'minutes' rather than 'hours'). In the more feudal system with a lack of centralized government and oversight outside of the cities... yeah, justice gets a bit dicier. So handling prisoners can be a danger and a hassle (particularly for adventurers)....
And it's fine, nay excellent to have these different styles of Paladins. As long as we can agree that a place exist for both and that neither is breaking any part of the paladin code, excepting perhaps specific codes for specific deities.
I have to say, that without a warning every time it can be easy to forget some things.
No paladin I have ever played has hesitated to kill a surrendered enemy that was still a potential threat. Evil men will use surrender as a means to later catch the party off guard and kill them or escape. My view on evil, especially the kind the threatens kids, is to exterminate it. It is irresponsible to leave people like that alive. Of course, this is just my personal view point. But that doesn't make it evil or necessarily unlawful (remember lawful doesn't mean you follow the laws of a country necessarily).
Your paladin player may have a similar view point.
I would ask you player if they were actually okay with falling or not? Did the player go through with the action knowing that the character would fall? Or did they forget and get caught up in the moment?
Falling should be a decision the player makes, not the GM.*
*Unless a player is warned and decides to act anyways and refuses to accept their fallen status. But then you have a problem player, and this is really a different issue.
You know, I've always found the idea of a paladin that kills evil creatures and then considers this an absolutely good action a tad disturbing. Much like cutting the hand off of a thief to show his crime, I think killing should be something to do for lack of a better alternative, not the stock response of someone who's described as a beacon of good and justice. I mean, what the hell?
Then again, it's very rare that I believe a campaign is suited to having a paladin pc in it.
Not to mention my brain just tried to transplant that view of evil to the minds of people in the real world. *shudders* Not pretty.
You know, I've always found the idea of a paladin that kills evil creatures and then considers this an absolutely good action a tad disturbing. Much like cutting the hand off of a thief to show his crime, I think killing should be something to do for lack of a better alternative, not the stock response of someone who's described as a beacon of good and justice. I mean, what the hell?
Then again, it's very rare that I believe a campaign is suited to having a paladin pc in it.
Not to mention my brain just tried to transplant that view of evil to the minds of people in the real world. *shudders* Not pretty.
I think the hand cutting thing might not be that bad. I seem to remember magic that can fix that (although I might be remembering some 3rd party stuff involving clockpunk prosthetics)
I think the hand cutting thing might not be that bad. I seem to remember magic that can fix that (although I might be remembering some 3rd party stuff involving clockpunk prosthetics)You know, I've always found the idea of a paladin that kills evil creatures and then considers this an absolutely good action a tad disturbing. Much like cutting the hand off of a thief to show his crime, I think killing should be something to do for lack of a better alternative, not the stock response of someone who's described as a beacon of good and justice. I mean, what the hell?
Then again, it's very rare that I believe a campaign is suited to having a paladin pc in it.
Not to mention my brain just tried to transplant that view of evil to the minds of people in the real world. *shudders* Not pretty.
It's bad if you're a thief, though. Magic is for rich people. But yes, cutting off someone's limb is less bad if there's ready access to healing magic. Now it's only bad for the value of pain you inflict+the temporary inconvenience imposed on the transgressor.
It's bad if you're a thief, though. Magic is for rich people. But yes, cutting off someone's limb is less bad if there's ready access to healing magic. Now it's only bad for the value of pain you inflict+the temporary inconvenience imposed on the transgressor.I think the hand cutting thing might not be that bad. I seem to remember magic that can fix that (although I might be remembering some 3rd party stuff involving clockpunk prosthetics)You know, I've always found the idea of a paladin that kills evil creatures and then considers this an absolutely good action a tad disturbing. Much like cutting the hand off of a thief to show his crime, I think killing should be something to do for lack of a better alternative, not the stock response of someone who's described as a beacon of good and justice. I mean, what the hell?
Then again, it's very rare that I believe a campaign is suited to having a paladin pc in it.
Not to mention my brain just tried to transplant that view of evil to the minds of people in the real world. *shudders* Not pretty.
Pain, inconvenience and a hefty fine sounds like suitable punishment.
Pain, inconvenience and a hefty fine sounds like suitable punishment.It's bad if you're a thief, though. Magic is for rich people. But yes, cutting off someone's limb is less bad if there's ready access to healing magic. Now it's only bad for the value of pain you inflict+the temporary inconvenience imposed on the transgressor.I think the hand cutting thing might not be that bad. I seem to remember magic that can fix that (although I might be remembering some 3rd party stuff involving clockpunk prosthetics)You know, I've always found the idea of a paladin that kills evil creatures and then considers this an absolutely good action a tad disturbing. Much like cutting the hand off of a thief to show his crime, I think killing should be something to do for lack of a better alternative, not the stock response of someone who's described as a beacon of good and justice. I mean, what the hell?
Then again, it's very rare that I believe a campaign is suited to having a paladin pc in it.
Not to mention my brain just tried to transplant that view of evil to the minds of people in the real world. *shudders* Not pretty.
Aye, and it's probably the best thing to do in the circumstances, in order to have society keep running without prisons.
But as I'm not sold on the point that cutting off a thief's hand is a good act, so do I not see that killing creatures that plan to do evil is a good act.
It might be the best thing to do given the circumstances. But least evil=/=good.
I have to say, that without a warning every time it can be easy to forget some things.
No paladin I have ever played has hesitated to kill a surrendered enemy that was still a potential threat. Evil men will use surrender as a means to later catch the party off guard and kill them or escape. My view on evil, especially the kind the threatens kids, is to exterminate it. It is irresponsible to leave people like that alive. Of course, this is just my personal view point. But that doesn't make it evil or necessarily unlawful (remember lawful doesn't mean you follow the laws of a country necessarily).
Your paladin player may have a similar view point.
I would ask you player if they were actually okay with falling or not? Did the player go through with the action knowing that the character would fall? Or did they forget and get caught up in the moment?
Falling should be a decision the player makes, not the GM.*
*Unless a player is warned and decides to act anyways and refuses to accept their fallen status. But then you have a problem player, and this is really a different issue.
You know, I've always found the idea of a paladin that kills evil creatures and then considers this an absolutely good action a tad disturbing. Much like cutting the hand off of a thief to show his crime, I think killing should be something to do for lack of a better alternative, not the stock response of someone who's described as a beacon of good and justice. I mean, what the hell?
Then again, it's very rare that I believe a campaign is suited to having a paladin pc in it.
Not to mention my brain just tried to transplant that view of evil to the minds of people in the real world. *shudders* Not pretty.
If you're not willing to accept the basic premise of this game that killing evil is good (or at the very least not evil) then you are playing a drastically different game than most of us.
Because the base assumption is that players will find evil creatures, kill them, and take their stuff. And they're lauded as heroes for doing so.
|
You know, I've always found the idea of a paladin that kills evil creatures and then considers this an absolutely good action a tad disturbing. Much like cutting the hand off of a thief to show his crime, I think killing should be something to do for lack of a better alternative, not the stock response of someone who's described as a beacon of good and justice. I mean, what the hell?
Killing isn't a Good action. Basically ever. What it's also not is an Evil action...when you're doing it in self-defense or the defense of others, or to punish serious wrongdoing, or under several other circumstances. And Paladins are hardly required to only ever perform Good actions.
Paladins should definitely try for non-violent solutions when it is possible and just to do so...but let's be honest, when Goblins attack the town you're in and start killing folks, the time for nonviolent solutions may be past. PCs wind up in situations like this quite a lot, and indeed, IME, are rarely the aggressors against those they fight, at least not in a military sense (ie: if they go attack the kobolds, it's because the kobolds have been attacking the villages nearby, if not the PCs personally).
So...yeah, killing isn't actively Good, it's just sometimes necessary, and Paladins are those empowered to defend the innocent and punish the guilty when such acts are necessary.
Pain, inconvenience and a hefty fine sounds like suitable punishment.I think the hand cutting thing might not be that bad. I seem to remember magic that can fix that (although I might be remembering some 3rd party stuff involving clockpunk prosthetics)It's bad if you're a thief, though. Magic is for rich people. But yes, cutting off someone's limb is less bad if there's ready access to healing magic. Now it's only bad for the value of pain you inflict+the temporary inconvenience imposed on the transgressor.Aye, and it's probably the best thing to do in the circumstances, in order to have society keep running without prisons.
But as I'm not sold on the point that cutting off a thief's hand is a good act, so do I not see that killing creatures that plan to do evil is a good act.
It might be the best thing to do given the circumstances. But least evil=/=good.
Admittedly, I was still thinking of the hand cutting in terms of 'how to keep prisoners from plotting while on the road'. Basically, it is a great alternative to kneecaps, since people need that for marching back to town.
Given that the loose legal system of most of the outlying areas, I think killing captured bandits is somewhat acceptable (since they are outlaws and continued threats to your safety). So temporary amputation can be seen as a more human alternative... in comparison.
I have to say, that without a warning every time it can be easy to forget some things.
No paladin I have ever played has hesitated to kill a surrendered enemy that was still a potential threat. Evil men will use surrender as a means to later catch the party off guard and kill them or escape. My view on evil, especially the kind the threatens kids, is to exterminate it. It is irresponsible to leave people like that alive. Of course, this is just my personal view point. But that doesn't make it evil or necessarily unlawful (remember lawful doesn't mean you follow the laws of a country necessarily).
Your paladin player may have a similar view point.
I would ask you player if they were actually okay with falling or not? Did the player go through with the action knowing that the character would fall? Or did they forget and get caught up in the moment?
Falling should be a decision the player makes, not the GM.*
*Unless a player is warned and decides to act anyways and refuses to accept their fallen status. But then you have a problem player, and this is really a different issue.
You know, I've always found the idea of a paladin that kills evil creatures and then considers this an absolutely good action a tad disturbing. Much like cutting the hand off of a thief to show his crime, I think killing should be something to do for lack of a better alternative, not the stock response of someone who's described as a beacon of good and justice. I mean, what the hell?
Then again, it's very rare that I believe a campaign is suited to having a paladin pc in it.
Not to mention my brain just tried to transplant that view of evil to the minds of people in the real world. *shudders* Not pretty.
It gets very difficult when you try to apply real-modern-world morality to a fantasy setting.
When you have a world with sentient creatures that are literally evil by nature, killing them becomes an absolute good. In the modern world, the only known sentient creatures are human, and they don't have any innate "alignment" or natural predisposition towards evil. In our world, we expect that evil-doers can be rehabilitated, and we have a large social infrastructure dedicated to that goal (well, in theory, anyway).
When you have a clan of goblins attacking a town of 200 people with no sheriff, judge, jail, or mental hospital, your options are a lot more limited.
As a GM, you can add the whole "nature vs. nurture" argument to your world (e.g., is it possible to raise a baby goblin to be a productive member of society?), but in the Golarion world as written, nature comes first.*
In that world, you can try to negotiate with the goblins, but the odds are really, really high that they will stab you in the back the second they get the chance, or they'll just wait until you leave and start attacking the town again. Maybe they're just pure chaotic and pure evil, maybe they just have such a short attention span they forgot they agreed to a treaty, but sooner or later, people are going to start dying again.
Is it "good" in this case to try to negotiate, knowing full well that you will never actually succeed? Or is it better to prevent people from suffering at the hands of an irredeemable enemy? ("Now kobolds, you can bargain with kobolds, but goblins, they's just plain mean.")
*There have been some pretty interesting experiments with people raising wolf cubs as dogs or baby chimps with infant humans. In these experiments, the "wild" always takes over as the animal approaches maturity. In one "chimps and babies" example, the human toddler started acting more like a chimp. Fun stuff.