I currently run a homebrew campaign with 6 PCs, one of which is a paladin. The main goal of the campaign is to travel to the center of an area of magical corruption and try to put a stop to it. Nobody knows what causes the corruption, and it is spreading quickly.
In their endless quest to completely ignore the main plotline, they managed to go on a plane-hopping adventure.
So, here's the problem. During this plane hopping escapade I thought it would be fun to have the party approached by a deal-making demon. He asked if anyone interested in making a deal please enter his tent. The demon's intent was to slowly steer the party towards the center of the corruption, because he too had a vested interest in it being stopped (More on that later). Now, I was hoping that one of the neutral characters would be interested, and if all else fails the LE Gunslinger might be game... but I was wrong.
The paladin stepped up.
The paladin entered the demon's tent, arms crossed and head full of "I'm so g&@#%@n good there's no way this demon can pull one over on me"-ness and asked what the demon wanted. The demon simply said he wanted to show the paladin something, and that all he required was that the paladin place his hands on the same table the demon was. The paladin obliged. The demon showed him a battle that would take place in the future and how to stop it. But that wasn't all he did.
Now the paladin sees "Holy" golden light on areas and people of interest, actually caused by the demon, whom the paladin allowed into his mind.
So the question is this, should the paladin fall for making a deal with a demon? One of the main reasons I'm leaning towards yes is that one of his god's things is: "never associates or parleys with evil gods or fiends."
I know that this particular scenario doesn't exactly follow the rules listed here because I didn't warn him that "Hey by the way making deals with the devil is like, not a good thing to do, or smart either." But at what point am I holding his hand?
So, should the paladin fall?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. Having a conversation under parley is not "associating" with evil and is not forbidden by the code. Even working with the the demon as an ally is acceptable in order to defeat a greater evil.
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.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Paladin didn't let the demon into his mind. He just put his hands on the same table. You're the one homebrewing a no-save permanent mind-affecting ability without giving any indication that it's what you're doing, so far as I can tell. If Paladins fall for something like this, demons would run around giving good advice that a Paladin couldn't follow now.
Now, in this case his deity says their Paladins can't even talk to a demon. That's kind of a nuisance roleplay-wise. In any case, give a warning or something. As a GM, it is trivially easy to make a Paladin fall if you want, so it's probably best to let players know when they're about to do something fall-worthy.
As a GM, it is trivially easy to make a Paladin fall if you want
Unless it's "the paladin falls because I say so", there hardly is a "no win" scenario, the paladin code have some failsafes in it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like the paladin is pursuing a LG quest to stop the corruption. If his god supports this quest, he should either adjust the magic of the demon to benefit the paladin from being negatively affected by it, or remove it. The paladin is using all of his abilities and is even willing to consider whether the aid of a devil might be of benefit in completing his mission.
Personally, I would have his god applaud him, or at the very least, send a messenger to gently chide him for stepping over a line, even in for the cause, depending on how you view it.
Otherwise, what QuidEST said, if you are going to homebrew something majorly mind affecting on a paladin, at least give him a chance by informing him of your view on devil consorting. Remember most gods, even those of paladins, are not absolutist jerks with a zero tolerance policy. They are divine beings who have a use for their earthly instruments and therefore would want to protect and guide them, otherwise why bother to grant them holy powers in the first place?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see any type of deal in the description you've given. Who is the god in question? I haven't seen the restriction "never associates or parleys with evil gods or fiends." associated with any of the Golarion dieties, so a homebrew?
Even based on that restriction I would be hard pressed to describe the events you describe as "associating", and the "parley" aspect would suggest some sort of attempt to negotiate a deal, which I don't see.
I think I would describe the events as "communicating with" or "receiving information from" a demon, and don't view either as a breach, either of the guidelines thread you cited or the deity-specific rule you gave.
I would say no, especially without warning. I'd also think that belonging to a party that includes a LE gunslinger is a bigger issue.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reposting because it's always relevant.
In other news, what your proposing (making the paladin fall for something he could not have know the ramifications of besides casually associating with the demon; which isn't forbidden by the paladin paladin) will only serve to promote an idea that the paladin should smite first and kill all suspected evil first without asking questions.
What did you expect to happen with a paladin in the party? He was either going to kill it or proceed amicably with it, and it's honestly much more interesting to have the paladin be willing to associate with evil because it might save the world than to just have him kill off everything that is evil.
If you made him fall you would basically just be promoting the lawful good stick up the ass stereotype of paladins.
Is there a good reason why the Paladin isn't trying to kill a demon who's clearly trying to lure his allies into demonic pacts?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there a good reason why the Paladin isn't trying to kill a demon who's clearly trying to lure his allies into demonic pacts?
I can think of a couple. Warning it of the reprecussions. Testing his purity against it to get information without anyone damning themselves. Really, just because you're a paladin doesn't mean you're an idiot (Unless you choose to dump Intelligence like I do.)
|
To the OP: No..but
This is the essence of temptation - which is something that paladins will deal with all their lives. I would say that there needs to be a trade off or cause - effect for the paladin to fall. Knowing whats going to happen is one thing - trying to act upon it (benefit from or change the course) is another. Also, I am assuming that the paladin cannot outright kill the demon so he is "forced" to talk to it, otherwise he should have put it to the sword or died trying.
----------------------
So in your example - say the paladin does stop the battle - something else terrible should then happen because of the change in what was fated to happen (a bunch of other innocents die due to the fight not occurring, or a greater evil happens).
Also, if the golden light is something that the paladin doesn't question (without praying to his god for guidance, or asking his god if this is his will) and keeps following those directive - yeah, he will eventually do something that will cause him to fall.
Directly communicating with a great evil on its own, even breaking a tenant of his orders faith - no.
I would think that the tenant is their for a reason - and is not just a blind rule without thought placed into it. Let me expand: it's there to protect the weaker members of the faith for the purpose of protecting them from falling to temptation.
Right now the pally's biggest sin is his arrogance in thinking he could interact with evil without it casting a shadow on his soul - there have been many characters from faith who broke the rules and dealt directly with evil - but these were powerful fellows - exemplars in their faith. The pally being a PC can conceivably be (or is on the path to) being an epic, divine character that can deal with evil without falling to it.
----
The pally may need to be taught a lesson in humility and consequence of letting evil in the door - fall, as of right now - no.
Continue to manipulate him into unquestioningly following this miraculous golden light that is never wrong - he will do something that should make him fall and when it does happen the player himself will have an "aw s!!!, I really screwed up moment".
He can be deceived, he can be manipulated - but when it happens (if he doesn't question it) and the consequences of his arrogance is revealed - the player should know that he messed up, bad.
All that being said - where is his god on giving him a "sign" in all of this?
The classic case of divine and demonic/infernal confusion is an interesting conflict in gaming - that requires the divine to step in at one one point - something you haven't indicated in your OP. The pally's god is not going to lose one of his servants due to his servants arrogance or mistake - this is one of his divine champions and the god should be trying to "break" through to him.
Anyway
To the OP: No..but
This is the essence of temptation - which is something that paladins will deal with all their lives. I would say that there needs to be a trade off or cause - effect for the paladin to fall. Knowing whats going to happen is one thing - trying to act upon it (benefit from or change the course) is another. Also, I am assuming that the paladin cannot outright kill the demon so he is "forced" to talk to it, otherwise he should have put it to the sword or died trying.
----------------------
So in your example - say the paladin does stop the battle - something else terrible should then happen because of the change in what was fated to happen (a bunch of other innocents die due to the fight not occurring, or a greater evil happens).
Also, if the golden light is something that the paladin doesn't question (without praying to his god for guidance, or asking his god if this is his will) and keeps following those directive - yeah, he will eventually do something that will cause him to fall.Directly communicating with a great evil on its own, even breaking a tenant of his orders faith - no.
I would think that the tenant is their for a reason - and is not just a blind rule without thought placed into it. Let me expand: it's there to protect the weaker members of the faith for the purpose of protecting them from falling to temptation.Right now the pally's biggest sin is his arrogance in thinking he could interact with evil without it casting a shadow on his soul - there have been many characters from faith who broke the rules and dealt directly with evil - but these were powerful fellows - exemplars in their faith. The pally being a PC can conceivably be (or is on the path to) being an epic, divine character that can deal with evil without falling to it.
----
The pally may need to be taught a lesson in humility and consequence of letting evil in the door - fall, as of right now - no.
Continue to manipulate him into unquestioningly following this miraculous golden light...
Hey, thanks for being one of the few people in this thread who was actually helpful and not a dick. I will use this advice
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, so you're one of those people. For the record, when you come to the advice forum, it's best to actually sort of keep an open mind. Otherwise you end up seeming rather rude, like you are now. You essentially just told most of the people who did not agree with you that they were... Well, dicks. That kind of attitude is going to be... Less than fun in a few posts.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems the question has been asked and answered. Let's not let another "falling paladin" thread get out of hand.
Yes, the paladin should fall, always the paladin should fall,
Ashes Ashes all the paladins fall down!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MuHaHa.
Now go discuss some meaningful rules crap........
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you make him fall over this, then I would say that demon negotiated more fairly with the paladin than the GM negotiated with the paladin's player.
In other words, the paladin's fall won't be due to in-game demonic betrayal but to metagame GM-betrayal of that player.
Why?
He did what any paladin should do. "Hey, here's a demon. We can kill it now but it might have info. Of course, you can't trust anything it says but we can later verify any interesting intel we get. So killing it automatically might be a mistake. Let's at least see what it wants before I begin Smiting. Oh, it wants one of us to enter its tent? That sounds dangerous. I better go because I'm way better equipped to survive any demonic treachery and smite this evil fiend if this is a trap of some kind; I wouldn't want my companions in danger and I wouldn't trust that dodgy gunslinger to do the talking for us anyway."
Perfectly awesome paladin roleplaying there.
I suggest just backing off of the "One of my players is playing a paladin so it's my job as GM to make him fall at the slightest provocation" mentality. It's not good roleplaying, it's not good GMing, and it's not being a good friend.
If you just can't resist making a paladin fall, discuss it with the player FIRST, way in advance. Tell him "Hey, I like making paladins fall. I think it's good tragedy and makes for some good drama when the paladin seeks atonement and redemption. Would you mind if I work this into the story for your paladin?"
If he says yes, you're golden. If he says no, he'd rather not go down that path, then just don't do it. Ever.
It's as easy as that.
|
|
This is a charged subject for everyone - I was 'tempted" to just avoid it due to the history associated with the subject - so MPCCS don't make the mistake that people are mad at you - they've just done this dance several times and are bringing their own views and experiences to the forum.
Also when you see a comment like what Cavall posted (which I flagged for being abusive) it may charge you up and make you see red all over in all the other critical posts - lumping them all together. I don't think the other posters here were being particularly antagonistic towards you - its a tough subject and people bring their own experiences.
Mourge - your comments were spot on, you summed up a few of my paragraphs with a single word I was looking for - Purity.
We don't need to fight guys - really, DMs being in a hyper-minority in the world the last thing we need is going at each other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems the OP has been answered in satisfaction. I implore the community to let this thread die now.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see a deal here. "What do you want? " "I just want to show you something" that's not a deal that's show and tell.
The devil can't throw in unforseen amendments. That's not even close to how a devil works.
To answer your question, you are being a dick..
This is a charged subject for everyone - I was 'tempted" to just avoid it due to the history associated with the subject - so MPCCS don't make the mistake that people are mad at you - they've just done this dance several times and are bringing their own views and experiences to the forum.
Also when you see a comment like what Cavall posted (which I flagged for being abusive) it may charge you up and make you see red all over in all the other critical posts - lumping them all together. I don't think the other posters here were being particularly antagonistic towards you - its a tough subject and people bring their own experiences.
Mourge - your comments were spot on, you summed up a few of my paragraphs with a single word I was looking for - Purity.
We don't need to fight guys - really, DMs being in a hyper-minority in the world the last thing we need is going at each other.
How in is it abusive to answer the question "Am I being a dick" with the response "you are being a dick". It is ridiculous and oversensitive in my opinion for any one to think this is abusive.
Everyone needs to take a stinking chill pill, maybe myself included.
|
|
How in is it abusive to answer the question "Am I being a dick" with the response "you are being a dick". It is ridiculous and oversensitive in my opinion for any one to think this is abusive.
You are correct. I didn't catch that in the title till after I flagged the post. Personally I don't think there's a need for that kind of response to drive a point home but that's just me.
That being said, I think we are done here.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In their endless quest to completely ignore the main plotline, they managed to go on a plane-hopping adventure.
So, here's the problem. During this plane hopping escapade I thought it would be fun to have the party approached by a deal-making demon. He asked if anyone interested in making a deal please enter his tent. The demon's intent was to slowly steer the party towards the center of the corruption, because he too had a vested interest in it being stopped (More on that later). Now, I was hoping that one of the neutral characters would be interested, and if all else fails the LE Gunslinger might be game... but I was wrong.
The paladin stepped up.
So... you present an opportunity for the PCs to get back on the main plot of the campaign rather than continually side-track and you're contemplating penalizing the PC who actually took up that opportunity? Why would you discourage them that way?
Now the paladin sees "Holy" golden light on areas and people of interest, actually caused by the demon, whom the paladin allowed into his mind.
So the question is this, should the paladin fall for making a deal with a demon? One of the main reasons I'm leaning towards yes is that one of his god's things is: "never associates or parleys with evil gods or fiends."
OK, so the demon is peddling a skewed view of things. Is the paladin appropriately skeptical? Are you giving him his chances at sense motive to notice any tells that may indicate the demon is stretching the truth?
I think a significant problem in this is the absoluteness of the god's ethos to never associate or parley with evil gods or fiends. You're just setting up for trouble and it screws over opportunities that you're setting up in this whole situation - ways for PCs to get useful information from evil sources because various good and evil factions' interests align on a greater issue. If you want to persist in this case then the mistake of presenting a demon with this information was absolutely your mistake because you presented something the party could not parley or associate with.
So, should the paladin fall?
Heck no.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
#49395484
Based on the information provided in the OP, I'd say "no". These are not grounds for falling. I think you'll have to trick him into doing something evil in one way or another for that to happen. You can however do some interesting things like having minor demons come to help the paladin to see how he would respond.
You can trick him into killing an evil person who is really good or something like that. That said, you shouldn't be trying to make him fall, but if his actions and the storyline call for it, then make it so.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tricking a paladin into doing something that turns out to be evil doesn't actually make him fall.
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description in Spell Lists), as appropriate.
1: obstinately and often perversely self-willed <a stubborn and willful child>
2: done deliberately : intentional <willful disobedience>
Being tricked into doing something evil is not doing something deliberately and intentionally evil.
A paladin should feel bad about it, he should probably seek to correct whatever he did. He should have sincere regret about whatever injustice resulted from his acts, but he should not fall. Now, if the paladin doesn't feel regret about the problems his actions caused, that might be the beginning to a road on which the paladin falls. But either way the paladin should still have his powers.
GM falls, not the Paladin. Be a better GM, read the actual Paladin code. At most your Paladin may need an atonement spell to keep things kosher, but he absolutely does not fall.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, the Paladin should not fall.
There was no deal.
There was no "letting him into his mind".
There was no evil deed being done.
He did not "associate or parley" with the fiend. He just talked.
Much as many others here: I see no wrongdoing on the part of the Paladin. The player did nothing blatantly evil or outside of his code as written in the core book.
I'd say that as a G.M. you should establish in advance the particulars of your expectations that reach beyond the strictures written in the rule book. Read "house rules". To have a conversation with an evil outsider for the purpose of information gathering for the furtherance of Good and reaching the ultimate goal isn't an intentionally evil or chaotic act in my opinion. He's not in league with the demon. If he willingly gave over his mind; that's something entirely different. He simply placed his hands upon a table and questioned a creature for information.
I'd also question my GM should he attempt a "jedi mind trick" such as the one you put on his p.c. with- no written rule allowing such, no idea of the consequences involved, no p.c. knowledge of the creatures intent to take over his mind or posses his soul, and no saving throw to prevent it.
I wonder at why you as the GM appear to be setting the p.c. on the road to ruin with a opportunity to return to his quest and are simply bypassing his free will by saying "The demon enters your mind" and then blaming him for allowing it to take place. He put his hands on a table not pledged his soul for trading information, nor did he invite demonic possession.
Sadly:I see this as a betrayal of trust between a player and his Game master. I am uncertain if this was intentional or if your intent is to ruin the Paladin in question. I think you as his GM should rectify this situation and refrain from such conduct in the future as a sign of renewed commitment to mutual trust. In my view: you removed his agency from the situation with this scenario and are asking if you should further penalize him by convicting him of a moral failure because it happened. This is your doing, your encounter, your narrative ( a railroad to possession), and it was your choice to make him submit to the infiltration of his mind. The responsibility falls on you.
This Paladin should not fall.
I currently run a homebrew campaign ...
{PC converses with a demon that is a GM plot device}"
well now... it's a home game, and I summarized above.
I don't see anywhere where an actual "deal" was offered and consented to, thus your second question is pre-emptive as nothing has happened yet.Your first question is also pre-emptive as you haven't done anything yet.
so, let's carry on with the general advice as to what's going on and what to do.
Your players have seized the initiative and are leading the plot and you are just reacting. Thus you will always be behind and have to make spur of the moment plot decisions. It's not a bad thing. You just have to work with what you have and learn how to manage the game. So don't get too stuck on details as that will slow you down. You need to think about several plot options and where/when things happen as that will spur on your players. They will react to what info you give them.
Realize the rules are there to help you and guide you, not to put you in a box. That doesn't mean you should break them without thinking about the consequences, and there will be consequences.
Now, on the paladin, (voice of Sir Robyn about to answer 3 questions at the Bridge of Death) that's easy! Read his deities description, his alignment, and the domains. Imagine you are his god. How do you feel about this. What did it do for you in the long run? Are you going to get more worshippers out of it? more respect for other deities or worshippers? Did he make you look bad? React accordingly and within the style of that deity. Some of the worse penance you can hand out is to have the player write a 500 word essay about how what he did was good or bad for his deity, and then how he will atone... lol... yes - homework... everyone hates it.
There are various methods to lay out plot and chart where the drama will go. A simple thing is to say what is the worse possible thing that can happen... and then do that. It's high drama so you might not want THAT much conflict going on all the time, but it can be pivotal.
"well, you have to know these things when you are king you know"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Threads like this are why I would never play a paladin.
He associates with a LE gunslinger and is possibly letting innocent people be injured by procrastinating.
He should fall.
He shouldn't fall because some demon zapped him with a no save illusion.
While it's certainly heading towards sketchy territory, associating with evil characters isn't an automatic fall. The Paladin should try to avoid it, but so long as there is a good reason to continue the association, there isn't any problem (the reason will usually be some form of "work with lesser evil to defeat greater evil")
Threads like this are why I would never play a paladin.For me it's just a lesson/reminder to minimize my posting here.
Lol that too!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I have learned about the forums here... (threads, whatever) is that if it involves asking if a Paladin should fall...
The answer is almost always no.
Also, I should ignore the thread from then on, because usually people are just looking for support for forcing a Paladin to fall.
Ugh.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I currently run a homebrew campaign with 6 PCs, one of which is a paladin. The main goal of the campaign is to travel to the center of an area of magical corruption and try to put a stop to it. Nobody knows what causes the corruption, and it is spreading quickly.
In their endless quest to completely ignore the main plotline, they managed to go on a plane-hopping adventure.
So, here's the problem. During this plane hopping escapade I thought it would be fun to have the party approached by a deal-making demon. He asked if anyone interested in making a deal please enter his tent. The demon's intent was to slowly steer the party towards the center of the corruption, because he too had a vested interest in it being stopped (More on that later). Now, I was hoping that one of the neutral characters would be interested, and if all else fails the LE Gunslinger might be game... but I was wrong.
The paladin stepped up.
The paladin entered the demon's tent, arms crossed and head full of "I'm so g@&&~!n good there's no way this demon can pull one over on me"-ness and asked what the demon wanted. The demon simply said he wanted to show the paladin something, and that all he required was that the paladin place his hands on the same table the demon was. The paladin obliged. The demon showed him a battle that would take place in the future and how to stop it. But that wasn't all he did.
Now the paladin sees "Holy" golden light on areas and people of interest, actually caused by the demon, whom the paladin allowed into his mind.
So the question is this, should the paladin fall for making a deal with a demon? One of the main reasons I'm leaning towards yes is that one of his god's things is: "never associates or parleys with evil gods or fiends."
I know that this particular scenario doesn't exactly follow the rules listed here because I didn't warn him that "Hey by the way making deals with the devil is like, not a good thing to do,...
I would think the paladin(character) would know he was breaking a rule, just like a wizard knows a spell is touch, even if the player thinks it is ranged touch and calls for that spell. As the GM I would let him know what I counted as "associating". Another issue is that you will create a "kill first, dont ask questions" type of paladin, and they may end up killing an evil being who is actually useful, such as this demon.
Due to the strict nature of the pally's deity, inviting the demon to adventure with the party might be an issue, but having a conversation should not be an issue.
However if you had a much more strict interpretation in mind, like I said, let the player know. Otherwise it seems like a "gotcha" situation.