When does this paladin fall?


Advice

51 to 96 of 96 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

cuatroespada wrote:
at least according to you. as far as reality is concerned, unless you are rendered incapable of acting, inaction is just as much a choice as action.

At least according to you. Not picking a side or letting one side win (thus favouring one side) are not the same thing according to many.


Rub-Eta wrote:
cuatroespada wrote:
at least according to you. as far as reality is concerned, unless you are rendered incapable of acting, inaction is just as much a choice as action.
At least according to you. Not picking a side or letting one side win (thus favouring one side) are not the same thing according to many.

which changes nothing about whether or not inaction is a choice. it is. i admitted that its debatable whether or not that choice is morally reprehensible.

Sovereign Court

Xuldarinar wrote:
Since I did not address this earlier, I should do so now; This is all strictly hypothetical.

If I punch my paladin player in the face until he says that his paladin commits an evil act - does the character fall?

(This is strictly hypothetical.)


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Xuldarinar wrote:
Since I did not address this earlier, I should do so now; This is all strictly hypothetical.

If I punch my paladin player in the face until he says that his paladin commits an evil act - does the character fall?

(This is strictly hypothetical.)

if i go out of my way to be a jerk about things i could ignore, does my paladin fall?

(hypothetically of course)

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Stuff like the trolley problem and other classic ethical dilemmas are, I think, best handled very carefully. These are things on which real-world philosophers can disagree at length, all with extensive logical arguments. It seems unfair to me for a GM to say a paladin falls if the ethical issue at hand is so tangled or difficult that the GM and player(s) can't agree by who is in the right.

Instead, I'd say focus on intentions. Was the paladin trying to do the right thing, but maybe with faulty understanding of the situation (someone is trying to trick him)? Then it doesn't seem like willingly committing evil acts, since the paladin wanted to do good things.

I also don't think the first sign a paladin is straying should be him falling. Even if he doesn't follow a deity, there are quite a few deities and whole species of Good outsiders whose job descriptions include preventing good people from straying. Paladins are sufficiently rare and special that most of them probably get the occasional "checkup" just to see if they're still doing well.


Blake's Tiger wrote:
KenderKin wrote:

Hypothetically a paladin can not be tricked into committing an evil act.

She must "willingly" do so that is not the same as unwittingly...

I thought so for a long time, but I'm not sure that's true. If a vampire dominates a paladin and forces him to decapitate helpless innocents, I think he still loses his class features until he gets an atonement spell cast on him.

Debatable, likely a paladin would seek atonement and to destroy the vampire in question, but zero reason for him to lose powers in that scenario....

Though Dominate is still not willingly....


Blake's Tiger wrote:
KenderKin wrote:

Hypothetically a paladin can not be tricked into committing an evil act.

She must "willingly" do so that is not the same as unwittingly...

I thought so for a long time, but I'm not sure that's true. If a vampire dominates a paladin and forces him to decapitate helpless innocents, I think he still loses his class features until he gets an atonement spell cast on him.

Losing all of your paladin powers seems to me to be a very clear example of "obviously self-destructive".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
When does this paladin fall?

Answer:

When the GM notes the paladin does things oddly and then sits down out of game and asks the player if they would like to play a 'paladin falls' redemption story. Only when both player and GM agree this is a story that the game wants to tell does the 'fall' happen.

Asking this question means you didn't pick another option and tell your player before the game started. All other options require you and the player to have already set limits and lines in the sand prior to them being crossed. Without this discussion anything you do to a player is arbitrary and unfair, due to the differences any two people on earth will have regarding what is 'evil' and what is not. Have the discussion now and offer to allow the player to pick any other class because as the GM this is your responsibility - not the players - to make them aware you are going to be 'one of those GMs' where paladins aren't a real choice but a trap.


cuatroespada wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Edit: Oh and remember, if the paladin chooses to do nothing and both their loves ones and the innocents die the paladin hasn't actually done anything wrong. Inaction in this case is a valid non-evil response. The paladin would need to choose to kill innocents to save his loved ones for it to be evil.
at least according to you. as far as reality is concerned, unless you are rendered incapable of acting, inaction is just as much a choice as action. whether or not the choice not to act is morally wrong is another issue, but it is very much a choice. personally, i don't think the trolley dilemma can cause a paladin to fall unless he's choosing to kill someone rather than choosing who to save. (i.e. i think the motivation behind the choice matters more than the choice itself in a catch 22.)

I didn't saying choosing to nothing wasn't choosing. I said choosing to do nothing wasn't morally wrong. Which of course depends upon what ethical theories you subscribe to, which can really complicate the situation. I was merely advising the OP that for the paladin choosing to do nothing (probably) isn't an evil act. Choosing to save the largest number of lives is probably good. Choosing to save 1 specific individual out of either group because of their positive contribution to the world could be good. Really the only evil answer is choosing to save your loved ones for selfish reasons and in doing so cause the death of someone else. In that I completely agree with you.

Weirdo wrote:
Claxon wrote:
As to when the NPC loses their power? Does it matter? Are the PCs going to be there for his descent? Because if they are they should probably notice whats going and warn him.

If the party is supposed to notice what's going on and warn the paladin before he falls, then it's important to establish what questionable acts might serve as a warning sign without causing a fall.

Claxon wrote:
Paladins aren't necessarily particularly wise or intelligent, but they do have a sense of absolute good and order that fuels them magically. So they should have a very solid idea of what constitutes evil for the purpose of when they should fall.

Many GMs do give players this kind of feedback (which I think is a good thing) but if the paladin's sense of right and wrong was so accurate then the Phylactery of Faithfulness wouldn't exist.

Claxon wrote:
Your paladin only sounds plausible if it was a person already experiencing a crisis of faith, and thereby made them more susceptible to manipulation.
Well yeah, targeting people in moments of weakness is the primary strategy for sinister cults pretty much everywhere.

Eh, my original point is that the party is probably intended to encounter the paladin after the fall has already happened, not along the way. If the party is there along the way and the paladin starts talking about how he learned of this great new deity and the PCs can identify that deity as evil...well the plan doesn't work out.

The Phylactery of Faithfulness exists because some GMs are jerks and Paizo put in a magic item that says the GM doesn't get to pull "gotcha" moments on the poor paladin. It's a meta-item that exists because the people playing paladins aren't paladins and don't have the same sense of good and law.

Yes, targeting people during weakness is the strategy, but we haven't established that is the case in this hypothetical. To me it sounds like a nominally okay paladin who encounters a worshiper of an evil god who wants to trick the paladin into joining.


I re-itterate; This is a strictly hypothetical question. I have never run a campaign in which there were paladin players. It is not because I am opposed to having a paladin player, but no one has wanted to play one as of yet.

This question is asked because I am curious on the matter. I had initially put it under Rules Questions as I was asking what the rules were. Someone saw fit to move it to advice for some reason so here it is. As a DM/GM, I could have it so the paladin doesn't have to be LG, or could use the Fallen Paladin archetype I created at one point if they slipped. I could decide various things are evil acts in my game.

Im actually rather ticked that someone decided to move it because in my Original Post I had said:

Quote:

I couldn't think of a better spot to put this, so I am placing it here;[/Quote}

Moving it changed where that is apparently referencing and I cannot go back and change that post in the least. Im not seeking advice for any existing circumstance. Im asking what the rules are in a hypothetical one. I want to know where the line when it comes to the rules. Is it a solid one, or is it hazy? Is converting to faith without knowing it is in service to an evil entity a violation of the paladin's CoC? If you don't rub elbows with the evil members of the clergy, are you fine in terms of your associates? If that is a problem, being a paladin in a LN faith must be difficult. If it isn't a problem, then that opens a whole other can of wyrms.


X

In my humble opinion you can not trick, or magically dominate a paladin into willingly committing an evil act.

If the V\ azi's trick the paladin into a visit to there bakery and get the paladin to throw the switch, the paladin does not fall....

The key word is willingly which is being used as an adjective in the sense of the part about a paladin falling....

willing
/ˈwɪlɪŋ/
adjective
1.
favourably disposed or inclined; ready
2.
cheerfully or eagerly compliant
3.
done, given, accepted, etc, freely or voluntarily

Which to me means the paladin must be fully aware of the evil of the act and choose to do it anyway.


Xuldarinar wrote:

I re-itterate; This is a strictly hypothetical question. I have never run a campaign in which there were paladin players. It is not because I am opposed to having a paladin player, but no one has wanted to play one as of yet.

This question is asked because I am curious on the matter. I had initially put it under Rules Questions as I was asking what the rules were. Someone saw fit to move it to advice for some reason so here it is. As a DM/GM, I could have it so the paladin doesn't have to be LG, or could use the Fallen Paladin archetype I created at one point if they slipped. I could decide various things are evil acts in my game.

Im actually rather ticked that someone decided to move it because in my Original Post I had said:

Quote:
I couldn't think of a better spot to put this, so I am placing it here;
Moving it changed where that is apparently referencing and I cannot go back and change that post in the least. Im not seeking advice for any existing circumstance. Im asking what the rules are in a hypothetical one. I want to know where the line when it comes to the rules. Is it a solid one, or is it hazy? Is converting to faith without knowing it is in service to an evil entity a violation of the paladin's CoC? If you don't rub elbows with the evil members of the clergy, are you fine in terms of your associates? If that is a problem, being a paladin in a LN faith must be difficult. If it isn't a problem, then that opens a whole other can of wyrms.

The problem is you asked what you thought is a rules questions, which is really an advice question.

The rules are clearly stated:

Quote:

Ex-Paladins

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.

That's the exact rules. If that's all you wanted the thread was done a long time ago because I recall someone quoting it before.

The problem is, and why this got turned into an advice thread, is interpreting what that passage means.

What does "willfully commits an evil act" entail? What counts as "violations" of the code of conduct? When does a paladin cease to be "lawful good"?

None of those are rules questions and cannot be addressed by the the rules. So you weren't really asking a rules questions, because I suspect you knew that rules passage and simply didn't know how to adjudicate and interpret it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Claxon wrote:
The Phylactery of Faithfulness exists because some GMs are jerks and Paizo put in a magic item that says the GM doesn't get to pull "gotcha" moments on the poor paladin. It's a meta-item that exists because the people playing paladins aren't paladins and don't have the same sense of good and law.

Paizo actually didn't add it.


Claxon wrote:
Xuldarinar wrote:

I re-itterate; This is a strictly hypothetical question. I have never run a campaign in which there were paladin players. It is not because I am opposed to having a paladin player, but no one has wanted to play one as of yet.

This question is asked because I am curious on the matter. I had initially put it under Rules Questions as I was asking what the rules were. Someone saw fit to move it to advice for some reason so here it is. As a DM/GM, I could have it so the paladin doesn't have to be LG, or could use the Fallen Paladin archetype I created at one point if they slipped. I could decide various things are evil acts in my game.

Im actually rather ticked that someone decided to move it because in my Original Post I had said:

Quote:
I couldn't think of a better spot to put this, so I am placing it here;
Moving it changed where that is apparently referencing and I cannot go back and change that post in the least. Im not seeking advice for any existing circumstance. Im asking what the rules are in a hypothetical one. I want to know where the line when it comes to the rules. Is it a solid one, or is it hazy? Is converting to faith without knowing it is in service to an evil entity a violation of the paladin's CoC? If you don't rub elbows with the evil members of the clergy, are you fine in terms of your associates? If that is a problem, being a paladin in a LN faith must be difficult. If it isn't a problem, then that opens a whole other can of wyrms.

The problem is you asked what you thought is a rules questions, which is really an advice question.

The rules are clearly stated:

Quote:

Ex-Paladins

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

...

Fair enough. Still a little peeved, but I understand the inability to edit posts after X amount of time.


Alignment changes are rare, so let's leave that out of it.

What constitutes an 'evil' act falls under the purview of the DM. Is it evil to convert to a faith if you incorrectly believe it is 'lawful neutral'? That's up to you as the DM to determine. But be prepared for pushback anytime you make a 'gotcha' decision on a Paladin falling.

A Paladin's code of conduct is generally set by their deity. Here's an example from

Iomedae:
The paladins of Iomedae are just and strong, crusaders who live for the joy of righteous battle. Their mission is to right wrongs and eliminate evil at its root. They serve as examples to others, and their code demands they protect the weak and innocent by eliminating sources of oppression, rather than merely the symptoms. They may back down or withdraw from a fight if they are overmatched, but if their lives will buy time for others to escape, they must give them. Their tenets include the following affirmations.
  • I will learn the weight of my sword. Without my heart to guide it, it is worthless—my strength is not in my sword, but in my heart. If I lose my sword, I have lost a tool. If I betray my heart, I have died.
  • I will have faith in the Inheritor. I will channel her strength through my body. I will shine in her legion, and I will not tarnish her glory through base actions.
  • I am the first into battle, and the last to leave it.
  • I will not be taken prisoner by my free will. I will not surrender those under my command.
  • I will never abandon a companion, though I will honor sacrifice freely given.
  • I will guard the honor of my fellows, both in thought and deed, and I will have faith in them.
  • When in doubt, I may force my enemies to surrender, but I am responsible for their lives.
  • I will never refuse a challenge from an equal. I will give honor to worthy enemies, and contempt to the rest.
  • I will suffer death before dishonor.
  • I will be temperate in my actions and moderate in my behavior. I will strive to emulate Iomedae’s perfection.

In this example: if a Paladin of Iomedae voluntarily allows himself to be taken prisoner, he falls. Since codes may vary by deity, it's a good idea to clarify with your Paladin player what their code is beforehand. Also, a Paladin of a specific deity is incredibly unlikely to worship another deity.

Finally, as you can see from the example above, even the codes of conduct published by Paizo can be susceptible to rules lawyering. "If a Paladin doesn't get to act in the surprise round, and the Ranger closes into combat before he does, does the Paladin fall?" (I am the first into battle, and the last to leave it). There is no substitute for common sense and fair treatment of your players on this sort of thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ckorik wrote:
Quote:
When does this paladin fall?

Answer:

When the GM notes the paladin does things oddly and then sits down out of game and asks the player if they would like to play a 'paladin falls' redemption story. Only when both player and GM agree this is a story that the game wants to tell does the 'fall' happen.

Asking this question means you didn't pick another option and tell your player before the game started. All other options require you and the player to have already set limits and lines in the sand prior to them being crossed. Without this discussion anything you do to a player is arbitrary and unfair, due to the differences any two people on earth will have regarding what is 'evil' and what is not. Have the discussion now and offer to allow the player to pick any other class because as the GM this is your responsibility - not the players - to make them aware you are going to be 'one of those GMs' where paladins aren't a real choice but a trap.

This, this, this, a million times THIS.

If the paladin is an NPC, the answer is "when the GM decides they fall".

When the paladin is a PC, the answer should always be when the player says "evil act coming up, it's fallin' time!"

The GM should never, EVER say "oh, by the way, that was evil, you fall".


It is a strange thing to read threads about paladins falling and the theme is usually how can the DM screw with the player.

As some seem to insist that an unwitting act is enough then all it would take is one visit to the cleverly disguised "Motel Hell" and one swift tug on the rope (that seems to lead to a bell) by the sign clearly labeled "Ring bell for service" that is actually a mechanism set to kill an innocent person in a hidden location.....

The concepts are all amusing and ultimately what falls is the carefully crafted plan for falling, because falling is a conscious choice to commit an evil act.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

I didn't see the "willfully" in the source I checked (it is there), so I'm back to my original understanding.

I find it interesting that a paladin can be dominated and turned against her allies with her full set of powers. Like, we want to cast Hold Person on our Dominated friend, but Iomedae keeps boosting her saves! (Divine Grace)

That's not an argument for falling, but I do have a paladin in a campaign where that could happen, and I think I'll house rule it that the controlled paladin loses their powers while controlled as a boon to the group.

Back on topic: I prefer to set up situations where they have to wonder if they might fall, but if they act in good faith, I don't "gotcha" them.


A Cleric of Rovagug sees a puppy and does not kick it. When does he fall?


KenderKin wrote:
Blake's Tiger wrote:
KenderKin wrote:

Hypothetically a paladin can not be tricked into committing an evil act.

She must "willingly" do so that is not the same as unwittingly...

I thought so for a long time, but I'm not sure that's true. If a vampire dominates a paladin and forces him to decapitate helpless innocents, I think he still loses his class features until he gets an atonement spell cast on him.

Debatable, likely a paladin would seek atonement and to destroy the vampire in question, but zero reason for him to lose powers in that scenario....

Though Dominate is still not willingly....

As of Ultimate Intrigue, being dominated and forced to commit evil acts is grounds for a fall apparently.


Claxon wrote:
cuatroespada wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Edit: Oh and remember, if the paladin chooses to do nothing and both their loves ones and the innocents die the paladin hasn't actually done anything wrong. Inaction in this case is a valid non-evil response. The paladin would need to choose to kill innocents to save his loved ones for it to be evil.
at least according to you. as far as reality is concerned, unless you are rendered incapable of acting, inaction is just as much a choice as action. whether or not the choice not to act is morally wrong is another issue, but it is very much a choice. personally, i don't think the trolley dilemma can cause a paladin to fall unless he's choosing to kill someone rather than choosing who to save. (i.e. i think the motivation behind the choice matters more than the choice itself in a catch 22.)
I didn't saying choosing to nothing wasn't choosing. I said choosing to do nothing wasn't morally wrong. Which of course depends upon what ethical theories you subscribe to, which can really complicate the situation. I was merely advising the OP that for the paladin choosing to do nothing (probably) isn't an evil act. Choosing to save the largest number of lives is probably good. Choosing to save 1 specific individual out of either group because of their positive contribution to the world could be good. Really the only evil answer is choosing to save your loved ones for selfish reasons and in doing so cause the death of someone else. In that I completely agree with you.

you're right. i misread your post. apologies.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scavion wrote:
KenderKin wrote:
Blake's Tiger wrote:
KenderKin wrote:

Hypothetically a paladin can not be tricked into committing an evil act.

She must "willingly" do so that is not the same as unwittingly...

I thought so for a long time, but I'm not sure that's true. If a vampire dominates a paladin and forces him to decapitate helpless innocents, I think he still loses his class features until he gets an atonement spell cast on him.

Debatable, likely a paladin would seek atonement and to destroy the vampire in question, but zero reason for him to lose powers in that scenario....

Though Dominate is still not willingly....

As of Ultimate Intrigue, being dominated and forced to commit evil acts is grounds for a fall apparently.

I'd say it says exactly the opposite:

Ultimate Intrigue, Spells of Intrigue, Mid-level, Enchantments, Dominate Person wrote:
First, the creature never takes obviously self-destructive actions. The spell doesn’t mention whether this means only bodily harm, but there are many sorts of destruction beyond the physical.

Losing all of your class abilities is pretty self-destructive.


Rub-Eta wrote:
Since you're asking in the Rules Question forum: this is, by the rules, when a Paladin falls;
Falling wrote:
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct
I have to say that it's both funny and tragic that Paladin-falling is asked at the rules forum.

It's the main driver of alignment threads here.


Chemlak wrote:
Scavion wrote:
KenderKin wrote:
Blake's Tiger wrote:
KenderKin wrote:

Hypothetically a paladin can not be tricked into committing an evil act.

She must "willingly" do so that is not the same as unwittingly...

I thought so for a long time, but I'm not sure that's true. If a vampire dominates a paladin and forces him to decapitate helpless innocents, I think he still loses his class features until he gets an atonement spell cast on him.

Debatable, likely a paladin would seek atonement and to destroy the vampire in question, but zero reason for him to lose powers in that scenario....

Though Dominate is still not willingly....

As of Ultimate Intrigue, being dominated and forced to commit evil acts is grounds for a fall apparently.

I'd say it says exactly the opposite:

Ultimate Intrigue, Spells of Intrigue, Mid-level, Enchantments, Dominate Person wrote:
First, the creature never takes obviously self-destructive actions. The spell doesn’t mention whether this means only bodily harm, but there are many sorts of destruction beyond the physical.
Losing all of your class abilities is pretty self-destructive.
Absolution Spell Text PG.203 wrote:
If the target was forced to perform any actions contrary to his alignment, monk vows, paladin oath, or similar code of conduct by that charm or compulsion effect, that action doesn’t cause him to lose access to class abilities, including divine spellcasting.

And then Mark Seifter's response to those exact concerns.

Mark Seifter wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Scavion wrote:

Something I did not want clarified: Failing a Will Save and being forced to perform an action that breaks your code/goes against your deities' wishes does in fact make you lose your powers.

I dont believe the Absolution spell should have been printed. Even further it has limited usefulness in combat(It also breaks enchantments) because of the casting time of a round.

This isn't anything new. From atonement: " If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you. "

My counterpoint would be that Atonement does not explicitly state that is what occurs unlike Absolution.

Atonement says it works for free if you were compelled. It does not say that compelled actions cause you to lose powers like Absolution does.

Fair enough. You can see from that why we would be operating under the assumption that it does, though, and thus making a lower-level and faster spell to prevent it would be an assistance to the situation.

Which the long and short of it is; By their standards, Mental Compulsion already caused Paladins to fall if they then commit an evil act whilst compelled via the text of Atonement. So they wrote up Absolution to make a niche spell for that specific circumstance.


Val'bryn2 wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:
Val'bryn2 wrote:
Cavall wrote:
You'd think a guy who smites evil would have been given a handbook on "yeah that guys evil. Try not to pray to him."
They are given that book, most paladins just don't read it.

No, most DMs seems to forget that it's a thing and rail-roads the Paladin into the ground. Because that's 'interesting'?

It's not so much the Paladins, it's more the players. And I don't blame the players. There's a reason as to why a lot of parties end up as a group of killer-hobos, it's the quick and easy way to handle things to get on with the game. What a lot of DMs seems to throw at their Paladin players (or at least a lot of DMs related to these Paladin threads) are much heavier and complex than what most people would ever have to handle. And the Paladin players are often required to ace every moral dispute (at least according to the DMs moral interpritation of "LG"), otherwise they're hanging from a thin thread.

My post was meant more in a joking manner, but I'm going to be serious: paladins have knowledge:religion as a skill. If you choose not to take that skill, that's on you. And if you don't take it, well, you're the paladin who was given the Manual of Those Whom We Smite, and chose to not read it. Not my problem, I will not lower the DCs just because you didn't feel the need for the skill.

Edit:I use "you" to refer to the paladin player in general, not you, Rub-eta in particular. Hope no one thought I was behaving in a generally anti-paladinish way.

Agreed. Knowledge Religion, Sense Motive, Detect Evil. Paladins are given the tools to NOT fall for these kind of cons. My kingmaker Paladin was VERY starved for Skills, but those three were always decent, because they were important to the character and the class itself pushed for them.

All Characters arent' great at all things... but the Class Skills give you the indication of what that class is meant to be good at. Mine had a TERRIBLE/non-existant perception, a weak Ride (mostly due to armor penalty), just a smidge of knowledge nobility and local... a miseable spellcraft and survival...

However, He did NOT fall prey to evil people and cults trying to trick him into falling.


Xuldarinar wrote:

I couldn't think of a better spot to put this, so I am placing it here;

Lets say a paladin is being tricked by a follower of some malevolent entity so far as to even joining their faith, lets say a 'good humored' LN cleric of Ruzel for sake of example. The paladin holds no knowledge of the nature of Ruzel except what they have been told by the cleric, and none have have had a chance to correct them. Over time the paladin becomes corrupted, and begins spouting heresies against other faiths and eventually the paladin starts to kill people believing them to be evil.

At what point does the paladin fall, more than likely tipping them off that something is wrong?

We've had this same issue in the Idiot Paladin of Asmodeus threads.

No matter how you cut it, push will come to shove and you have one of the two following outcomes.

1. Paladin stillbeing lawful good and all comes to realise that the church and it's god are simply not for him and he cuts his ties.

2. Paladin decides that Razuel is really up his alley,stops being lawful good, and stops being a Paladin.


Blake's Tiger wrote:
KenderKin wrote:

Hypothetically a paladin can not be tricked into committing an evil act.

She must "willingly" do so that is not the same as unwittingly...
I thought so for a long time, but I'm not sure that's true. If a vampire dominates a paladin and forces him to decapitate helpless innocents, I think he still loses his class features until he gets an atonement spell cast on him.

This scenario would be completely anti-player, and for that reason alone should not be undertaken.

If you ever did this to a player, you minus well just stand up, make an obscene gesture at the player and tell him that he can go shove his character sheet up his arse.

The thing GMs need to keep in mind is that the players have to trust you to not do crap like this. I would honestly expect two major outcomes: the player decides to play by your rules thereby creating some god-awful monstrosity (mechanically, morally, and socially) that is designed to just impregnate and pillage your world, or the player decides to continue trying to play the game how he wants to play it despite your rule lawyering and obvious GM vs Player rulings on how mechanics work.

I think WotC got it right when they decided to not alignment restrict nor impose elements into their game where people could lose all their class features.

The entire idea of having characters lose their class powers when they A) didn't know it would be a consequence of certain actions (e.g. you didn't warn them) and B) you find ways to strip them of their powers just for the hell of it is absolutely absurd.

On a side note: Paladins are allowed to renounce their paladinhood if they don't feel they have lived up to their oaths.


Taku Ooka Nin wrote:


If you ever did this to a player, you minus well just stand up, make an obscene gesture at the player and tell him that he can go shove his character sheet up his arse.

I don't really think it's any more anti-player than casting Dominate Person on a PC in general, so long as the player could be reasonably able to access Atonement/Absolution. (Whether using Dominate Person on a PC is okay is arguable anyway, sure, but I think it's fair game as long as the PCs are high-level enough to have ways to deal with it, and you don't just leave the targeted player doing nothing for the rest of the session. Plus, really, what kind of paladin goes around failing multiple will saves, even *without* Aura of Resolve.)

But anyway, knowing the full situation, I stand by my answer. They fall for doing the same stuff as they'd ever fall for, evil deity or not. When they start misguidedly killing innocents or anything like that. Or when they realize they're participating in an evil faith and don't do anything about it. If they keep on acting perfectly LG and just misinformed, eh. Sounds like a neat character concept!

(Does the thread being moved out of Rules Questions disprove the whole "all morality is objective on Golarion" thing, since it means the answer to this question isn't objective? :P)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Taku Ooka Nin wrote:
Blake's Tiger wrote:
KenderKin wrote:

Hypothetically a paladin can not be tricked into committing an evil act.

She must "willingly" do so that is not the same as unwittingly...
I thought so for a long time, but I'm not sure that's true. If a vampire dominates a paladin and forces him to decapitate helpless innocents, I think he still loses his class features until he gets an atonement spell cast on him.

This scenario would be completely anti-player, and for that reason alone should not be undertaken.

If you ever did this to a player, you minus well just stand up, make an obscene gesture at the player and tell him that he can go shove his character sheet up his arse.

. . . despite your rule lawyering and obvious GM vs Player rulings on how mechanics work.

Your use of the second person while quoting me makes feel like defending myself.

This is not a scenario that I've done or plan to use in the forseeable future. It was a hypothetical example of a rules situation being clarified, which appears to have produced an excessively aggressive response. I can imagine a game style where that situation and outcome would be acceptable to everyone at the table, but that's beside the point. My players aren't interested in Ravenloft style suffering.

I don't think a paladin breaking his code should ever be a surprise to the player. I also don't think never encountering a scenario where a paladin has to agonize over what the right choice is is the solution (for my table) either. I favor raising the moral question and letting them make what they feel is the right choice. If a player said, OK, I see my choices here and my character knows it breaks his code, but it's expedient and foils the BBEG's worse plan, so he's going to do it anyway and will deal with the consequences, he can do that too.


Blake's Tiger wrote:
Taku Ooka Nin wrote:
Blake's Tiger wrote:
KenderKin wrote:

Hypothetically a paladin can not be tricked into committing an evil act.

She must "willingly" do so that is not the same as unwittingly...
I thought so for a long time, but I'm not sure that's true. If a vampire dominates a paladin and forces him to decapitate helpless innocents, I think he still loses his class features until he gets an atonement spell cast on him.

This scenario would be completely anti-player, and for that reason alone should not be undertaken.

If you ever did this to a player, you minus well just stand up, make an obscene gesture at the player and tell him that he can go shove his character sheet up his arse.

. . . despite your rule lawyering and obvious GM vs Player rulings on how mechanics work.

Your use of the second person while quoting me makes feel like defending myself.

This is not a scenario that I've done or plan to use in the forseeable future. It was a hypothetical example of a rules situation being clarified, which appears to have produced an excessively aggressive response. I can imagine a game style where that situation and outcome would be acceptable to everyone at the table, but that's beside the point. My players aren't interested in Ravenloft style suffering.

I don't think a paladin breaking his code should ever be a surprise to the player. I also don't think never encountering a scenario where a paladin has to agonize over what the right choice is is the solution (for my table) either. I favor raising the moral question and letting them make what they feel is the right choice. If a player said, OK, I see my choices here and my character knows it breaks his code, but it's expedient and foils the BBEG's worse plan, so he's going to do it anyway and will deal with the consequences, he can do that too.

Wow so the Paladin makes a decision to stop a greater evil and still falls.

F$%*ing brutal.


Scavion wrote:

Wow so the Paladin makes a decision to stop a greater evil and still falls.

F~!%ing brutal.

Not really, a Paladin's Code is just as much a class feature as Spellcasting or Rage, the Paladin is just the only class that has a specific style of role plying baked into the class.

If one doesn't like a particular class feature, don't play that class, or better yet, house-rule it the way you want it.


Quantum Steve wrote:
Scavion wrote:

Wow so the Paladin makes a decision to stop a greater evil and still falls.

F~!%ing brutal.

Not really, a Paladin's Code is just as much a class feature as Spellcasting or Rage, the Paladin is just the only class that has a specific style of role plying baked into the class.

If one doesn't like a particular class feature, don't play that class, or better yet, house-rule it the way you want it.

Champion of the Faith Warpriest?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Quantum Steve wrote:
Scavion wrote:

Wow so the Paladin makes a decision to stop a greater evil and still falls.

F~!%ing brutal.

Not really, a Paladin's Code is just as much a class feature as Spellcasting or Rage, the Paladin is just the only class that has a specific style of role plying baked into the class.

If one doesn't like a particular class feature, don't play that class, or better yet, house-rule it the way you want it.

Yes, if the paladin's decision is to perform an evil act because it is faster than the non-evil method of reaching the same goal, and the player understands the consequence.

Here's an example: lieutenant of BBEG is captured, nobody has Detect Thoughts (but they could ride back to town and buy a scroll of Detect Thoughts), Diplomacy and Intimidate rolls have failed, and the party proposes torturing the lieutenant to find out where the BBEG's hideout is before he has time to figure out his lieutenant has been captured.

The paladin has a few options (go back to town and spend resources on a scroll of Detect Thoughts, get the party to try to follow tracks from the lieutenant's hide out to the BBEG's hideout, search the extensive library for clues, decipher the coded messages in the desk, etc). Choosing to use his ranks in Heal to torture the prisoner for information should lead to a fall or not?

EDIT: Re: Scavion's comment specifically, both Hero Refuses to Stoop to Evil Methods AND Hero Sacrfices Super Powers for the Greater Good are common tropes.

Sovereign Court

Blake's Tiger wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:
Scavion wrote:

Wow so the Paladin makes a decision to stop a greater evil and still falls.

F~!%ing brutal.

Not really, a Paladin's Code is just as much a class feature as Spellcasting or Rage, the Paladin is just the only class that has a specific style of role plying baked into the class.

If one doesn't like a particular class feature, don't play that class, or better yet, house-rule it the way you want it.

Yes, if the paladin's decision is to perform an evil act because it is faster than the non-evil method of reaching the same goal, and the player understands the consequence.

Also - there is a reason that paladins have a code. If a paladin breaks his code, not only does he lose his powers, but the reputation of all paladins is harmed which will make all of their work more difficult in the future.

If your setting works such that people know what paladins really are (certainly seems to be that way in Golarion), the code is at least as much of a benefit as it is a hindrance because everyone will trust you. They might not like you, but they know that they can trust you to follow your code.

Shadow Lodge

Should the Paladin Fall?

No.

The GM probably shouldn't pull this kind of stunt in the first place, but if he does he should get consent from the player to cripple the character for the sake of the story. Some players might like that, but it needs to be established. If the GM did not get that consent then the player's enjoyment will almost certainly be lessened, which is antithetical to the purpose of the game.

No, the paladin shouldn't fall.


Wait just to be clear.

Violating the code and falling are separate issues, though they can overlap, as yes every instance of falling is a violation of the code, but not every violation of the code will result in falling.

So really code violations are not an autofall for paladin's. Thank you.


Broken Zenith wrote:

Should the Paladin Fall?

No.

The GM probably shouldn't pull this kind of stunt in the first place, but if he does he should get consent from the player to cripple the character for the sake of the story. Some players might like that, but it needs to be established. If the GM did not get that consent then the player's enjoyment will almost certainly be lessened, which is antithetical to the purpose of the game.

No, the paladin shouldn't fall.

More importantly, the situation should not evolve for it to become a question UNLESS the player intends it to be so. In the scenario you outlined, the Paladin would very quickly find out that the religion that he's being indoctrinated is simply not compatible with his adherence to the code and would be in the position to make his own conscious choice on what to give up... the cult or his class.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
KenderKin wrote:
So really code violations are not an autofall for paladin's. Thank you.
Quote:
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).

Paizo removed the 'grossly' qualifier. Any code violation means falling in Pathfinder.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"When does this paladin fall?"

When he has to make an acrobatics check? Ehh? Ehhhhhh? :D


TriOmegaZero wrote:
KenderKin wrote:
So really code violations are not an autofall for paladin's. Thank you.
Quote:
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).
Paizo removed the 'grossly' qualifier. Any code violation means falling in Pathfinder.

Sorry TOZ you are not reading the full thing:

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.

Ex-Paladins

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 atonement), as appropriate.

Which to me means the one unforgivable sin ie paladin fall (permanent) is the "willingly commits an evil act."

Which is one reason I was trying to clarify the discussion on permanently falling versus, in need of atonement.....


TriOmegaZero wrote:
KenderKin wrote:
So really code violations are not an autofall for paladin's. Thank you.
Quote:
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).
Paizo removed the 'grossly' qualifier. Any code violation means falling in Pathfinder.

This is the advice forum. Here we follow rules as intended. For the advice forum that is horrible advice.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I didn't claim it to be advice. I was correcting the erroneous statement.

KenderKin, there is no permanent fall according to the rules. And your bolded statements do not contradict the statement I quoted, which says any code violation causes the paladin to fall.

Ckorik, my advice is to ignore that edit and bring back the 3.5 standard of only extreme violations causing a fall. Or even better as Broken Zenith says, only have the paladin fall when the GM and player are in agreement.


TriOmegaZero wrote:


KenderKin, there is no permanent fall according to the rules. And your bolded statements do not contradict the statement I quoted, which says any code violation causes the paladin to fall.

Like I said two versions of "fall", the one that atonement fixes, and the one that atonement does not "say" it fixes......

Well there is only one that the atonement spell does not address and that one is the intentional evil act....

....Which in my opinion means that an atonement is the first step and a quest or oath is the second step to getting back.

The problem is DM's trying to dream up Clever scenarios that force a paladin to fall, that invariably are not supported by the rules, and do not make for a fall other than the DMs ego.

The only one act I can not find a specific rule to rectify is the intentional evil......

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Quote:
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.

This seems to cover it. Maybe they intentionally changed the wording to remove that option. I don't know.


As stated elsewhere, paladins often fall when they fail a climb check, don't roll high enough on acrobatics to jump, get targeted by a grease spell, or fight a trip build character. I had a paladin fall about 200 feet on a jump I was pretty confident that he could make.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Quote:
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.
This seems to cover it. Maybe they intentionally changed the wording to remove that option. I don't know.

I made a post about that awhile back because I thought it was odd that breaking your code doesnt let you use Atonement to get it back. So there is actually no written method of a Paladin regaining their powers if they break their code of conduct.

Just a nebulous response of "atoning" for their actions.

51 to 96 of 96 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / When does this paladin fall? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.