Fallen Paladin: Does attacking a possessed party member qualify as an Evil Act and Violation of the Paladin Code?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 442 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

My paladin recently fell in our campaign. He attacked the Bladebound Magus who had failed his Will save against the Black Blade. Said Black Blade was commanding him to kill a silver dragon. A Silver Dragon that did not register as Evil after a use of Detect Evil.

At first, my paladin tried to grapple the Magus. But his CMD was through the roof due to his build. Making it a moot exercise. It was also pointless to try and disarm the Magus, as he had reached level 9 and could teleport his blade back to his hand so long as he had points in his arcane pool.

Knowing that the Magus had a very impressive build and that the dragon was in the Young Age Category, I deemed the Magus to be more of a threat to the dragon than the dragon was to the Magus. To that end, to save both lives, I moved to knock the Magus out with nonlethal damage.

I snuck in one lethal attack because I knew I wouldn't overcome the Magi's high AC if I took the nonlethal penalty. I got disapproving looks from my group, so I stopped doing that.

Apparently, the GM viewed spilling the blood of an ally as an evil act and betrayal of the paladin code. I was just wondering if it's that extreme. The intent was to prevent the Magus from committing an evil act by killing a potentially good-aligned creature while he was under the influence of an unknown, aggressive intelligence.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Technically the magus was acting with evil intent and would have pinged as positive on the Detect Evil radar... So...

Serously, no. Evil is always selfish, either directly or indirectly. I seeno selfish actions here.

Were the Palidans behavior lawful? Less clear depending on the scenario but lethal damage in and of itself is not evil.

Dark Archive

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Not at all. Your GM is being way to strict. Not only does it take more then a single evil action to make a paladin fall, that does not even constitute evil. You did not try to kill him, but to incapacitate when it was obvious he was not himself. Your gm is being a bit to hard edged on it.


There isn't a clear rules answer to this particular question - it depends on way to much contextual information that hasn't been provided, and really is subject to GM adjudication, which your GM did.

You can, and probably will, get a variety of opinions on it though.

Which deity does your paladin follow? What alignment is the magus? Ask your GM why protecting a creature of good (silver dragon) would be evil? Which is more important, the life of the silver dragon or the life of your companion of possibly questionable alignment if his black blade - which matches his alignment, would want a silver dragon dead? Is it his black blades purpose to snuff out all dragons (maybe the magus isn't really evil, just for whatever cosmic purposes, the blade dislikes dragons specifically). What was the rest of the party doing? If not helping you, they may not be the best travelling companions for your paladin?

Personally, I think your GM's view is extreme. For me, if a paladin whacks his allies for attacking a creature known to be good, they well good and deserved it - that includes if they get possessed or mind controlled. But this also assumes they've tried other options (which it sounds like you did) before resorting to violence.


loc wrote:
Not only does it take more then a single evil action to make a paladin fall...

I don't know, I think taking the single act of murdering someone in the name of <evil deity, or even just because> would make a paladin fall. Further, by the rules, if the paladin ever commits an evil act (does not specify that as a major or minor evil act) he falls. The hard part is that in many situations it is hard to determine whether an act is evil or not without a lot more information.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Would you not have fallen if you just let the Magus slay an innocent being?


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Madokar Valortouched wrote:
Apparently, the GM viewed spilling the blood of an ally as an evil act and betrayal of the paladin code. I was just wondering if it's that extreme.

Apparently so in that DM's game.

I think it's a difficult interpretation to justify personally, since I wouldn't ever want a paladin to stand by (or pursue doomed-to-failure grappling strategies) letting an innocent risk death, which is apparently what you were 'supposed' to do.

One possibility is that perhaps both courses of action would result in your paladin falling, which I think is very poor form (unless the paladin regaining their paladinhood is about to be a major plot feature and the player is onboard with the idea). Unfortunately, there are some DMs who think that having a paladin in the party is an invitation to present moral dilemmas with no choice other than a resultant fall.


bbangerter wrote:

There isn't a clear rules answer to this particular question - it depends on way to much contextual information that hasn't been provided, and really is subject to GM adjudication, which your GM did.

You can, and probably will, get a variety of opinions on it though.

Which deity does your paladin follow? What alignment is the magus? Ask your GM why protecting a creature of good (silver dragon) would be evil? Which is more important, the life of the silver dragon or the life of your companion of possibly questionable alignment if his black blade - which matches his alignment, would want a silver dragon dead? Is it his black blades purpose to snuff out all dragons (maybe the magus isn't really evil, just for whatever cosmic purposes, the blade dislikes dragons specifically). What was the rest of the party doing? If not helping you, they may not be the best travelling companions for your paladin?

Personally, I think your GM's view is extreme. For me, if a paladin whacks his allies for attacking a creature known to be good, they well good and deserved it - that includes if they get possessed or mind controlled. But this also assumes they've tried other options (which it sounds like you did) before resorting to violence.

My paladin follows Iomedae. The alignment of the Magus is Chaotic Good. Our GM came up with a side quest for the Magus to destroy any Black Blade the party comes across. The Black Blade wanted the Dragon dead because the Dragon turned out to be infused with a Black Blade of her own in her claws. Said Black Blade forced her to attack the Magus as well. Both combatants had solid black eyes as they shouted "To the death!" and "There can be only one!"

We have come across other NPCs and enemies with Black Blades the Magi's blade wants to destroy. This is the first opponent that has had the blade fused to their body. All other Black Blade wielders could wind up disarmed when defeated. She couldn't be disarmed. She would have wound up mutilated at best or dead at worst.

The rest of the party is all Good aligned, spread out across the Law-Chaos axis. When the mess started when the Magus failed his saved, we tried to non-lethally prevent both opponents from killing each other.


it probably wouldnt have even been an evil act if you acidentally killed the magus when you were trying to defend the magus plus paladins dont just auto fall the gm should give plenty of warning if the paladin is wavering


Brew Bird wrote:
Would you not have fallen if you just let the Magus slay an innocent being?

That's what I felt. But apparently, I wasn't supposed to be concerned with the wellbeing of a "random dragon". In the GM's own words "bros before foes".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I would not have made the Paladin fall. A possessed, evil-committing ally isn't the same as a normal ally. The Paladin might regret having to spill their blood, but injuring somebody in order to ultimately help them (and others) isn't exactly evil, especially when you have a specific plan to help them (and aren't just being an extremist "anything is justified for their own good" type). Otherwise, what would you call a surgeon?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Madokar Valortouched wrote:
Brew Bird wrote:
Would you not have fallen if you just let the Magus slay an innocent being?
That's what I felt. But apparently, I wasn't supposed to be concerned with the wellbeing of a "random dragon". In the GM's own words "bros before foes".

well seeing as how your paladin couldnt travel with the magus anymore if they did kill the dragon you would no longer be bros thus preventing him from killing the dragon actually saved your brohood


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Whoa, you were taking pains to try and subdue your magus non lethally and you ended up not even killing the guy but still fell? That is bull. Hell, I'd argue that a Paladin would even be able to use lethal for a bit before falling back to nonlethal (if you can calculate it properly) because you can always heal the unconscious guy back (non lethal and lethal damage are counted together to see if someone is unconscious, and lethal and nonlethal damage are healed at the same time in one casting)

It sounds more like your GM wanted your Paladin to fall (eventually) there was no stopping it and I think its better for you to reroll into another class where there will be less arduous calls by the GM.

I also don't see anything in Iomedae's code to have made your Paladin fall. If anything, he was upholding it instead, despite how bad attacking an ally would seem because- I'd argue you were trying to help him guard his honor. If your GM argues that attacking was not temperate/moderate, I'd ask him what response he'd have if someone is using a weapon and magic powers other than using the same equivalent.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Madokar Valortouched wrote:
Brew Bird wrote:
Would you not have fallen if you just let the Magus slay an innocent being?
That's what I felt. But apparently, I wasn't supposed to be concerned with the wellbeing of a "random dragon". In the GM's own words "bros before foes".

... But, isn't being willing to take risks for the well being of strangers basically one of the defining traits of good? Only caring about yourself and those immediately close to you is basically textbook neutral.


For the record, I can't bring up the people online. I'm the outsider in the group, and the rest of the party agrees with the GM's decision. Their united opinion is that people online don't know the group or the story the GM is trying to tell.


Madokar Valortouched wrote:
bbangerter wrote:

There isn't a clear rules answer to this particular question - it depends on way to much contextual information that hasn't been provided, and really is subject to GM adjudication, which your GM did.

You can, and probably will, get a variety of opinions on it though.

Which deity does your paladin follow? What alignment is the magus? Ask your GM why protecting a creature of good (silver dragon) would be evil? Which is more important, the life of the silver dragon or the life of your companion of possibly questionable alignment if his black blade - which matches his alignment, would want a silver dragon dead? Is it his black blades purpose to snuff out all dragons (maybe the magus isn't really evil, just for whatever cosmic purposes, the blade dislikes dragons specifically). What was the rest of the party doing? If not helping you, they may not be the best travelling companions for your paladin?

Personally, I think your GM's view is extreme. For me, if a paladin whacks his allies for attacking a creature known to be good, they well good and deserved it - that includes if they get possessed or mind controlled. But this also assumes they've tried other options (which it sounds like you did) before resorting to violence.

My paladin follows Iomedae. The alignment of the Magus is Chaotic Good. Our GM came up with a side quest for the Magus to destroy any Black Blade the party comes across. The Black Blade wanted the Dragon dead because the Dragon turned out to be infused with a Black Blade of her own in her claws. Said Black Blade forced her to attack the Magus as well. Both combatants had solid black eyes as they shouted "To the death!" and "There can be only one!"

We have come across other NPCs and enemies with Black Blades the Magi's blade wants to destroy. This is the first opponent that has had the blade fused to their body. All other Black Blade wielders could wind up disarmed when defeated. She couldn't be disarmed. She would have wound up mutilated at best or dead...

So the silver dragon was also taken over by its black blade? It was going to kill the magus if the magus didn't kill it? In that case, silver dragon probably, regrettably, needs to die. Still wouldn't have made your paladin fall though as its a no-win situation - choice between killing an otherwise creature of LG alignment, or your companion who does not hold to the same values you do isn't a 'fair' situation to be placed in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
Madokar Valortouched wrote:
Brew Bird wrote:
Would you not have fallen if you just let the Magus slay an innocent being?
That's what I felt. But apparently, I wasn't supposed to be concerned with the wellbeing of a "random dragon". In the GM's own words "bros before foes".
... But, isn't being willing to take risks for the well being of strangers basically one of the defining traits of good? Only caring about yourself and those immediately close to you is basically textbook neutral.

You'd think so, but there seems to be more emphasis on the "Lawful" component of my alignment than my "Good". Even though I'm of the opinion that any paladin worth their salt should choose the Good option if forced into a situation to be Lawful or be Good.


Madokar Valortouched wrote:
For the record, I can't bring up the people online. I'm the outsider in the group, and the rest of the party agrees with the GM's decision. Their united opinion is that people online don't know the group or the story the GM is trying to tell.

And its a very fair point for them to make, particularly the GM. We have your side of the story, but as I mentioned in my first post, there is a lot of context we don't have. You've given us what you are able, but the GM's side of the story would provide a lot more. Something you should ask yourself, "Do you trust this GM to make your paladin falling an enjoyable, and good story point?" Or do you feel the GM is simply being malicious?


bbangerter wrote:
So the silver dragon was also taken over by its black blade? It was going to kill the magus if the magus didn't kill it? In that case, silver dragon probably, regrettably, needs to die. Still wouldn't have made your paladin fall though as its a no-win situation - choice between killing an otherwise creature of LG alignment, or your companion who does not hold to the same values you do isn't a 'fair' situation to be placed in.

In such a situation, I would do my best to save both lives, then just consign one innocent life to death for the sake of pragmatism.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Madokar Valortouched wrote:
The Black Blade wanted the Dragon dead because the Dragon turned out to be infused with a Black Blade of her own in her claws. Said Black Blade forced her to attack the Magus as well. Both combatants had solid black eyes as they shouted "To the death!" and "There can be only one!"

Forget everything else. How did a young Silver Dragon with Bladebound Magus levels fail the pathetically low Will save to have its mind taken over by a Black Blade?

For a young Silver Dragon with 5 Magus levels, it's a CR 15 encounter, so let's cap it there for now. Its Black Blade will have an ego of 8, meaning it's a DC 8 Will save to avoid being dominated ... and it has a Will save of +16. Unless the DM rolled a 1, it's not possible for the dragon to fail its save. Just saying.

Also, I wouldn't have your paladin fall for such an action. And saying "bros before foes" as the justification for making your paladin fall when you were trying to save both lives ... makes me think that your GM is probably an idiot. Since you can't bring up online response anyway, I don't feel too bad saying that.


bbangerter wrote:
Madokar Valortouched wrote:
For the record, I can't bring up the people online. I'm the outsider in the group, and the rest of the party agrees with the GM's decision. Their united opinion is that people online don't know the group or the story the GM is trying to tell.
And its a very fair point for them to make, particularly the GM. We have your side of the story, but as I mentioned in my first post, there is a lot of context we don't have. You've given us what you are able, but the GM's side of the story would provide a lot more. Something you should ask yourself, "Do you trust this GM to make your paladin falling an enjoyable, and good story point?" Or do you feel the GM is simply being malicious?

I do trust him to come up with an impressive story. We've been going at this campaign a year and this is the first major dispute that's popped up. I just question his rationality behind the fall than his story-telling ability. And the rest of the group has played with him for years and they trust him.


Cheburn wrote:
Madokar Valortouched wrote:
The Black Blade wanted the Dragon dead because the Dragon turned out to be infused with a Black Blade of her own in her claws. Said Black Blade forced her to attack the Magus as well. Both combatants had solid black eyes as they shouted "To the death!" and "There can be only one!"

Forget everything else. How did a young Silver Dragon with Bladebound Magus levels fail the pathetically low Will save to have its mind taken over by a Black Blade?

For a young Silver Dragon with 5 Magus levels, it's a CR 15 encounter, so let's cap it there for now. Its Black Blade will have an ego of 8, meaning it's a DC 8 Will save to avoid being dominated ... and it has a Will save of +16. Unless the DM rolled a 1, it's not possible for the dragon to fail its save. Just saying.

Also, I wouldn't have your paladin fall for such an action. And saying "bros before foes" as the justification for making your paladin fall when you were trying to save both lives ... makes me think that your GM is probably an idiot. Since you can't bring up online response anyway, I don't feel too bad saying that.

I would think calling him an idiot would be a bit much.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Madokar Valortouched wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
Madokar Valortouched wrote:
For the record, I can't bring up the people online. I'm the outsider in the group, and the rest of the party agrees with the GM's decision. Their united opinion is that people online don't know the group or the story the GM is trying to tell.
And its a very fair point for them to make, particularly the GM. We have your side of the story, but as I mentioned in my first post, there is a lot of context we don't have. You've given us what you are able, but the GM's side of the story would provide a lot more. Something you should ask yourself, "Do you trust this GM to make your paladin falling an enjoyable, and good story point?" Or do you feel the GM is simply being malicious?
I do trust him to come up with an impressive story. We've been going at this campaign a year and this is the first major dispute that's popped up. I just question his rationality behind the fall than his story-telling ability. And the rest of the group has played with him for years and they trust him.

Impressive is nice, but will it be any fun for you?

In any case, it seems you need to speak to the GM some more. Try to get more than a soundbite about why you fell and how he thinks you should have dealt with it. Then decide if the campaign is worth continuing to play and if you still want to play that character. The two are different questions.

As to his decision, to me "Bros before foes" is a more Chaotic attitude than most paladins should have. Us first, the rest of the world can worry about themselves.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Incidentally, Paladins are allowed to do something Chaotic without falling, as long as it doesn't actually change their alignment (and, generally, one action is not enough for that).


BretI wrote:
Madokar Valortouched wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
Madokar Valortouched wrote:
For the record, I can't bring up the people online. I'm the outsider in the group, and the rest of the party agrees with the GM's decision. Their united opinion is that people online don't know the group or the story the GM is trying to tell.
And its a very fair point for them to make, particularly the GM. We have your side of the story, but as I mentioned in my first post, there is a lot of context we don't have. You've given us what you are able, but the GM's side of the story would provide a lot more. Something you should ask yourself, "Do you trust this GM to make your paladin falling an enjoyable, and good story point?" Or do you feel the GM is simply being malicious?
I do trust him to come up with an impressive story. We've been going at this campaign a year and this is the first major dispute that's popped up. I just question his rationality behind the fall than his story-telling ability. And the rest of the group has played with him for years and they trust him.

Impressive is nice, but will it be any fun for you?

In any case, it seems you need to speak to the GM some more. Try to get more than a soundbite about why you fell and how he thinks you should have dealt with it. Then decide if the campaign is worth continuing to play and if you still want to play that character. The two are different questions.

As to his decision, to me "Bros before foes" is a more Chaotic attitude than most paladins should have. Us first, the rest of the world can worry about themselves.

I've spent a week talking with my GM over Facebook. I've gotten this out of him in regards to what my paladin code should be: Right above might, bros before foes, knowing before rushing in blind.

It basically boils down to him seeing that I made a poor impulse call, and that a random encounter in a temple didn't have an equal right to live than my teammate.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

From the description of what happened, I don't think playing a different character would necessarily help in this group -- it sounds like your GM would try to have your Fighter fall.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

All Paladins should pick up the "Golden Legion's Stayed Blade" feat when at all possible.

It ensures that you can do lethal damage without having the killing blow (making you be able to pull the punch), instead only knocking someone unconscious.

Quote:


Apparently, the GM viewed spilling the blood of an ally as an evil act and betrayal of the paladin code.

This is why I don't play paladins.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

reason #1 I won't play a paladin. seriously tell that gm to go f%%+ himself, if that doesn't work find a new group they sound like idiots and a~+@!$+s.


Quintain wrote:

All Paladins should pick up the "Golden Legion's Stayed Blade" feat when at all possible.

It ensures that you can do lethal damage without having the killing blow (making you be able to pull the punch), instead only knocking someone unconscious.

Quote:


Apparently, the GM viewed spilling the blood of an ally as an evil act and betrayal of the paladin code.
This is why I don't play paladins.

I did not know that feat existed. I'll put it on my feat list for the future.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

No, your DM is totally wrong.

Find another group.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
bbangerter wrote:


And its a very fair point for them to make, particularly the GM. We have your side of the story, but as I mentioned in my first post, there is a lot of context we don't have. You've given us what you are able, but the GM's side of the story would provide a lot more. Something you should ask yourself, "Do you trust this GM to make your paladin falling an enjoyable, and good story point?" Or do you feel the GM is simply being malicious?

, "Do you trust this GM to make your paladin falling an enjoyable, and good story point?"

There is no such thing- unless the player agrees before hand.

Do you trust your Dm that destroying your wizards spellbook will make a enjoyable, and good story point?"

Do you trust your Dm that cutting off your rogues fingers will make a enjoyable, and good story point?"

Do you trust your Dm that making your fighter a parplegic will make a enjoyable, and good story point?"


You'd be justified stopping your Magus ally. You'd also be justified stopping the dragon. In an ideal situation, you'd be able to stop them from killing each other. Obviously, the situation was far from ideal. As a party member, I'd probably try to stop the dragon first, then stop the magus, as I'd prefer my party to live. Failing to save one or both of the combatants, as the Paladin I'd pray for their souls or show repentance or something. The worst thing you could do after killing a Good enemy would be to walk away without feeling the least bit sorry.

Liberty's Edge

Just because two beings are fighting does not mean either are evil or even committing an evil act. You decided to interfere in a consensual fight and use lethal force. Both parties involved in the fight use an intelligent weapon which was in controll at the time of the fight, but each has some form of arrangement with their weapon. If the party's magus never wanted to be controlled by the Black Blade he did not have to spend so much effort making it powerful enough to control him.

Sounds to me like carrying a Black Blade in this campaign means you are signed up in a voluntary fight club. If someone doesn't like it they can just get rid of their Blade. I wouldn't feel obligated to support the magus is every fight with a Black Blade user in this campaign knowing the Blades all want the others destroyed. As a paladin I would try to convince the Magus' Blade that it can save killing good Blade users for last; that is kind of how it worked in the Highlander setting. I would also ask unknown Black Blade users if they knew what their Black Blade wanted before they encountered your Magus. You may be able to use diplomacy to postpone the fight if the new person wasn't aware of what using a Black Blade meant, for the Blade to find a new wielder.

I do not think it is evil to let people do what they want, so I do not think your paladin would have fallen for watching the fight and stabilizing the loser.


Omnitricks wrote:


It sounds more like your GM wanted your Paladin to fall (eventually) there was no stopping it and I think its better for you to reroll into another class where there will be less arduous calls by the GM.

I second this opinion. Perhaps your DM has some specific bias against Paladins? I think I would be wary of even suggesting playing another Paladin with this particular DM.


Samish Lakefinder wrote:

Just because two beings are fighting does not mean either are evil or even committing an evil act. You decided to interfere in a consensual fight and use lethal force. Both parties involved in the fight use an intelligent weapon which was in controll at the time of the fight, but each has some form of arrangement with their weapon. If the party's magus never wanted to be controlled by the Black Blade he did not have to spend so much effort making it powerful enough to control him.

Sounds to me like carrying a Black Blade in this campaign means you are signed up in a voluntary fight club. If someone doesn't like it they can just get rid of their Blade. I wouldn't feel obligated to support the magus is every fight with a Black Blade user in this campaign knowing the Blades all want the others destroyed. As a paladin I would try to convince the Magus' Blade that it can save killing good Blade users for last; that is kind of how it worked in the Highlander setting. I would also ask unknown Black Blade users if they knew what their Black Blade wanted before they encountered your Magus. You may be able to use diplomacy to postpone the fight if the new person wasn't aware of what using a Black Blade meant, for the Blade to find a new wielder.

I do not think it is evil to let people do what they want, so I do not think your paladin would have fallen for watching the fight and stabilizing the loser.

I think you're the first one to side with my GM both here and on Giant in the Playground.

Thing is, it wasn't a consensual fight. Both combatants had their eyes turn solid black, and when the fight was over, they had no recollection of the fight. The Black Blades were in complete control.

There is also no apparent way to communicate with the Blades if you are not their wielder. And even then it's iffy. At least, that's the way it's been going so far in the campaign.

And I agree. It isn't evil to let people do what they want. But both combatants were not in control of their actions. Both were Good aligned. So being compelled to kill each other is not what they would do under their own power. It wouldn't be what they wanted.


Madokar Valortouched wrote:
For the record, I can't bring up the people online. I'm the outsider in the group, and the rest of the party agrees with the GM's decision. Their united opinion is that people online don't know the group or the story the GM is trying to tell.

If the way you perceive your character is incompatible with the rest of the group, you should find another group. Do not start an argument, simply walk away. You are playing a Paladin. You, the player, have the ability to make a moral stand. Speaking as a DM, I would be proud to have a player who is willing to play a Paladin properly.


Quintain wrote:

All Paladins should pick up the "Golden Legion's Stayed Blade" feat when at all possible.

It ensures that you can do lethal damage without having the killing blow (making you be able to pull the punch), instead only knocking someone unconscious.

Quote:


Apparently, the GM viewed spilling the blood of an ally as an evil act and betrayal of the paladin code.
This is why I don't play paladins.

That is one convenient feat. Hell even my rogues would take it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

realistically....What we say doesn't matter. If we do or do not agree with you, it won't make a difference to the end result, and folks agreeing with you may actually make the game less fun, as it will heighten the feeling of being wrongfully punished.

Realistically, if you've talked to the DM and can't change his mind, its a gut check moment. Do you want to stay and play despite that, or do you want to try to find a different group or some other similar solution


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just had a thought. If your DM has made your Paladin fall, why not fall all the way. Make him a Blackguard, and then make a note of how long it takes for him and the other players to object. This might give a clue as to what direction your DM is taking his campaign.


John Napier 698 wrote:

I just had a thought. If your DM has made your Paladin fall, why not fall all the way. Make him a Blackguard, and then make a note of how long it takes for him and the other players to object. This might give a clue as to what direction your DM is taking his campaign.

your talking about anti paladin right? and i agree if the dm wont listen to reason about your paladin falling make him go super dark and become an anti paladin and be the most evil of characters ever and start by smiting the dude who thought it was a good idea to have an intelligent weapon in the 1st place its a bad idea and it usually ends up killing the rest of the party


Yes, you're right, Antipaladin. Sorry, had a bit of 3.5 flashback. Quite so. If the DM is making a Paladin fall, he has no right to complain about how far he falls. Moreover, the Ex-Paladin should go over-the-top in his Evil. Just let the DM complain. I Dare him.


i would also like to stress the fact that having an intelligent item really is super dumb we had a tpk cuz the rogue failed their will save(surprise surprise) and they coup de grased the party while they slept and then the dagger made the rogue coup de gras herself. there was another instance were a party member had an intelligent item and it prevented him from attacking a few different kinds of creatures (this was one of the few times i don't play the front line in the group) we just so happen to run into a creature of that type(it was a dragon) it wasn't hostile at the time but was poly morphed and our cleric says something super insulting to it(none of us know its a dragon at this point) dragon gets pissed at him and starts attacking de poly morphing and because our main front liner cant even attempt to hit it, it just ignores him and proceeds to tear the back line apart and flys off after killing me the cleric and our wizard only the barbarian(guy with intelligent item) and our rogue survive, barbarian cuz he literally couldn't do anything to the dragon and the rogue cuz he rolled a nat 20 on his stealth after booking it when he got critted by the dragon.


Intelligent magic items are generally a bad idea. I don't allow them in my games.

Liberty's Edge

Madokar Valortouched said wrote:

Thing is, it wasn't a consensual fight. Both combatants had their eyes turn solid black, and when the fight was over, they had no recollection of the fight. The Black Blades were in complete control.

There is also no apparent way to communicate with the Blades if you are not their wielder. And even then it's iffy. At least, that's the way it's been going so far in the campaign.

And I agree. It isn't evil to let people do what they want. But both combatants were not in control of their actions. Both were Good aligned. So being compelled to kill each other is not what they would do under their own power. It wouldn't be what they wanted.

Unless your Magus has added some type of spell like modify memory to his spell list, I do not know of a way a standard Black Blade can erase memory of an event. This makes me think your GM modified Black Blades for his campaign.

I had assumed your Magus knew his Blade's purpose, since it was mentioned that you had fought other Black Blade users. Since he does not remember events when he is possessed, I think you should roleplay out a talk with the Magus about the dangers of the Black Blade, what your Paladin things he should do with it, and what you will do in the future if continues using the Black Blade and he attacks a good creature. After a talk like that all the responsibility rests on the Magus for future encounters.

While paladins tend not to be fonts of knowledge, yours has seen that the Blades can talk when in control of a body as they shouted "To the death!" and "There can be only one!". So it should be possible to communicate with them when they are in controll. At the start of an encounter with another Black Blade, you could threaten it with destruction if it doesn't let it's wielder answer two questions. 1. Do you know your Blade's purpose? 2. Knowing the purpose are you using the Blade voluntary? The GM has given you a nice visual cue if the Blade is in control. You may even arrange through the Magus to have his Blade give you the time to ask, it may get an ally and prevents you from becoming an enemy by agreeing to give you the time to ask.

So if you have the talk with the Magus and ask any user of a Blade you meet to answer the two questions, you will know if future fights are voluntary and have a plan for dealing with new Blades.

What your Paladin probably doesn't know and the GM may have changed is that a Black Blade can hear and see everything around it like a creature even if it can only talk to its wielder.

Liberty's Edge

While it may seem like a good idea to take improved sunder to destroy Black Blades that are controlling people, that has been the first step to falling into evil for paladins since 3.5s Blackguard prestige class.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Samish Lakefinder wrote:


I had assumed your Magus knew his Blade's purpose, since it was mentioned that you had fought other Black Blade users. Since he does not remember events when he is possessed, I think you should roleplay out a talk with the Magus about the dangers of the Black Blade, what your Paladin things he should do with it, and what you will do in the future if continues using the Black Blade and he attacks a good creature. After a talk like that all the responsibility rests on the Magus for future encounters.

the only reasonable thing to do is bring it to mordor and throw it into the fiery pits of mount doom


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Ha Ha Ha, :) Good reference. Or, better still, collect them all and put them in glass cases in a long hall. Let them sit there and glare at each other in all their impotent rage.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Napier 698 wrote:
Ha Ha Ha, :) Good reference. Or, better still, collect them all and put them in glass cases in a long hall. Let them sit there and glare at each other in all their impotent rage.

I'm making a rogue whose sole goal is to do that now.

I don't think you should have fallen, but that sounds like the GM carefully engineered a classic box full of Goblin babies for you.


Tyinyk wrote:
John Napier 698 wrote:
Ha Ha Ha, :) Good reference. Or, better still, collect them all and put them in glass cases in a long hall. Let them sit there and glare at each other in all their impotent rage.

I'm making a rogue whose sole goal is to do that now.

I don't think you should have fallen, but that sounds like the GM carefully engineered a classic box full of Goblin babies for you.

there was nothing careful about it he just said bros before foes lol you fall


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The situation involved obviously had more thought put into it than that. I mean, think about it. He made it so that the three options he had all resulted in a lose. No walking away, no matter who he attacked he would have lost, and because of another party member, under control from the DM, there was no avoiding it. He really thought it through.

1 to 50 of 442 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Fallen Paladin: Does attacking a possessed party member qualify as an Evil Act and Violation of the Paladin Code? All Messageboards