I was looking over the madnesses discussed in horror adventures and started thinking about them in relation to the paladin class. This, of course, brought up a number of questions.
If a paladin's insanity drives them to commit an evil act, such as a delusion makes them think someone is evil when they aren't or their mania is for something.., does it count as willingly or unwilling committing an evil act?
If a paladin as a dissociated identity and one of the identities willingly violates their code of conduct, how does that effect things for the other identities? How might atonement differ?
If a paladin possessed moral insanity, could they still be a paladin while the condition is suppressed? How might this insanity effect atonement?
And to a different front, though still perhaps on the subject of insanity; Could a paladin take Dreamed Secrets?
Orlando, of Ariosto's Orlando Furioso is arguably one of the original models for the paladin concept, and he went insane at one point, then returned to being very much the great warrior he was, if not moreso.
In some versions of the Arthurian saga, Lancelot goes insane as well, IIRC due to the intrinsic conflict between his loyalty to Arthur and his love for Gwenivere.
It would not be inappropriate or unthematic to deprive an insane paladin of his holy powers, and to require a post-insanity paladin to seek absolution for his misdeeds, unintentional though they may have been.
There are no rules covering this sort of thing, so no RAW answer. It's all up to what the DM and player come up with, whether separately or together.
If a Paladin commits an act that causes them to fall, whether or not they were insane while doing so, doesn't change the fall, but might change the qualifications for redemption.
BTW, Lancelot was listed in the old DDG as an Ex-Paladin, but not because of Guenivere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the general ruling for forced evil acts (whether madness or mind control induced) were that, yes the paladin falls, but the Atonement to get back is the free type. I personally think that's stupid, but I think that's either Paizo's or JJ's stance on the matter, don't recall who.
If you're going to call something "stupid" especially the work of professionals, it's polite to at least say why, if for no other reason than to give your assertion some backing.
It also might help to say what you consider stupid, the free atonement, or that the Paladin falls in this scenario.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would rule the Paladin will Fall, and would require an atonement. The return of sanity will bring on feelings of guilt that won't go away easily, especially for a Paladin.
Additionally, the above would prevent that clever player stratagem of a Paladin with a recurring madness committing mass useful mayhem, and be instantly all better with an application of Heal or any other cure for insanity. I've seen it done by the way.
Additionally, the above would prevent that clever player stratagem of a Paladin with a recurring madness committing mass useful mayhem, and be instantly all better with an application of Heal or any other cure for insanity. I've seen it done by the way.
This kind of thing would be like adding premeditation onto manslaughter to qualify it as murder one. Sincere atonement or redemption would be impossible, or nearly so.
We've had soooo many discussions on these boards on what makes a paladin fall, and this sort of discussion has been going on since the inception of the game in the 70s.
As always, the final decision rests on a discussion between player and DM, both of whom need to remember Wheaton's Law. <g>