Question as per the title
If a Paladin Falls is he immediately aware? Or does he only find out when he attempts to use one of his abilities?
In my case I am talking about someone who is Level 1 so would only have Smite and Detect Evil (so no need to tell them to adjust saves or anything).
(I am hoping it doesn't come to this as I would hate nothing more than to make a 1st level Paladin Fall - it depend on the stubbornness of the player)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Up to DM (you, I assume), but it seems kind of mean to not tell him right away. I've always assumed that DMs stand up, point across the table, and scream, "YOU FALL!!!"
So... Story time? Why's the paladin falling?
As an aside I recall a Paladin falling in a Pathfinder podcast I am listening to and he found out when trying and failing to Lay on Hands (I don't know if the player knew before session or not)
In my case I am concerned about the not acting with honour part.
He and the group made a deal to pay a kidnapper (Neutral alignment) to go away. He also knows the kidnapper was operating under a case of mistaken identity.
However the group really don't want to pay the guy off with their own money. They first tried to pay him using gold they have taken off of his subordinates who had surrendered to them. He insisted on, you know, actually ending up with more than his group started with.
The Paladin came back and threw the bag of coins in the corner of the room rather than hand them over to the NPC. When the NPC went to pick them up he bull rushed him to the ground.
I don't know what will happen next but OOC they are talking about taking their money back after making a deal with the guy. I also am not certain if they are going to kill / leave for dead the leader and his men.
This adds on top of being party to a lie to get an audience with another NPC (a straight up lie about why they wanted to meet)
It is all a bit sketchy. There is an argument that it is not quite enough to Fall at this stage. I know these are hot debates. And most seem to resolve around killing people for some kind of greater good rather than just general dishonorable behaviour...
But it is not a good path to be heading down in my opinion (and whilst thinking about it I was just interested in the mechanics of Falling)
as a GM you can come up with another code of conduct if you think the code is too harsh on some point or not clear enough.
point aside, as the code it is written, a paladin must not lie, if the paladin give his word he will pay then do not pay and use questionable way of handling the situation afterwards, he is not acting with honour* and you should remind him that, and that the force of good and law, and the deity he might serve will not be please with his action (only remind in once or twice)
-
*depending from where and from what culture honour might be different, IRL samurai honour was to serve their master and do whatever it was needed to please them, IRL knight honour was about fair combat in duel and the like and it was only applicable to other noble, so depending of your world honour might be something else as you dictate your world
Thanks for this. This is actually PFS (or at least using PFS rules) so I don't really want to play too fast and loose with things like new codes
I don't think he told the lie to the first NPC.
But he is definitely about to be dishonourable towards someone he agreed to pay.
I am in the process of warning the player. Hopefully it doesn't annoy him too much
@ OP: It's up to the GM to determine how that's carried out in-game. Some GMs outright say things like "You betrayed your code of conduct, you fall." Others are more creative (even if they basically say the same thing), such as saying things like "Your actions leave your soul feeling hallow and weak, as if something went missing." And as you said, there are tables that don't tell them they've fallen until they rely on their powers to do good.
As an aside I recall a Paladin falling in a Pathfinder podcast I am listening to and he found out when trying and failing to Lay on Hands (I don't know if the player knew before session or not)
In my case I am concerned about the not acting with honour part.
He and the group made a deal to pay a kidnapper (Neutral alignment) to go away. He also knows the kidnapper was operating under a case of mistaken identity.
However the group really don't want to pay the guy off with their own money. They first tried to pay him using gold they have taken off of his subordinates who had surrendered to them. He insisted on, you know, actually ending up with more than his group started with.
The Paladin came back and threw the bag of coins in the corner of the room rather than hand them over to the NPC. When the NPC went to pick them up he bull rushed him to the ground.
I don't know what will happen next but OOC they are talking about taking their money back after making a deal with the guy. I also am not certain if they are going to kill / leave for dead the leader and his men.
This adds on top of being party to a lie to get an audience with another NPC (a straight up lie about why they wanted to meet)
It is all a bit sketchy. There is an argument that it is not quite enough to Fall at this stage. I know these are hot debates. And most seem to resolve around killing people for some kind of greater good rather than just general dishonorable behaviour...
But it is not a good path to be heading down in my opinion (and whilst thinking about it I was just interested in the mechanics of Falling)
I don't think the Paladin should fall in this case (just yet). He's not giving into the tyranny of the bad guy, nor is he condoning his actions whatsoever. That's what a typical Paladin does; caving into the Evil the NPC is doing, or having it taking place is not something a bastion of good would accept happening, and would do something about it.
Granted, taking the bag of money (which is probably wrongfully gained, I might add), and preventing the bad guy from getting it via force is perhaps not the most prudent course of action, but it demonstrates that he won't accept the bad guy getting off without punishment, which makes sense for a Paladin to do.
As for what they're going to do next, The Paladin might not kill them, but rather turn them over to the authorities to deal with, unless he's given no choice but to kill them (as they're harming the kidnapped). (Speaking of authorities, what the heck are they doing at this juncture, are they oblivious as usual?)
If the Paladin wasn't a part of the lying, then he's not doing anything wrong. If anything, his actions would point out that he wasn't told that this was a meeting to pay off the bad guy, which he deduced after seeing the bag of coins about to be handed over to said bad guy, and acted accordingly (since everyone else was on board except the Paladin).
I also highly doubt the bad guy will adhere to his part of the bargain if he's hiding under the guise of mistaken identity in an attempt to further his cause, which means the Paladin probably wouldn't make a deal with him without some sort of insurance or back-up plan, if he's smart enough of course...
So, unless the Paladin:
-Gives into the bad guy's greedy demands without some recourse
-Kills the bad guys for no legitimate reason (i.e. not a kill or be killed situation)
-Participates in the lies and deception of the party
Then he shouldn't fall. He might get warnings from his deity, and if he explains that what he did was for the greater good, then he should really only get a slap on the wrist, telling him to find better means to accomplish his tasks, and that's about as bad as it gets.
As far as honor goes (Lawful part of his alignment), consider how you would treat him if he was Lawful Evil. Is he working within the letter of his bargain? Does he wait for the other party to break the deal first?Does he let the other person make assumptions about the deal that he doesn't agree to?
Keep in mind that Archons are Devils who work for the forces of good and that Paladins emulate them. They will not suffer a bad deal any more than Devils will and should twist the legalese in order to do the most good.
@ OP: It's up to the GM to determine how that's carried out in-game. Some GMs outright say things like "You betrayed your code of conduct, you fall." Others are more creative (even if they basically say the same thing), such as saying things like "Your actions leave your soul feeling hallow and weak, as if something went missing." And as you said, there are tables that don't tell them they've fallen until they rely on their powers to do good.
...As an aside I recall a Paladin falling in a Pathfinder podcast I am listening to and he found out when trying and failing to Lay on Hands (I don't know if the player knew before session or not)
In my case I am concerned about the not acting with honour part.
He and the group made a deal to pay a kidnapper (Neutral alignment) to go away. He also knows the kidnapper was operating under a case of mistaken identity.
However the group really don't want to pay the guy off with their own money. They first tried to pay him using gold they have taken off of his subordinates who had surrendered to them. He insisted on, you know, actually ending up with more than his group started with.
The Paladin came back and threw the bag of coins in the corner of the room rather than hand them over to the NPC. When the NPC went to pick them up he bull rushed him to the ground.
I don't know what will happen next but OOC they are talking about taking their money back after making a deal with the guy. I also am not certain if they are going to kill / leave for dead the leader and his men.
This adds on top of being party to a lie to get an audience with another NPC (a straight up lie about why they wanted to meet)
It is all a bit sketchy. There is an argument that it is not quite enough to Fall at this stage. I know these are hot debates. And most seem to resolve around killing people for some kind of greater good rather than just general dishonorable behaviour...
But it is not a good path to be heading down in my opinion (and whilst thinking
The scenario is a little more complicated :
- The "Bad Guy" is True Neutral. He is not evil at all
- The "Bad Guy" is legitimately operating under a sense of mistaken identity - he thinks the person he has kidnapped is connected to people who is nation's government would consider traitors
- The group already agreed to pay the guy some gold to leave and give up the victim (and this is what they are looking at breaking seemingly only because they want to retain the gold)
- The Paladin has attacked someone who has taken a deal from them and agreed to cease hostilities
- The remainder of the opponents associates are currently tied up (so are no threat to the group)
It is a complex situation
But one I do feel at least needs a warning.
Paladins are expected to be honourable and trustworthy and get some powerful abilities as a result
(As an aside I am a little sour because I believe he actually wants to play a different class but wants 2 levels of Paladin to get Charisma to saves. Hence why I am very sensitive to cases where no intention seems to be made to play to the Code)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did the paladin himself tell the lie, or agree to pay the kidnapper? If not he should not fall. Having a paladin fall because of the action of another character’s questionable behavior is not cool. Also does the paladin consider the kidnapper to be evil? Remember that detect evil does not work on low level characters so just because a character does not detect as evil does not mean he is not. If the kidnapper can be operating under the excuse of mistaken identity the paladin should also get the same benefit.
I also find the idea that a paladin will fall because he does not agree to pay a kidnapper ransom to be pretty bad. Kidnapping is usually considered an evil act. You are after all taking away someone freedom and holding them against their will. Most kidnappers also threaten to kill the hostage if they are not paid. A paladin should not even fall for opposing this at all. Many paladins would either kill the kidnapper or at least turn him over to the authorities. Just because the kidnapper is neutral does not mean he cannot perform evil acts.
As to your original question a paladin should know the instant they fall. 1st level paladins also have Aura of Good as a class feature. They literally radiate good, and when the fall that stops.
Did the paladin himself tell the lie, or agree to pay the kidnapper? If not he should not fall. Having a paladin fall because of the action of another character’s questionable behavior is not cool. Also does the paladin consider the kidnapper to be evil? Remember that detect evil does not work on low level characters so just because a character does not detect as evil does not mean he is not. If the kidnapper can be operating under the excuse of mistaken identity the paladin should also get the same benefit.
I also find the idea that a paladin will fall because he does not agree to pay a kidnapper ransom to be pretty bad. Kidnapping is usually considered an evil act. You are after all taking away someone freedom and holding them against their will. Most kidnappers also threaten to kill the hostage if they are not paid. A paladin should not even fall for opposing this at all. Many paladins would either kill the kidnapper or at least turn him over to the authorities. Just because the kidnapper is neutral does not mean he cannot perform evil acts.
As to your original question a paladin should know the instant they fall. 1st level paladins also have Aura of Good as a class feature. They literally radiate good, and when the fall that stops.
The kidnapper has taken someone who they thought was an escapee from the perceived justice of their nation. And they are not evil aligned.
He has been informed that the person he has is not an escapee and that he was lied to by the person who gave him the victim's location
He has bargained with the group to take some gold for the time he has wasted / been away from home for in and let the kidnap victim go
The Paladin has tricked him (after he the agreement was made) into turning his back and then attacked him from behind.
He also intends to take the gold back off of him (has not happened yet).
From everything I can tell from out of character the gold is being taken back as much because "I don't want to lose some gold" as it is for "we shouldn't be paying kidnappers". Regardless of what reason or justification there was an agreement that they would pay. The kidnapper even handed over information/instructions he had received to help the group more (not originally party of the bargain)
It just seems quite deceitful
As to "does the Paladin consider him to be evil". I am not 100% certain that is relevant. What if he is wrong? I am not convinced it is up to the Paladin to be judge, jury and executioner, especially when he is visiting a foreign land
For the record I am not intending on making him Fall for this. But as another respondent has noted he is skirting the line and needs warning about this kind of thing.
And equally I am concerned that he is not far off butchering the leader and his men who at this point have either surrendered or bargained to cease hostilities. (I hope this does not happen)
The scenario is a little more complicated :
- The "Bad Guy" is True Neutral. He is not evil at all
Says who? He seems like a douche to me. Just because he isn't evil doesn't mean that he' isn't a valid target for the Paladin.
- The "Bad Guy" is legitimately operating under a sense of mistaken identityBeing misinformed doesn't make his actions more righteous.
- The group already agreed to pay the guy some gold to leave and give up the victim"They", not just the Paladin. Don't punish the Paladin. This is also not necessarily against a Paladin's code. The victim is freed against bail, that doesn't mean that the bad guy should go free.
- The Paladin has attacked someone who has taken a deal from them and agreed to cease hostilitiesAgain, is not necessarily against a Paladin's code. Do you expect the Paladin to turn a blind eye and let criminals off the hook? Just because they made one deal? That sort of corruption would honestly be less Paladin-like.
- The remainder of the opponents associates are currently tied up (so are no threat to the group)
It is a complex situationAgain, is not necessarily against a Paladin's code. It really isn't that complex.
There is an argument that it is not quite enough to Fall at this stage.Not remotely enough, I would say.
But it is not a good path to be heading down in my opinion (and whilst thinking about it I was just interested in the mechanics of Falling)Don't be that DM...
In response to "Says who" - the scenario that the NPC comes from and their stat block. He would not detect as evil regardless of level
Perhaps it was poorly explained in that to the party the NPC is a kidnapper. The the kidnapper he is capturing an escaped traitor from his home country. So in his mind it does make his actions more righteous. And the party and the Paladin KNOW this. The know all about the mistake that has been made.
But it seems like I have opened up another circular debate here where there are very differing opinions.
I should have just left my original question about the mechanics of falling up and not revealed the background
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Thou hast lost an eighth!"
And equally I am concerned that he is not far off butchering the leader and his men who at this point have either surrendered or bargained to cease hostilities. (I hope this does not happen)Again, is not necessarily against a Paladin's code.
So to clarify here, it is Lawful, Good and Honourable to execute people from a different country to you, whilst you are a guest in another country (so you have no authority to punish people), when said people have surrendered, and haven't killed or hurt anyone...
Just so I can understand a the re-calibrate my understanding of how I always thought alignment worked
Wouldn't the deity make sure the former-Paladin knew?
I agree with the above. If the kidnapper knows that the victim is innocent and is ransoming him, he is knowingly committing an evil act. If the paladin has negotiated money for the hostage's release, but not the kidnapper's safe passage, then he has technically done nothing wrong by attacking and apprehending the kidnapper. It really depends on what was agreed to. As far as the paladin is concerned, it could be that he's just apprehending an evildoer, like his code forces him to.
The Archon is in the details.
If the Kidnapper is a Kidnapper, their motivation is to take a hostage in exchange for money. The paladin is still lawful and good to try to circumvent this non-good act. However, if we ditch the word "kidnapper" and instead go with "apprehending a suspected criminal" especially one with a bounty on their head from the bounty-hunter's country, things are less clear. The Paladin will not be in favor of succumbing to a ransom payment, but may understand a mistaken identity "apprehension" - especially if the so called "kidnapper" did not seek a ransom at all.
Now if the "Kidnapper" IS a rotten scum-ball kidnapper, then the paladin apprehending them (so long as it does not unnecessarily endanger the kidnap victim) is completely in line with upholding law and justice. And kudos for getting it done while keeping the miscreant alive so they have a chance to learn from their sins and perhaps redeem themselves.
BUT - if the paladin turns to murdering a captured kidnapper - Nope - that fails to meet the very high standard of the Paladinial code AND being Lawful and Good. They should fall from grace, without a doubt.
If the player is a newbie, I might give them a heads up in how I respond to their action. "So let me make sure I have this right - your paladin is going to MURDER a prisoner in his charge because its too inconvenient to actually bring them to proper justice?" Usually that warning shot works.
As for the bait and switch to catch a dirty rotten kidnapper - no issue with me. But the same trick played on a guy who had a prisoner accused of crimes and being brought to justice who turned out to be the wrong person - I think the paladin's goal should only be to secure the release of the innocent prisoner. But, if the paladin butcher's a captured prisoner, kidnapper or not, you are unquestionably correct in taking away the Paladinial powers.
The whole money thing? I always preferred the Paladinial concept that wealth in this world was fleeting and unimportant, wealth in the next is what counts, and the currency is good deeds and honoring just laws. If the Paladin lost some cash or a few magical trinkets while saving a wrongly accused prisoner from an unearned fate - or even better, ending the reign of pain and suffering from a kidnapper - they wouldn't give a rat's ass about compensation. The kind of greed factor can be sufficient in an of itself to make a Paladin lose their abilities until they properly atone.
So, I'm with you Lanather - if I understand your situation correctly. Paladins may kill in battle but they don't murder.
Whether the 'party' agreed to pay the kidnapper or not and the paladin didn't specifically makes no difference. He is a part of the party and has to abide by the party, if he doesn't like it, he can leave the party.
Agree with you on everything but this one, Pizza Lord. If the party members made a deal without the Paladin being aware of it, the Paladin does not have any obligation to honor that deal just because the other party members agreed to it. It is not that the Paladin should leave the group either - the Paladin should want to be an example of justice and order. The group, if they hate being held to check, should leave the Paladin.
Thanks for all the input
If anything it has reinforced that I need to fire some very clear warning shots. This should have happened during the last session but it was late and I was quite bewildered by the turn of events
Fortunately I have until next week to align my thinking and try and communicate with the player out of game . With all of that it should be unlikely that any butchering of prisoners happens and then we can move on
It is worth noting (or reiterating if I put it in this thread and not another one) that I am pretty sure the player is only playing a paladin for min max purposes of accessing divine grace at level 2. I am not convinced they have even read the code or understand that paladin powers are powerful but come with severe restrictions ( I have sent them an email on this today)
Whether the 'party' agreed to pay the kidnapper or not and the paladin didn't specifically makes no difference. He is a part of the party and has to abide by the party, if he doesn't like it, he can leave the party.
Agree with you on everything but this one, Pizza Lord. If the party members made a deal without the Paladin being aware of it, the Paladin does not have any obligation to honor that deal just because the other party members agreed to it. It is not that the Paladin should leave the group either - the Paladin should want to be an example of justice and order. The group, if they hate being held to check, should leave the Paladin.
Thanks. This is indeed an important distinction. In my group the paladin was in the room and involved in making the deal. If he objected for any moral or code based reasons that is where it should have come up . The only real objection I remember from the group as a whole (including the paladin) was being down on gold
Now I could be doing him a disservice and his objection actually be against paying someone who he considers a criminal. But I don't recall that being said. Again I have contacted the player for clarification as things might have been lost in a haze of it being a session that was overrunning on a Sunday evening !
The kidnapper has taken someone who they thought was an escapee from the perceived justice of their nation. And they are not evil aligned.
He has been informed that the person he has is not an escapee and that he was lied to by the person who gave him the victim's location
He has bargained with the group to take some gold for the time he has wasted / been away from home for in and let the kidnap victim go
The Paladin has tricked him (after he the agreement was made) into turning his back and then attacked him from behind.
He also intends to take the gold back off of him (has not happened yet).From everything I can tell from out of character the gold is being taken back as much because "I don't want to lose some gold" as it is for "we shouldn't be paying kidnappers". Regardless of what reason or justification there was an agreement that they would pay. The kidnapper even handed over information/instructions he had received to help the group more (not originally party of the bargain)
It just seems quite deceitful
As to "does the Paladin consider him to be evil". I am not 100% certain that is relevant. What if he is wrong? I am not convinced it is up to the Paladin to be judge, jury and executioner, especially when he is visiting a foreign land
For the record I am not intending on making him Fall for this. But as another respondent has noted he is skirting the line and needs warning about this kind of thing.
And equally I am concerned that he is not far off butchering the leader and his men who at this point have either surrendered or bargained to cease hostilities. (I hope this does not happen)
The kidnapper isn't evil-aligned, but he's possibly following the orders of an Evil kingdom, which would give the Paladin an incentive to act against the kidnapper, since he may not view the Evil kingdom as legitimate authority. Assuming the Paladin knows of this, of course, but he wouldn't be wrong in at least halting the kidnapping, as well as shady deals like this one, until he ascertained more information, which is the most prudent course of action for him to take.
How exactly did the "agreement" happen? Was the Paladin even a part of said agreement? Because it sounds like he wasn't based on his original actions. Maybe the other party members agreed, and he didn't voice anything until the "agreement" was taking place, and then sprung into action? More details on this would be needed.
You said in the first response that he grabbed the bag of coins, threw them in the corner, and prevented the NPC from grabbing them with non-lethal methods (Bull Rush). Now you're saying that he stabbed him in the back after making an agreement to pay him? It sounds like there are multiple stories, and now we're having to discern what really happened, in which case we can't help you without actually having been at the table, since you've just created a Schrodinger's Paladin scenario.
Regardless, Paladins being able to attack "from behind" (remember, there's no "facing" in Pathfinder mechanics, meaning this is technically impossible to do) isn't grounds for falling. By that logic, Evil creatures can go prone on their own and be immune to Paladins, because "they're not fighting fairly," and so, would fall because of being "dishonest" fighters. It's a silly argument, and GMs who rule like that aren't GMs that I'd want to play with. Just saying.
The kidnapper isn't evil-aligned, but he's possibly following the orders of an Evil kingdom, which would give the Paladin an incentive to act against the kidnapper, since he may not view the Evil kingdom as legitimate authority. Assuming the Paladin knows of this, of course, but he wouldn't be wrong in at least halting the kidnapping, as well as shady deals like this...The kidnapper has taken someone who they thought was an escapee from the perceived justice of their nation. And they are not evil aligned.
He has been informed that the person he has is not an escapee and that he was lied to by the person who gave him the victim's location
He has bargained with the group to take some gold for the time he has wasted / been away from home for in and let the kidnap victim go
The Paladin has tricked him (after he the agreement was made) into turning his back and then attacked him from behind.
He also intends to take the gold back off of him (has not happened yet).From everything I can tell from out of character the gold is being taken back as much because "I don't want to lose some gold" as it is for "we shouldn't be paying kidnappers". Regardless of what reason or justification there was an agreement that they would pay. The kidnapper even handed over information/instructions he had received to help the group more (not originally party of the bargain)
It just seems quite deceitful
As to "does the Paladin consider him to be evil". I am not 100% certain that is relevant. What if he is wrong? I am not convinced it is up to the Paladin to be judge, jury and executioner, especially when he is visiting a foreign land
For the record I am not intending on making him Fall for this. But as another respondent has noted he is skirting the line and needs warning about this kind of thing.
And equally I am concerned that he is not far off butchering the leader and his men who at this point have either surrendered or bargained to cease hostilities. (I hope this does not happen)
The Paladin was there to make the agreement (one of only three party members in the room). He just decided he didn't want to lose his gold
I take your point on the "from behind" thing and no it is not mechanically possible. I am just going from the intent. As in not just handing over the money, trying to get the guy distracted and then attack
I don't think I said he had stabbed the guy in the back. More that I was worried that this is what is going to happen as a next move in the next session.
At the moment he has bull-rushed which you are quite right, is non lethal means.
That said he hasn't done this for noble means as far as I can tell. He has done it because he wants his 50gp back.
I am not making him Fall for this and will give him chance to justify it. But it in my mind it is marks against his card for the future. And definitely justification for a warning about conduct and the code
Note that law enforcement negotiating with a kidnapper may pay him off, but they generally won't let them keep the money. I can't fault the paladin for not wanting an evil-doer to have more resources at his own expense.
Well, if he was already in the room and made the agreement, then yes, going back on that agreement just because he doesn't want to give him money is quite a larcenous approach, a trait that a Paladin shouldn't have. Warning-worthy indeed.
You'd need more proof that he was trying to be deceptive about his disagreement, since we've already established that he wanted to ad-hoc the agreement because of money, which isn't exactly deceptive, just petty. It's still deplorable, but not in the "lying" sort of department that you're saying it is.
That was my assumption when you said "attacked," as I'm guessing the Paladin has a sword, but maybe a mace or a dagger or...whatever lethal weapon he uses. Maybe it was the Bull Rush, but 9 times out of 10, when you attack an enemy in a combat scenario (which this easily could've became), it's for keeps (i.e. lethal damage).
If he's only 2nd level, and just got Divine Grace, you'll know his character intent when he hits 3rd level, and decides to multiclass into something like Oracle (Oradin is a smart thing to do, but he still has to hold his alignment for the Paladin goodies like you said).
As an aside...
If a player in my home game wants to play a Paladin we both work out the Paladin's Code before play and a few 'What if...' examples of when I would have that Paladin Fall and why.
In your case I'd fire a warning shot and explain why. Does it again and go for the fall. Being a paragon of Good isn't easy!
EDIT: I use this as a base and get my players to check it so we are all aware of my alignment expectations. Works for us but I guess it isn't for all.
Just to confirm this isn't a PFS scenario is it? The description is vague enough to remind me of a scenario almost exactly like this.
Note that law enforcement negotiating with a kidnapper may pay him off, but they generally won't let them keep the money. I can't fault the paladin for not wanting an evil-doer to have more resources at his own expense.Note that nowhere is the paladin indicated to be law enforcement officer nor are law enforcement officers paladins or even under the same oaths as one, even if both were lawful good. Law enforcement can lie, paladins with oaths against it cannot (well, they can, but they won't be paladins.)
In all these examples, there is no indication that the kidnapper is evil or an evil-doer (in fact he's specifically not). He is retrieving an escaped prisoner for a legitimate authority and grabbed the wrong person. Whether this is due to poor description, mistaken identity because they look similar, or even because the 'imposter' and the escapee planned it this way to delay or confuse pursuers. What degree of crime the 'bountyhunter' committed and whether it even concerns the authorities depends on what he did/treated the person. If there was no harm they probably wouldn't care.As for the deal. He agreed to pay the man to go away, for whatever reason. Failing to pay your debts and honor agreements is lying and dishonorable. You don't get to agree to pay your carriage driver and then refuse because you feel he could have driven faster or whether you think he works for an 'evil' carriage corporation.
Paladins, by oath, must enforce Law and Good. They are Law enforcement. The are also Good enforcement.
Kidnapping someone (an innocent, to boot) is evil. Holding them for ransom enforces this. Therefore, the paladin is fighting a force of evil.
The deal is exactly what he agreed to. If it was paying for a halt of hostilities, then that's one thing. If he paid for release of hostages, then that does not guarantee safe passage for for the kidnapper.
It al depends on exactly what the paladin agreed to. Thus is the issue with Lawful types.
Just to confirm this isn't a PFS scenario is it? The description is vague enough to remind me of a scenario almost exactly like this.
Yes it is Season 5 Stolen Heir
While a lot of people will say "it depends on the setting/GM," I say nuts to that. If you're the GM in this discussion, ****ing tell your paladin/cleric/monk/barbarian when they have moved into ex-whatever territory.
Though that's what I would do as well - I think it is fair to say some GM's may like the loss of powers to be a discovery that leads to the atonement that leads to redemption. I get it. I don't think either way is wrong, its flavor, but I would also give them the sting of divine rejection almost immediately in my sessions!"
I imagine the paladin notices the modifiers to his attack rolls and AC, assuming he's in combat. Reduction in movement rate regardless.
*ducks and runs for cover*
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladin life alert
"help I've fallen and I can't lay on hands"