@Mattew Downie: Fine, if you want to nitpick: Yes, it doesn't specify which punishment will be delivered, but in the context of the wording, it strongly implies that the punishment mentioned before only applies to the violation mentioned before and won't apply to the violations mentioned later.
Besides, what is considered to be honourable and what is not obviously varies from deity to deity. Let's not forget these particular parts in the various codes of conduct:
Iomedae: "I will give honor to worthy enemies, and contempt to the rest."
Sarenrae: "I will fight fairly when the fight is fair, and I will strike quickly and without mercy when it is not."
Erastil: "When danger threatens, I am not a fool."
Torag: "I will do what is necessary to serve my people, including misleading others if need be."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it does make sense for a deity to step in and take away a paladin's powers should they become compromised via mind control etc. as a means to mitigate the powers of evil. If a paladin becomes an unwitting tool of evil, take away their class abilities, they are now a less powerful unwitting tool. Once their own will is restored, so are their powers.
@slade: Simple syntactic rules.
"You will lose your driver's licence if you are caught driving drunk. Additionally you have to heed the speed limits and red lights."
That means that you only lose your driver's licence if you are driving drunk.
Deities would, very logically, stop granting you their favor while you commit evil acts.True, but in this case the paladin should get his powers back, once he snaps out of the mind control.
@Rogar Stonebow: The question everybody here gets hung up on is whether "willfully" extends to the paladin code or not.
which in this case they are wrong. You can tell by the way they separated them with a comma and the word "or"
it does make sense for a deity to step in and take away a paladin's powers should they become compromised via mind control etc. as a means to mitigate the powers of evil. If a paladin becomes an unwitting tool of evil, take away their class abilities, they are now a less powerful unwitting tool. Once their own will is restored, so are their powers.
Deities give these Paladins Divine Grace. With it they are to use it to resist evil. If the Paladin fails a save maybe they don't deserve to have it if failed attempt caused them to brake their code
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
it does make sense for a deity to step in and take away a paladin's powers should they become compromised via mind control etc. as a means to mitigate the powers of evil. If a paladin becomes an unwitting tool of evil, take away their class abilities, they are now a less powerful unwitting tool. Once their own will is restored, so are their powers.Deities give these Paladins Divine Grace. With it they are to use it to resist evil. If the Paladin fails a save maybe they don't deserve to have it if failed attempt caused them to brake their code
That's ridiculous. If the gods were so concerned about such things they would grant Paladins immunity to mind affecting effects at 1st level rather than 17th. You might as well argue that a god should strip a Paladin of their powers for missing an attack roll.
That's ridiculous. If the gods were so concerned about such things they would grant Paladins immunity to mind affecting effects at 1st level rather than 17th. You might as well argue that a god should strip a Paladin of their powers for missing an attack roll.it does make sense for a deity to step in and take away a paladin's powers should they become compromised via mind control etc. as a means to mitigate the powers of evil. If a paladin becomes an unwitting tool of evil, take away their class abilities, they are now a less powerful unwitting tool. Once their own will is restored, so are their powers.Deities give these Paladins Divine Grace. With it they are to use it to resist evil. If the Paladin fails a save maybe they don't deserve to have it if failed attempt caused them to brake their code
With great power comes great responsibility.
That's ridiculous. If the gods were so concerned about such things they would grant Paladins immunity to mind affecting effects at 1st level rather than 17th. You might as well argue that a god should strip a Paladin of their powers for missing an attack roll.it does make sense for a deity to step in and take away a paladin's powers should they become compromised via mind control etc. as a means to mitigate the powers of evil. If a paladin becomes an unwitting tool of evil, take away their class abilities, they are now a less powerful unwitting tool. Once their own will is restored, so are their powers.Deities give these Paladins Divine Grace. With it they are to use it to resist evil. If the Paladin fails a save maybe they don't deserve to have it if failed attempt caused them to brake their code
yeah, i'm saying, in cases of possession and mind control, the revoking of abilities is a divine favor, not a punishment.
With great power comes great responsibility.That's ridiculous. If the gods were so concerned about such things they would grant Paladins immunity to mind affecting effects at 1st level rather than 17th. You might as well argue that a god should strip a Paladin of their powers for missing an attack roll.it does make sense for a deity to step in and take away a paladin's powers should they become compromised via mind control etc. as a means to mitigate the powers of evil. If a paladin becomes an unwitting tool of evil, take away their class abilities, they are now a less powerful unwitting tool. Once their own will is restored, so are their powers.Deities give these Paladins Divine Grace. With it they are to use it to resist evil. If the Paladin fails a save maybe they don't deserve to have it if failed attempt caused them to brake their code
BAB does not come from the deity. and BAB is retained when Paladinhood is lost. plus missing an enemy doesn't break the code.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
BAB does not come from the deity. and BAB is retained when Paladinhood is lost. plus missing an enemy doesn't break the code.With great power comes great responsibility.That's ridiculous. If the gods were so concerned about such things they would grant Paladins immunity to mind affecting effects at 1st level rather than 17th. You might as well argue that a god should strip a Paladin of their powers for missing an attack roll.it does make sense for a deity to step in and take away a paladin's powers should they become compromised via mind control etc. as a means to mitigate the powers of evil. If a paladin becomes an unwitting tool of evil, take away their class abilities, they are now a less powerful unwitting tool. Once their own will is restored, so are their powers.Deities give these Paladins Divine Grace. With it they are to use it to resist evil. If the Paladin fails a save maybe they don't deserve to have it if failed attempt caused them to brake their code
If being mind controlled breaks the code (it doesn't), then you could as easily contrive a missed attack roll breaking the code. You miss an evil doer, they escape and go on to commit more evil. Your actions have caused evil to flourish. "But they didn't actually commit the evil, it wasn't their fault." *points at mind controlled Paladin discussion* Apparently that doesn't matter. A Paladin who is mind controlled, effectively, isn't a Paladin, they are a meat puppet piloted by whatever is controlling them, they cannot willfully do anything, let alone commit evil. Failing a save is not grounds for falling.
With great power comes great responsibility.
*looks pointedly at 9/9 spellcasters* Oh, yes, clearly.
BAB is tied to the Paladin class as much as Will saving throws are.
BAB is tied to the Paladin class as much as Will saving throws are.What if you buffed with divine favor or used your weapon bond though! By missing with the aid of your goodness granted powers, you have failed to punish an evildoer and thus violated the Code despite their aid! Fall! Fall! Faaaaaaaaall!
Failing to hit someone isn't called out in the code.
@Rogar Stonebow: The question everybody here gets hung up on is whether "willfully" extends to the paladin code or not.which in this case they are wrong. You can tell by the way they separated them with a comma and the word "or"
... who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct ...
The comma and the "or" are grammatical necessities. The "willfully" can carry over to the second part of the sentence.
But, and I am repeating myself, there are no hard rules how to handle that. You have to work that out with your players, if you are the DM, or with the DM, if you are a player.
I have to admit that the German version of the rulebook apparently did omit the "willfully" completely. Take that as you will, but there still are no hard rules about it.
@Rogar Stonebow: The question everybody here gets hung up on is whether "willfully" extends to the paladin code or not.which in this case they are wrong. You can tell by the way they separated them with a comma and the word "or"
... who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct ...The comma and the "or" are grammatical necessities. The "willfully" can carry over to the second part of the sentence.
But, and I am repeating myself, there are no hard rules how to handle that. You have to work that out with your players, if you are the DM, or with the DM, if you are a player.
I have to admit that the German version of the rulebook apparently did omit the "willfully" completely. Take that as you will, but there still are no hard rules about it.
I could go with that it read" who Willfully commits an evil act, or violates the code of conduct." I would think the "who willfully" would apply to both, however since, it says who willfully commits ... or who violates... it is separating the two from each other.
If you want to interpret it that way, then it is alright, if your players, or your DM agree with you. There is no right or wrong way, because it is a very grey area and the rules are murky on that subject - the only right way is to find a ruling that your table agrees with, in particular the DM and the paladin player.
In my personal opinion, common sense says that the paladin has to commit the act that leads to his fall willingly, consciously and aware of its evilness and honourlessness, unless you interpret it in a way that his guilt and shame after a heinous act he commited while being mind controlled leads to a crisis of faith - this can become a good story arch, if it isn't handled like this: "You manage to overcome the mind control and lose your powers immediately." - "I go to the nearest cleric, heave a bag of coins onto the table and wait until he has casted 'Atonement'." - "You instantly regain your powers."
A paladin shouldn't lose his powers willy-nilly, getting them back just by putting some coins into the Atone-O-Mat. It should be a significant event that ultimately is resolved in a meaningful way, not a tool for the DM to shout "Gotcha!" at the paladin player, just because he botched a single dice roll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All paladins are granted powers by Asmodeus. For only that god could devise a code to cause those dedicated to doing good to defeat themselves in the act of doing good.
All paladins are granted powers by Asmodeus. For only that god could devise a code to cause those dedicated to doing good to defeat themselves in the act of doing good.
And starting a discussion about a paladin's code and alignment is both a chaotic and evil act that leads a paladin to lose his powers immediately, no matter if he did it willingly, or while being mind-controlled. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The comma and the "or" are grammatical necessities. The "willfully" can carry over to the second part of the sentence.
... who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct ...
That doesn't parse for me.
"who willfully commits an evil act or violates..." would be ambiguous; the "willfully" bit might be carried over to the second part, or it might not.
"who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates" is unambiguous; the second "who" means that part of the sentence is an independent clause and the "willfully" does not apply.
The comma and the "or" are grammatical necessities. The "willfully" can carry over to the second part of the sentence.
... who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct ...That doesn't parse for me.
"who willfully commits an evil act or violates..." would be ambiguous; the "willfully" bit might be carried over to the second part, or it might not.
"who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates" is unambiguous; the second "who" means that part of the sentence is an independent clause and the "willfully" does not apply.
You said it better than me.
If that is your interpretation, then fine. I see no point in arguing the fine points of semantics, if the underlying principle is something that is as loosely defined and as murky as the paladin code. While I am still not in the least convinced of your interpretation, even if I were, I'd see no point in slavishly abiding the letter of the rules on such a grey area as the paladin code and I'd still be in favour of interpreting it in a way that doesn't go against common sense. Because it doesn't make a lick of sense that honourless acts that are performed unwillingly would lead to the fall of the paladin, while evil acts wouldn't.
Mind control is not something you can really say whether it's liable to happen again. I see atonement as showing the deity that what compelled the evil is gone and reestablishing the link that gives them their power.True, but in this case the paladin should get his powers back, once he snaps out of the mind control.That's probably what the absolution/atonement spell is for, to prove to your deity that you're not liable to do it again so you can trust me with the good stuff again.
Still, I'd prefer to recontextualize this to be an occult ritual sort of thing rather than a spell, with the accompanying backlash being the equivalent of your "say n hail marys".
If the deity is aware of the evil (or honourless) acts that were commited while the paladin was being mind-controlled, she will be aware of it when the paladin shakes it off. And if he is being mind-controlled again, the deity can easily suppress his powers again. - But if the deity really cares that much and keeps such a close watch, I wonder why she doesn't just break her paladin out of the mind-control in the first place. (As a note aside, a paladin's powers are geared towards only harming evil creatures anyway. Thus, most powers couldn't be used to do evil with, one way or the other.)
"What's that, my sworn champion? My powers I vested you with weren't enough to bolster your will against mind-control? I won't stand idly by and watch as my powers are being misused and I don't care one bit that you are now the meat puppet of a villain. Sucks to be you, I guess."
"What's that, my sworn champion? You finally managed to break free of the mind-control, are now facing the villain that subjugated you with magical means and want to bring him to justice (or escape to fight another day) and you need your powers back for that? I don't think so. Try to fight (or escape) on your own and I don't care one bit that you'll likely die without your powers, you should have thought about that, before you fell under mind-control. Sucks to be you, I guess."
Now that I think about it, that really is something that only Asmodeus would do.
The mind controlled Paladin should still need an Atonement or something before they get their powers back. No automatically getting them back as soon as control ends.
If you accidentally commit a sin, do you not need to ask forgiveness for it? Of course you do.
I strongly disagree that the "Additionally" is separate from the preceding sentence, but I'm fighting, really hard, to resist literally arguing semantics.
It depends on your view on why the paladin loses his powers. It doesn't make sense that his deity takes them away in such a case, but it could make sense that the overwhelming guilt and shame would lead to a crisis of faith and that the paladin loses his powers this way. But certainly not over something as small as using a weapon that, unbeknownst to the paladin, had been poisoned.
And before you consider to argue about semantics, keep in mind that regarding evil acts there is no ambiguity in the rules. Evil acts have to be commited willfully. So, according some people's interpretation of the rules, a mind-controlled paladin who deceives an evil rival of the villain under whose spell he fell would lose his powers immediatly, but a mind-controlled paladin who murders every inhabitant of the local orphanage wouldn't.
If you accidentally commit a sin, do you not need to ask forgiveness for it? Of course you do.
We are leaving paladin territory here and entering Christian theology, but you can't commit a sin accidentally. It is only a sin if you commit it knowingly and willingly and thus you don't need to ask forgiveness if not both conditions are met.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you accidentally commit a sin, do you not need to ask forgiveness for it? Of course you do.
What I personally dislike is that Atonement is that a spell that a Paladin can never cast herself, and that Absolution (the "Atonement if you've been mind controlled") is a level 4 spell, so they can cast it at 13th level at the earliest.)
If we're going to have Paladins falling all over the place for minor things, there should be a penance available commensurate to the transgression. Confessing "I threw a dart across a river in anger, it was poisoned and I did not know" and being forgiven probably should not require tracking down a 10th level cleric.
If the Paladin fails a save maybe they don't deserve to have it if failed attempt caused them to brake their codeWhat the hell is wrong with you?
Don't be cruel
What I personally dislike is that Atonement is that a spell that a Paladin can never cast herself, and that Absolution (the "Atonement if you've been mind controlled") is a level 4 spell, so they can cast it at 13th level at the earliest.)If we're going to have Paladins falling all over the place for minor things, there should be a penance available commensurate to the transgression. Confessing "I threw a dart across a river in anger, it was poisoned and I did not know" and being forgiven probably should not require tracking down a 10th level cleric.
I agree with you. I'd never have a Paladin fall for this.
So, according some people's interpretation of the rules, a mind-controlled paladin who deceives an evil rival of the villain under whose spell he fell would lose his powers immediatly, but a mind-controlled paladin who murders every inhabitant of the local orphanage wouldn't.
A good deity is not going to empower you while you use said power to kill orphans.
We are leaving paladin territory here and entering Christian theology, but you can't commit a sin accidentally. It is only a sin if you commit it knowingly and willingly and thus you don't need to ask forgiveness if not both conditions are met.
Where in the Bible does it say that?
Regardless if the Roguish Gnome taught the Paladin that "Praise Asmodeus" was actually "Hello, how are you?" in Gnome as a joke, I'd let it slide the first time they said it. Eventually, it would compound and they'd fall due to stupidity.
Also, strictly by the rules, blaspheming your god won't make you fall so clearly YMMV.
Let's put it this way: Not evey honourless act is automatically evil, but any evil act is by definition automatically honourless. A paladin can't commit an evil act without commiting an honourless act at the same time - therefore, the part in the rules where it says "he has to commit evil willfully" has to extend to honourless acts, no matter how it is worded in the rulebook, otherwise you have a paradox at your hands.
So, according some people's interpretation of the rules, a mind-controlled paladin who deceives an evil rival of the villain under whose spell he fell would lose his powers immediatly, but a mind-controlled paladin who murders every inhabitant of the local orphanage wouldn't.A good deity is not going to empower you while you use said power to kill orphans.
I agree with you, but strictly going by the rules, the deity wouldn't care, as long as the paladin is mind-controlled.
And a good deity shouldn't revoke her powers, but snap her paladin out of the mind control instead.
We are leaving paladin territory here and entering Christian theology, but you can't commit a sin accidentally. It is only a sin if you commit it knowingly and willingly and thus you don't need to ask forgiveness if not both conditions are met.Where in the Bible does it say that?
In the Epistle to the Romans by the Apostle Paul.
Don't be cruelIf the Paladin fails a save maybe they don't deserve to have it if failed attempt caused them to brake their codeWhat the hell is wrong with you?
But that Paladin’s heart wasn’t true.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Congratulations, Rise Sir Pent Vishyanka paladin.
"Thank you! I'd like to tha..ahhn..ank..HACHOO
Falls
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, religion. The original rules lawyer playground.
See what happens when the devs don't get back to you in a long time?
Ah, religion. The original rules lawyer playground.See what happens when the devs don't get back to you in a long time?
Oh, but He did get back to us, just not in the form of something like an FAQ-thread. :)
But I suggest that we steer this thread here away from religious questions, lest it is totally derailed.
A good deity is not going to empower you while you use said power to kill orphans.
That depends entirely on how evil the orphans are.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
BBEG encountering paladin: "Would it be evil to kill an orphan?"
Naïve paladin: "Of course it would be!"
BBEG: "Well, I just killed my parents, so you can't harm me!"
All fun and cruelty aside, we all know that the entire paizo staff are not a bunch of english majors. Nor I am sure are they Paladin haters. So to be fair, it was probably intended that they meant for the it to be "willingly violates the Paladin's code"
I am sure we want everyone to enjoy the game.
All fun and cruelty aside, we all know that the entire paizo staff are not a bunch of english majors. Nor I am sure are they Paladin haters. So to be fair, it was probably intended that they meant for the it to be "willingly violates the Paladin's code"
I am sure we want everyone to enjoy the game.
My enjoyment is enhanced by mind controlled Paladins who violate their code falling. The Absolution Spell makes it unclear whether Paizo agrees with me - they acknowledge that’s how the rules work, but also provided this method that is slightly easier than an Atonement to recover.
Granted this was in a different game system, but I've seen characters die in character creation.
Aaaahhhh.... someone who's played Traveller I see.
:)| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never understood the whole 'poison = evil' maxim.
I know it's been around since the first days of D&D paladins, but I've never agreed with it.
So, (assuming the foe is evil and needs to die), killing someone by sticking a sword through it's chest is fine and dandy.
But if you use a plant extract to to the same thing, in the same situation, the paladin risks falling?
Doesn't make sense to me.
I believe it relies too much on the trope, that poison is the tool of assassins and murderers. My interpretation (usually the DM/GM), has always been that the circumstances of the act, not the means, are what determines if it is evil.
Use poison to more effectively take down evil humanoids that are murdering innocent villagers? No problem.
Use poison to assassinate the governor of a city-state, in order to rise to power and take the throne? Paladin has got problems.
But that would would be the case, whether they used melee weapons, spells, siege weapons or arrows.
IMO, it is the characters' ACTIONS and MOTIVES that are judged to be evil or not.
The tools they use to commit the act are of little importance.
That's how I've always judged it.
BTW: Fastest fall I did see, was result of a little bit of DM sneakiness on my part. It took 2 encounters.
The paladin & friends came upon a large, intimidating orc (home-brew 1st edition version of uruk-hai at the time) guarding a bridge. It was well equipped and wearing armor emblazoned with the holy symbol of the paladin's faith.
Assuming the uruk-hai had murdered a fellow warrior of the faith, he immediately attacked and killed the uruk-hai. No words,no quarter, no mercy. He dismembered the body, relieved himself on the remains, and adorned the tip of his lance with the head.
Crossing the bridge, the party arrived at a village not far down the road. A roar of outrage went up from the villagers at seeing his grisly trophy, and they advanced, all torch-and-pitchfork-style on the paladin.
Defending himself against the obviously evil minions of his foe, slaughter was doled out in abundance.
No. The paladin never bother to speak to anyone. Nor did he attempt at any point to detect evil.
The player basically ran a murder-hobo. Although he was up until then, keeping it aimed at monsters, and perceived enemies of his faith.
And as you might have guessed early on, the (redeemed and good-aligned) uruk-hai was indeed wearing his own armor, made for him in gratitude by the village, for his stalwart protection over the years.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never understood the whole 'poison = evil' maxim.
I know it's been around since the first days of D&D paladins, but I've never agreed with it.
It's not that poison is evil, it's that it's "dishonorable." But, yeah, I think it's silly too.
It was extra amusing when they introduced ravages in 3.5. "No, see, these poisons are honorable, because we called them something different so you can use them!"
Well, I'll recount a historical event to shed some light on the topic of honour:
When Friedrich II von Babenberg, "the Battlesome", Duke of Austria died 1246 in battle, without having sired an heir, Ottokar II Přemysl, Crown Prince (and later King) of Bohemia took over Austria (some chronicles say he invaded and some that he was called by the Austrian nobility). The next three decades Ottokar expanded his sphere of influence and set his eyes on becoming the Holy Roman Emperor. The Prince-electors however were suspicious of the amount of power he had accumulated and voted for Count Rudolf von Habsburg, demanding from Ottokar to cede his acquired territories to the newly crowned king. He refused repeatedly however and both conflicting parties went to war.
Long story short, they met on the battlefield, the Battle on the Marchfeld, and in this battle both parties forwent using infantry and only the cavalry was involved. But since the heavy cavalry of Ottokar (6500, 12000 total cavalry) outnumbered the heavy cavalry of Rudolf (4500, 9000 total cavalry), the latter prepared an ambush - sixty knights, hidden in the surrounding vinyards, should intervene at the height of the battle, attacking from the side, aiming to kill Ottokar, but nobody wanted to lead the ambush, because it was considered dishonourable. Only after being repeatedly urged, one knight finally agreed to do it, but he apologized to his brothers-in-arms in advance for doing so.
Both armies clashed, 60-year old Rudolf was almost killed when his horse was slain and things were looking bad for his army, but after three hours of battle, Ottokars knights were exhausted while Rudolf had relied on his light cavalry and kept the majority of his heavy cavalry out of sight in the rear which was still rested when they got involved. At the same time he gave the signal for the hidden knights to attack and they split the right flank as they headed towards Ottokar who gave order to mobilise the reserve - but a part of the reserve moved to encircle the ambushing knights which made it seem to Ottokar's army like the reserve was fleeing. Rudolf's army, having forseen this, took up the cry "They are fleeing!" to further instill confusion and panic in their enemies and the ambush proved successful in killing Ottokar. These two events crushed the morale of Ottokars army and led to a rout.
In case you didn't read the wall of text, I'll repeat the important part: Despite it being the best strategy, no knight in the Battle on the Marchfeld in the 13. century was willing to lead the ambush and only after being repeatedly urged did one of them agree to do it, but he apologised in advance to his fellow knights for it.
The paladin is modeled after a romanticized vision of medieval knights and thus honourable means honourable from the point of view of a medieval knight. People back then weren't idiots of course, they knew about strategy and military tactics, but underhanded tactics like ambushes were considered dishonourable.
Keep in mind that battling and fighting back then was very different from today. It was up close and personal business. Being attacked meant that you had a chance at defending yourself sword versus sword and it was honourable conduct to give an opponent exactly that chance - as long as said opponent was honourable himself and thus was worthy of honour. A murdering brigand, who had no honour himself, wasn't, for example.
Using poison takes the same line: Attacking someone with something that he has no chance at defending himself, instead of besting him due to superior skill. On top of that, said someone will likely die an agonizing death, eliminating the possibility of letting him live. (And don't claim that Fortitude-saves count as 'defending'.)
Thus, using poison willingly and knowingly is without doubt a dishonourable act. If a paladin would fall because of it depends on the circumstances, but certainly, if he uses it like an assassin and certainly, if it is especially vile poison. You are playing Ned Stark and not Jaqen H'ghar.
And no, he shouldn't even rely on sleep-inducing drugs - you are playing Superman, not Batman.
On the case of ambushes: He may plan and take part in them, if the circumstances can justify it, but it should absolutely not be his first and favourite choice of action, especially not if his opponents are considered to be honourable. You are playing Eomer and not Faramir.
Using poison takes the same line: Attacking someone with something that he has no chance at defending himself, instead of besting him due to superior skill. On top of that, said someone will likely die an agonizing death, eliminating the possibility of letting him live. (And don't claim that Fortitude-saves count as 'defending'.)
Thus, using poison willingly and knowingly is without doubt a dishonourable act.
That may describe some real-world poisons, but how many poisons in Pathfinder cause agonizing death?
You can defend yourself against poisoned weapons by not getting hit, or by killing the enemy first, just as you can when someone's trying to stab you. (And there are many other ways; antitoxins, magic, etc.)
That is, if we assume the poison is on your weapon. By one technical definition, poison is something you eat/drink, and venom is something that gets in your blood. I think most people would agree it was dishonourable to offer someone poisoned food.
What's really dishonourable is going against an agreed set of rules. If we decide that fighting with arrows is unfair, then is becomes dishonourable for us to use archery on one another. If we use the rule for long enough, we'll start to think anyone with a bow is a barbarian.
Then again, most historical codes of honour were very much in the interests of the ruling class. "It's not honourable for peasants to use crossbows, which can penetrate my armour. Swords, which my armour is highly effective against, are honourable. It's not honourable to use ambushes against knights like me, but it's fine to use them against any other enemies."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Deities give these Paladins Divine Grace. With it they are to use it to resist evil. If the Paladin fails a save maybe they don't deserve to have it if failed attempt caused them to brake their code
This is the worst thing to ever come out of a Paladin thread. There is always ALWAYS a chance to fail a save because a nat 1 ALWAYS fails. It doesn't matter if it's a DC 15 Will save and you've got a +27 to Will. If you roll a nat 1, you fail. That isn't the Paladin's will being weak, it's getting a bad die roll.
It's a bad die roll that represents the Paladin's moment of weakness.
L15 fighter: I am a master at arms with a lifetime of training!
*rolls a natural 1 on an attack roll*
GM: All right, let's see... your +5 sword bounces off your foe, rebounding into your +5 armor and causing both to shatter into tiny fragments. Don't worry, though; if you go find a member of your fighter's guild, you can go on a quest and pay a few hundred gold to repair your gear. Oh, also, you can only use clubs and hide armor until you do that.
L15 fighter: ...
Other players: ...
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Deities give these Paladins Divine Grace. With it they are to use it to resist evil. If the Paladin fails a save maybe they don't deserve to have it if failed attempt caused them to brake their codeThis is the worst thing to ever come out of a Paladin thread. There is always ALWAYS a chance to fail a save because a nat 1 ALWAYS fails. It doesn't matter if it's a DC 15 Will save and you've got a +27 to Will. If you roll a nat 1, you fail. That isn't the Paladin's will being weak, it's getting a bad die roll.
It's definitely in the bottom five, but I still think "a Paladin falls for killing anyone for any reason" is worse, as is "thinking about something evil makes your alignment briefly shift to evil, thus a Paladin falls if they ever think an evil thought."