|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, the part about falling and such is not the issue. A paladin seems themselves as the ultimate embodiment of their deity's dogma and domain. They know the intense struggle it requires to live up to an almost innachievable ideal. Having their mind and body used for evil even if an outside power exercises that control and forces them to perform actions against their will would be the ultimate in personal failure. Kinda of like a drug addict falling off the wagon. The level of self-loathing is overpowering. So, while they may or may not lose their powers for such an event, they would likely spend hours/days/weeks/etc (if ever) atoning for their "crimes" before they would feel cleansed enough to take up the mantle of paladin again.
Too often these arguments seem to be about what a paladin could get away with before they lose their powers. A true paladin simply does not think that way. In most cases, if you could ask a paladin at what amount of failure would they be punished and lose their powers, you would likely find their own level of acceptance for loopholes would be even less than what their code would allow.
|
Paladins are Lawful, as are most of the gods they worship. I don't think a Lawful or Good god would punish their holy warriors for having someone FORCE them to do something. By magical OR mundane means. Because it is "willingly commits" an evil act. Even if there is just mundane corrosion that's not willingly.
Heck I'd go so far to say that temporarily being out of it because of severe head trauma might be iffy.
Though going in for an absolution would likely still be something to do in character, as would the Paladin being mortified at what they were forced to do.
I feel like one of the reason that "Paladins falling via Mind Control" isn't a big deal, is that while there's assuredly a perverse glee in mind-controlling the e, antagonists who are able to do this sort of thing are likely to realize that paladins are extremely difficult to mind-control, and if they succeed on their save, you're liable to be found out- since one knows when they have had to make a saving throw and the Paladin likely wants to find out "who was that who tried to access my mind."
So unless the Paladin is isolated or the malefactor has a lot of time on their hands, you're going to want to mind control pretty much anybody else in the Paladin's entourage instead, it'll be easier (like any class without a good will save that does not get to add a primary stat to their will save.)
|
|
Paladins are Lawful, as are most of the gods they worship. I don't think a Lawful or Good god would punish their holy warriors for having someone FORCE them to do something. By magical OR mundane means. Because it is "willingly commits" an evil act. Even if there is just mundane corrosion that's not willingly.
Heck I'd go so far to say that temporarily being out of it because of severe head trauma might be iffy.
Though going in for an absolution would likely still be something to do in character, as would the Paladin being mortified at what they were forced to do.
Two points that have been pointed out. First, the RAW (which, in this case, is my main concern) states that the paladin only has to commit the act, not that he must be in any way complacent. The shell of a meat puppet that his soul wears merely has to go through the mechanical motions of, say, stabbing a relatively innocent person in such a way that they cease to be.
Second, if they ARE being controlled, and so weak willed that they are easily taken over by magical control (Will is a good save for them, and wisdom is a critical score), why would a god of good want the opposition to have access to that power? That's a good god's power, none of them would want their power falling into the hands of evil.
From both a RAW and a RAI, I think it's fair to say that, while a god might forgive them, a Paladin can be forced to fall against their will.
"A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever [u]willingly[/u] commits an evil act."
Also, Pathfinder Paladins find wisdom useful, but don't really use it for much.
And there are creatures of great power, anyone can fail a will save. Even a Paladin.
Then there is non-magical coercion. As in "do this or I do this even WORSE thing". Why? Because evil people can be jackasses.
Two points that have been pointed out. First, the RAW (which, in this case, is my main concern) states that the paladin only has to commit the act, not that he must be in any way complacent. The shell of a meat puppet that his soul wears merely has to go through the mechanical motions of, say, stabbing a relatively innocent person in such a way that they cease to be.
Your second point is debatable. I think it is wrong, but it is a setting and flavor conceit and there is no point fighting about it.
Your first point quoted above is definitely wrong. For a single evil act to cause a fall the paladin has to be willing. The paladin can be coerced, perhaps. Maybe tricked. Possibly even simply incorrect about what it did. But it has to be willing. RAW is quite clear. Willing.
Which spells cause the Paladin to lie, cheat, use poison, disrespect legitimate authority, refuse to help those in need, or refuse to punish those who threaten or harm innocents?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the paladin is completely unwilling, as in are being driven around like a meat puppet, then they are not doing the violating. The dominator is doing the violating. In this situation, the paladin is literally incapable of violating or indeed, of following the code.
They are incapable of doing anything. You might as well blame a stolen car for drunk driving.
What you CAN supernaturally force on a paladin that can cause a fall is an alignment change. There are a few curses that can manage that trick.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dominate Person/Monster for the easiest example. Suggestion can also be fenagled as can Charm spells with a passed Cha check (maybe).
Violating your code is an obviously self-destructive action and "obviously self-destructive actions are not carried out"as per Dominate Person.
Charm Person cannot make a person do something he/she would not ordinarily do.
Edit: Noting that Suggestion has similar verbage to Dominate person as to self-destructive actions.
Depends highly on the definition of self destructive. After all, losing your class features isn't the end of the world (It's literally one spell away from coming back, not even any notable material components), especially compared to proper self destructive orders like "cut your own throat"
And per the definition of Charm Person, having the target do something against their nature means they need to pass a cha check but Charm spells in general are a crazy can of worms to begin with hence my "maybe." Suggestion would just work fine.
That said, I think the losing class features while under compulsion is stupid as hell, but that's Pathfinder rules, particularly Absolution and I believe JJ's personal opinion at work. I will say it doesn't fly at any table I run.
Destroying everything that you've worked your whole life to accomplish is what I'd consider self destructive. I'd like to note that slitting your own throat can also be undone by a single spell.
And Charm Person has this written in the text: "A subject never obeys... obviously harmful orders."
Basically, the way to do it is to convince/compel a Paladin to use poison without knowing he's using poison.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I think it's much sillier for a Paladin to fall for unwittingly poisoning someone ("Oh, sorry I didn't know you were allergic to shellfish. Boy is my face red... not as red as yours mind you.") than it is for them to fall from getting mind-controlled by an evil thing.
Technically, helping an evil entity violates the paladin code, but a Charmed paladin can be made to feed a person that registers to his Detect Evil sense, thus breaking said code. Since, you know, an inherently evil person is going to use that food to fuel themselves to commit evil.
You're reading that backward. The "except if evil" clause is an out for the "help those in need" requirement. That is to say, Paladins aren't prevented by code from helping evil people. However, "a Paladin avoids" working with evil people (and seeks Atonement if he does, but does not explicitly fall).
You could infer that it is against the Paladin's nature to work with or aid evil people, granting him a +2 save every round he is under effect of Dominate Person. Alternately, if it would cause him to fall (an obviously self-destructive act), he simply would follow no orders from the evil caster and receive a new save at +2 each round.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If he didn't know about it and fell it was because:
1. He used poison
2. The DM houseruled or misruled him to fall.
Just to be sure I'm on the same page, are people posing that a paladin can fall if somebody sneaks poison onto his gear without him knowing?
Just to be sure I'm on the same page, are people posing that a paladin can fall if somebody sneaks poison onto his gear without him knowing?
People are posing that a Paladin can fall for doing something unwillingly. According to the text on how a Paladin can fall, the only thing that makes sense for him to do unwillingly and suffer a fall from is to use poison. Taken to its (il)logical extreme, a paladin can fall if someone sneaks poison onto his gear (or if he serves/consumes (i.e. uses) alcohol).
Actually, in some settings the *water* could be considered poison.
Good luck, edgelords!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Zarius,
I'm glad that you've been enjoying the hobby for a while. I, and many other posters, have been enjoying the hobby since 1st Edition AD&D (and some even before that). In that time, I've seen a lot of DMs try to screw over players, either through technicalities or "hands are tied" literal rulings. I want to get across the point that technicalities swing both ways, and that rulings don't occur in a vacuum (consider a Kitsune Paladin sing Dominate Person to cause a king's chef to poison him because he isn't technically murdering or poisoning anyone).
I also understand that I am basing my opinion on this from the one line stating that a Paladin must "willingly" perform an evil act. But you should understand that you're basing your opinion on exactly zero lines that say that a Paladin should fall from unwillingly performing an evil act.
In short, surprise rules that run contrary of written rules that completely trash your character aren't fun and tend to cause havoc in a game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have one Paladin character (recently started in PFS), and have only been gaming since the early '80's.
I play the character legitimately. I use understanding and fairmess. I don't ram-rod the morality over a given party (save for one instance, where it was questionable but it'd been a long day for the player).
If they were pushed into this BS situation, I suspect the reaction would be something along the lines of:
"Is this a scenario story element that the GM is attempting to enforce, or is this vindictive GM style?"
If it's the former, it's one thing, and there better gosh darn well be some resolution that my character shouldn't have to pay for being plot-hammered like that.
If it's the latter, I'd know a table I'd be steering clear of, and I'd advise my fellow players likewise.
The easy solution? Flush the Paladin, get Rogue Genius Games' Templar instead.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I genuinely feel like the Paladin code should be viewed as a player taking on a roleplaying challenge, not as a hammer for the GM to wield against Paladins. I guess you could make a case for a GM using the code as a hammer if a player completely fails to take the code seriously, but any honest effort of playing a Paladin as "a genuinely good person, above reproach" should basically make you immune to falling (unless this is a story you want to tell about your character, in which case- talk to the GM!)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the GM shouldn't be stacking the deck against the paladin in the first place, unless they are a complete a-hat.
There's going to be enough tests in a given story to do that. Specifically targeting one character with this one thing doesn't help build a conducive play environment.
It's the effective equivalent of telling someone they can play Superman and then forcing them to carry around a chunk of kryptonite 'to make it fair'.
|
|
But the GM shouldn't be stacking the deck against the paladin in the first place, unless they are a complete a-hat.
Its pretty clear that, when it comes to paladins, there are LOTS of GM's who are complete a-hats. At least here on the discussion boards.
In real life and in on-line games I've never actually seen ANY significant problems with ANY paladins except for the one case where the 12 year old was told he could NOT have his paladin murder the orphans in First Steps :-). I've seen paladins do things that I personally felt were right at the line (or slightly over it) but the GM, at worst, asked the player to justify his action and accepted the vaguely reasonable justification.
Want to know about paladins? Read The Deed of Paksennarion and the series beginning with Oath of Swords. Then go read The Hero With a Thousand Faces (non-fiction). For a different take, try Paladin of Shadows, in which Mike Jenkins, aka "Ghost" is a former Navy Seal, a self-described "bad man who tries to do good", of whom Barb Everette, a soccer mom and Warrior For God known as the Queen of Swords said (to an FBI agent) "You do know he's possessed by a demon, right?"
:-)
|
|
You know, it is amusing.
Assuming that falling paladin = ahat gm.
Some of these are great fodder for NPC encounters.
Like, say a badass in distress paladin who is being mind controlled by something bigger than them. Some great role play options there and such.Esp if there ends up being a kerfuffle with the Paladin's order later.
Or the paladin is convinced they were at fault and abandons being a paladin altogether.
Or for a great story for a vindictive bastard.
I feel like everybody understands that a GM is entitled to do all sorts of awful things to NPC Paladins (and any other NPCs you feel like doing bad stuff to). I also believe that doing most of these sorts of things to a PC, unless it was the player's idea to begin with, is poor form.
"Mind controlling the PCs" is potentially an issue with some tables, or it's potentially a lot of fun for everybody. If I was planning on having a villain dominate the Party's Paladin, I'd probably have the villain plan on not forcing the Paladin to do anything that would cause them to fall- since "announcing that you're going to attack your erstwhile allies, and doing so while apologizing profusely and/or pointing out the times the Party has, in fact, harmed the innocent" should not run the risk of the Paladin falling.