[D&D 3.5]Charmed paladin.

[Pigkappa]

I'm a DM and the following events happened recently:

- The PCs found out that inside an haunted ore mine there is a strange ghost, apparently indestructible, which keeps saying "Sarah... Sarah...". They started investigating about Sarah, of course.
- Low level undeads are constantly created near the ghost.
- The ghost itself isn't evil.
- Their mission is to remove any curse inside the ore mine and make sure the townsfolk understand that the PCs' king is the one who saved their economy.
- A local necromancer approached the group's paladin (who is also the group's leader) and offered this proposal: he would take care of the whole problem in a few days, and the PCs would take credit for that. Since the paladin didn't agree (he knows that the wizard was likely evil (because of detect evil), but he doesn't really know what he's up to; actually, I don't either), the wizard cast Charme on the paladin. The paladin gave his word that the group wouldn't have disturbed the wizard while performing the ritual.


What should the Paladin have done then?

When Charme disappeared, he just went to the mine to attack the wizard immediately (the wizard ran away safely). I considered this a not-really-important code violation and the paladin lost his powers, but he will get them back as soon as he completes any other good quest.

In general, what happens if a Paladin makes a vow under the effect of charme or suggestion?

[AnswersQuestion]

Vows made under enchantments are void because the character was not in full control. Defaulting to killing the guy as a revenge is rather questionable, but little else.

[Claudius Maximus]

Agreed. I think this is too minor for a fall. He might fall if he failed a second save and did an action "against his nature" but even that would be a relatively light fall (Atonement spell with a quest at worst).

[Pigkappa]

The fact is, the paladin clearly stated that he would have left the wizard do his ritual, and then he attacked the wizard without even checking if he was really up to something evil.

If they had attacked the wizard while he was evoking an horde of undead that would have been fine, but the wizard was just setting up a few Alarm spells when they arrived at the ore mine.

[Mikka]

No no, he was magically forced to state that he would do it.
Like the other people have said, its void. Otherwise, man. . telekinesis on a paladins sword arm, make him kill an innocent. . fallen paladins woo!

[faceroll]

Ugh, classic reason why the paladin sucks to play. DMs screwing with you for no good reason.

[Gray Mage]

Just to be clear, did you make him fall for breaking the vow or for attacking someone that wasn't doing anything wrong at the time.

If it's the last, while there is a case for that, I'd let it slide, depending on what the party knew.

If it's the former, no, because he didn't even break the vow, he promised not to interupt the ritual, but the ritual was not in progress at the time.

[Psyren]

You can fall while charmed actually, if BoED is any indication. The Vows for instance include the clause "if you break this vow as a result of magical compulsion, you lose the benefit of this feat until you receive an atonement spell."

One can argue though that the Sacred Vows have slightly higher standards than the regular paladin CoC, though I think they're actually intended to be equal.

[Pigkappa]

No no, he was magically forced to state that he would do it.
Like the other people have said, its void. Otherwise, man. . telekinesis on a paladins sword arm, make him kill an innocent. . fallen paladins woo!

Yeah ok, the rules aren't perfect and people need to be reasonable. Otherwise we can even use rules to show that the basic rules of physics don't work in D&D.

"Telekinesis on a paladins sword arm, make him kill an innocent." ===> The paladin couldn't do anything about that.

"Not-apparently-evil promise under a charme effect" ===> The paladin could try to understand if fulfilling the promise is somehow wrong before disattending it.



Anyway, is there a manual which clearly says that a charmed paladin's vow are void?



If it's the former, no, because he didn't even break the vow, he promised not to interupt the ritual, but the ritual was not in progress at the time.

The paladin thought the ritual had started already, and didn't really bother to ask.

[AnswersQuestion]

None that i can immediately remember, but remember that if you are judging a character's attitude, you can't blame him for an attitude he had while he wasn't in full control of it. There may be negligence for not being prepared to resist it, or there may have even been a situation completely out of his league.


As you said yourself, the paladin wouldn't have agreed to anything if it wasn't for the Charm spell. You can blame him for a multitude of things, but not for breaking a vow he wasn't going to make in the first place.

[Mikka]

What if a telekinesis spell made him move his tongue and vocal cords to make the vow. . would that in your opinion make him fall? charm is the same just a different way of doing it.

[Psyren]

Magical compulsion can cause a fall - BoED makes this clear, as I already stated. It's simply easier to get back in the saddle.

[Gray Mage]

The paladin thought the ritual had started already, and didn't really bother to ask.

It's not relevant if he knew that or not, he didn't break the vow.

[Mikka]

A Paladin hasn't as such made any vows, he just has to uphold the ideals of good and law.

A vow is broken when it is broken.

But his goodness is not broken when he breaks a forced promise. Now, if you want to make him fall for needlessly attacking the wizard sure sure.

[J.Gellert]

Atonement was created for situations like this. Sin-B-gone saves you the trouble of asking all the philosophical questions.

Though when I DM, paladins can only "fall" by their own choice. Compulsions don't count, and obviously neither does ignorance. Still, since they can be touchy about this, they will obviously pray for forgiveness, guidance, and the souls of the wronged even though they still have all their powers and godly favor. Because they are good people.

Which brings us back to Atonement, funnily enough :smalltongue:

[Pigkappa]

It's not relevant if he knew that or not, he didn't break the vow.

Ok, this discussion risks to become quite annoying...

Someone could argue that if he said "I will let you perform your ritual" and then he attacked the wizard just before it started, he didn't really fulfil his promise.

If a politician says "I will lower the taxes" and then he reduces the taxes by 10% and then they rise by 20%, I guess you all understand that he actually broke his promise. I don't really want to make my game an annoying logical quiz and also I don't want to write down every single word the characters say and then call a lawyer to understand what's the most favorable way the characters can interpret them...



Though when I DM, paladins can only "fall" by their own choice. Compulsions don't count, and obviously neither does ignorance.

I kinda agree with this; the paladin wouldn't have fallen if he didn't react so arshly. I think that a paladin (and a cleric, too; and maybe every good character) should really think twice before harming anyone.

[AnswersQuestion]

Ok, this discussion risks to become quite annoying...

Someone could argue that if he said "I will let you perform your ritual" and then he attacked the wizard just before it started, he didn't really fulfil his promise.

If a politician says "I will lower the taxes" and then he reduces the taxes by 10% and then they rise by 20%, I guess you all understand that he actually broke his promise. I don't really want to make my game an annoying logical quiz and also I don't want to write down every single word the characters say and then call a lawyer to understand what's the most favorable way the characters can interpret them...

Because the paladin was forced to make that vow. Both the spell specifies it can convince people to do things they normally wouldn't and you said the paladin wouldn't agree to the whole thing if he wasn't charmed in the first place.
He has no obligation to fulfill a promise he didn't make.

[Gray Mage]

Ok, this discussion risks to become quite annoying...

Someone could argue that if he said "I will let you perform your ritual" and then he attacked the wizard just before it started, he didn't really fulfil his promise.

If a politician says "I will lower the taxes" and then he reduces the taxes by 10% and then they rise by 20%, I guess you all understand that he actually broke his promise. I don't really want to make my game an annoying logical quiz and also I don't want to write down every single word the characters say and then call a lawyer to understand what's the most favorable way the characters can interpret them...




I kinda agree with this; the paladin wouldn't have fallen if he didn't react so arshly. I think that a paladin (and a cleric, too; and maybe every good character) should really think twice before harming anyone.

If they'd have said that, yes, although I'd have tried to find a loophole, but you said he said

The paladin gave his word that the group wouldn't have disturbed the wizard while performing the ritual.


I bolded the relevant part.

[Pigkappa]

He has no obligation to fulfill a promise he didn't make.

He made it. If you have a very strong sense of honor and remember you made a promise, you should try to respect it even if you don't really know why you made it. At least, you shouldn't directly disattend that unless there's some good reason...




I bolded the relevant part.

I don't really remember the exact wording but I really hope the game doesn't rely on that. Also, I decided that when a Charm effect disappear, a character has the strange feeling of remembering the past hours in a particularly vague way, so the paladin can't remember the exact wording either.

[Eldaran]

Glad to see I'm not the only DM who rips off Arcanum for plot ideas. :smalltongue:

[AnswersQuestion]

He made it. If you have a very strong sense of honor and remember you made a promise, you should try to respect it even if you don't really know why you made it. At least, you shouldn't directly disattend that unless there's some good reason...

You are interpreting this as if the paladin fit under the classic "lawful stupid" parody... He doesn't. Why would he feel obligated to keep a promise he knew he only made because he was magically compelled to?


Also notice that alignments are mostly useless over that. Lawful doesn't mean "follows law, keeps promises". A paladin isn't even required to obey a custom or law that doesn't respect his own code.

[Gray Mage]

I don't really remember the exact wording but I really hope the game doesn't rely on that. Also, I decided that when a Charm effect disappear, a character has the strange feeling of remembering the past hours in a particularly vague way, so the paladin can't remember the exact wording either.

You're analising the lawful part of LG, so yes, wording matters a lot, it's the main caracteristic of Devils that you must be really carefull when making deals with them, no reason why it wouldn't work on the good side of the aligment chart. Again, if he remembers the wording or not isn't important, he could think that he'd break it and decide that doing the good thing was more important and end up not breaking the vow.

[Defiant]

Awesome... all it takes for a paladin to fall is a charm person spell. Maybe I'll incorporate that into a campaign somehow...

"None of the paladins around here have any paladin powers. An evil wizard once came and started charming a lot of them into making and immediately breaking simple promises. We thought it was an ingenious plan to soften up our defenses before an incoming attack, but it turns out this wizard was just trolling us."

[AnswersQuestion]

Awesome... all it takes for a paladin to fall is a charm person spell. Maybe I'll incorporate that into a campaign somehow...

"None of the paladins around here have any paladin powers. An evil wizard once came and started charming a lot of them into making and immediately breaking simple promises. We thought it was an ingenious plan to soften up our defenses before an incoming attack, but it turns out this wizard was just trolling us."
I know, right? When all the values and glory contained in honor stem exactly from the fact the honorable person is doing what he does willingly, being stripped of free will should be a pretty obvious attenuator if not outright "forgiveness sentence".

[WeLoveFireballs]

You are interpreting this as if the paladin fit under the classic "lawful stupid" parody... He doesn't. Why would he feel obligated to keep a promise he knew he only made because he was magically compelled to?


Also notice that alignments are mostly useless over that. Lawful doesn't mean "follows law, keeps promises". A paladin isn't even required to obey a custom or law that doesn't respect his own code.

Of course. Otherwise every evil city, town, castle, lair, cave would have a sign out front saying:
"Law #1: All paladins must kill themselves."

Stop Pallys easy.

[tyckspoon]

When Charme disappeared, he just went to the mine to attack the wizard immediately (the wizard ran away safely). I considered this a not-really-important code violation and the paladin lost his powers, but he will get them back as soon as he completes any other good quest.


I'm a little surprised I'm the first to mention this, but by the actual rules (as sparse as they are) of a Paladin's Code: a single "not-really-important code violation" does not make a Paladin fall. Unless you have agreed with your Paladin player that he considers the Law part to be more important than the default Paladin, he should not have suffered any ill effect beyond perhaps some pangs of conscience. A single Evil act causes a fall; breaking a promise will only break the Code if he does it constantly enough and willingly enough that it moves him out of being Lawful.

[Pigkappa]

Glad to see I'm not the only DM who rips off Arcanum for plot ideas. :smalltongue:

Yeah, Arcanum is a great source :D.


Anyway, I think that if you want to break a vow, do something and then think you broke it, and nobody can show you that you didn't, then it's exactly as if you broke it (maybe this wouldn't apply to some extreme examples I don't really want to think about). This surely applies in the real world, at least.


a single "not-really-important code violation" does not make a Paladin fall.

This wasn't the first violation; a few weeks ago he also let a thief be tortured (he didn't torture him and neither did any PC, but they could have easily tried to prevent that without too much risk, and they didn't...).

[Gray Mage]

Anyway, I think that if you want to break a vow, do something and then think you broke it, and nobody can show you that you didn't, then it's exactly as if you broke it (maybe this wouldn't apply to some extreme examples I don't really want to think about). This surely applies in the real world, at least.

In the real world you don't gain magic powers from the very ideal/essence/source/something of Law and Good itself. That changes things, IMO.

[WeLoveFireballs]

I know, right? When all the values and glory contained in honor stem exactly from the fact the honorable person is doing what he does willingly, being stripped of free will should be a pretty obvious attenuator if not outright "forgiveness sentence".

But it is not being stripped of free will he was Charmed. He is only made to think that the charmer is friendly and his suggestions are potentially helpful and makes free decisions based on that. While he is influenced he should be able to RP that and if he makes promises he should be given some leniency on breaking his word. For example had he gone in to question the wizard about what he did to him and then tried to kill him afterwards then he should go unfallen.

[AnswersQuestion]

Yeah, Arcanum is a great source :D.


Anyway, I think that if you want to break a vow, do something and then think you broke it, and nobody can show you that you didn't, then it's exactly as if you broke it (maybe this wouldn't apply to some extreme examples I don't really want to think about). This surely applies in the real world, at least.

We aren't talking about real world though. There are actual gods sufficiently omniscient to be watching, and where paladins are concerned, their "LGness" is what powers them and that is more than omniscient...it's a force of nature. In your original post there are multiple reasons for which the paladin may or not have fallen, and I won't muse on those except for the whole "broken vow" thing.

The problem is that you are giving the value to a vow that has none. Let's see if this comparison helps:
You hate to see beggars suffer. A wizard comes and casts a spell that makes his request "kick that beggar's face until it caves in" reasonable and you comply.
In the middle of the kicking, the magic is over. You feel horrible for having hurt that beggar, and you probably hate yourself for falling for something so cheap. But will you consider yourself bound to that compliance and proceed to the end to "save your honor"??




But it is not being stripped of free will he was Charmed. He is only made to think that the charmer is friendly and his suggestions are potentially helpful and makes free decisions based on that. While he is influenced he should be able to RP that and if he makes promises he should be given some leniency on breaking his word. For example had he gone in to question the wizard about what he did to him and then tried to kill him afterwards then he should go unfallen.

Oh? The charm is mind-affecting, of the school that specifically influences or control behavior, and the spell itself states that it can be used to make a person do something he otherwise wouldn't... and the victim of the spell didn't lose its free will?
If you want to be definition-pedantic, we can bring the dictionary. Free will is the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=free+will), which the Charm Person spell clearly violates.

[WarKitty]

As other people have said, to me the important factor isn't really the vow. It's that the paladin went and attacked someone without sufficient reason. Pinging on the evil-meter is not a sufficient justification for a smiting.

[WeLoveFireballs]

We aren't talking about real world though. There are actual gods sufficiently omniscient to be watching, and where paladins are concerned, their "LGness" is what powers them and that is more than omniscient...it's a force of nature. In your original post there are multiple reasons for which the paladin may or not have fallen, and I won't muse on those except for the whole "broken vow" thing.

The problem is that you are giving the value to a vow that has none. Let's see if this comparison helps:
You hate to see beggars suffer. A wizard comes and casts a spell that makes his request "kick that beggar's face until it caves in" reasonable and you comply.
In the middle of the kicking, the magic is over. You feel horrible for having hurt that beggar, and you probably hate yourself for falling for something so cheap. But will you consider yourself bound to that compliance and proceed to the end to "save your honor"??





Oh? The charm is mind-affecting, of the school that specifically influences or control behavior, and the spell itself states that it can be used to make a person do something he otherwise wouldn't... and the victim of the spell didn't lose its free will?
If you want to be definition-pedantic, we can bring the dictionary. Free will is the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=free+will), which the Charm Person spell clearly violates.

Charm person in my mind has about the effect of a diplomacy check but in one round. Simply causing them to reconsider the charmer in a positive light and act off of that. He never had a good reason to attack him in the first place, only some unconfirmed evidence. A diplomacy check may cause you to commit actions you normally would not I don't think that is depriving one of free will.

EDIT:And I think letting someone finish whatever they were doing before questioning them is just fine for a paladin.

[AnswersQuestion]

Charm person in my mind has about the effect of a diplomacy check but in one round. Simply causing them to reconsider the charmer in a positive light and act off of that. He never had a good reason to attack him in the first place, only some unconfirmed evidence. A diplomacy check may cause you to commit actions you normally would not I don't think that is depriving one of free will.

Charm Person is enough to violate free will for what it is. Also, please note that I'm not talking about the paladin's aggression, just the whole "ooh he broke the vow he made while he was stripped of his will in such a blatant manner that I even said he wouldn't make the vow if it wasn't for the magic influence" thing.

[Pigkappa]

In the real world you don't gain magic powers from the very ideal/essence/source/something of Law and Good itself. That changes things, IMO.

Yeah, but Heironeus doesn't really like a paladin who tries hard to break a vow that way. He could have tried to see what the wizard was up to, and if he attacked him after discovering that undead where being created all around the mine I would have surely agreed that he had to act that way for the greater good.

Also, he didn't really fall; he lost his powers for a few days and will have them back if he doesn't do anything wrong. There are no complicated quest involved (or spells with an XP cost required).



In the middle of the kicking, the magic is over.

That is different. Charm is not dominate person. A paladin wouldn't do something which is clearly evil, as directly harming people for no reason, just because a friend of his says that's a good idea.



If you want to be definition-pedantic, we can bring the dictionary.

No, I don't want to. While rules have to be somehow discrete (e.g. you fall and lose your powers, or you don't fall and don't lose them), the real world (except in quantum mechanics at least :P) and possibly the D&D world should be continuous.
So in a sense we have "free" > "charmed" > "dominated", and this means that we should try to apply some of the rules we use in the "free" case in the "charmed" case too, trying to be reasonable.

[WeLoveFireballs]

Charm Person is enough to violate free will for what it is. Also, please note that I'm not talking about the paladin's aggression, just the whole "ooh he broke the vow he made while he was stripped of his will in such a blatant manner that I even said he wouldn't make the vow if it wasn't for the magic influence" thing.

You did not actually adress my point. He probably could have been convinced to let him finish some business of his with a diplomacy check just Charm is faster.

[Gray Mage]

On the free-will argument:


You can fall while charmed actually, if BoED is any indication. The Vows for instance include the clause "if you break this vow as a result of magical compulsion, you lose the benefit of this feat until you receive an atonement spell."

One can argue though that the Sacred Vows have slightly higher standards than the regular paladin CoC, though I think they're actually intended to be equal.

So, yes, it is possible to fall.


Yeah, but Heironeus doesn't really like a paladin who tries hard to break a vow that way. He could have tried to see what the wizard was up to, and if he attacked him after discovering that undead where being created all around the mine I would have surely agreed that he had to act that way for the greater good.


Except that paladins don't gain their powers from gods (at least in RAW, if your game is different is another thing), so what the god considers as breaking isn't important. Also, I asked before if you were debating the lawfull or the good part of LG, and you quoted the lawfull part, so I'm ignoring if the act was good or not. If you'd like I could make arguments for why he shouldn't fall for the good part as well.

[AnswersQuestion]

You did not actually adress my point. He probably could have been convinced to let him finish some business of his with a diplomacy check just Charm is faster.

Yes, he could, but he didn't. Instead his reasoning was magically muddled. It's no different than drugging a person.

That is different. Charm is not dominate person. A paladin wouldn't do something which is clearly evil, as directly harming people for no reason, just because a friend of his says that's a good idea.




No, I don't want to. While rules have to be somehow discrete (e.g. you fall and lose your powers, or you don't fall and don't lose them), the real world (except in quantum mechanics at least :P) and possibly the D&D world shouldn't.
So in a sense we have "free" > "charmed" > "dominated", and this means that we should try to apply some of the rules we use in the "free" case in the "charmed" case too, trying to be reasonable.

Except free will is much more frail than that. As soon as you add something that impairs the person's judgment (which Charm Person does. Read the spell's description) you are hindering its sane judgment and thus free will.

[Pigkappa]

Except that paladins don't gain their powers from gods (at least in RAW, if your game is different is another thing), so what the god considers as breaking isn't important.

I thought gods granted paladins powers (as for clerics, which means that everything works in a strange way because paladins and clerics can have no gods), but this isn't really defined in the game so that's not too important.



Also, I asked before if you were debating the lawfull or the good part of LG, and you quoted the lawfull part, so I'm ignoring if the act was good or not. If you'd like I could make arguments for why he shouldn't fall for the good part as well.

As i said, I don't think it should be a problem about the exact statement of the vow, if he clearly meant he would have left the wizard do whatever he liked. The wizard was smart enough to make it kinda casual (there was nothing like "Please repeat the following words: "I will not disturb you while you perform your ritual in the next seven days"").

The wording may be important (and interesting) in a tribunal, or when signing with blood a contract with a Succubus; it would make the game really annoying to make it depend on such issues in this case. That would force paladins to be insanely cautious whenever they speak.



As soon as you add something that impairs the person's judgment (which Charm Person does. Read the spell's description) you are hindering its sane judgment and thus free will.

Ok, let's say I'm the DM and i decided that the "free will" index can assume more values than just "true" and "false". It's usually "true". When a beatiful girl asks you something, it's "nearly true". When Charm is on, it's "not quite true". When Dominate is on, it's "False". I see we don't agree on this part, and I don't really care what RAW is on this matter.

[Gray Mage]

I thought gods granted paladins powers (as for clerics, which means that everything works in a strange way because paladins and clerics can have no gods), but this isn't really defined in the game so that's not too important.


It is defined in the game. Paladins don't need to worship a god, so they don't gain powers from them.



As i said, I don't think it should be a problem about the exact statement of the vow, if he clearly meant he would have left the wizard do whatever he liked. The wizard was smart enough to make it kinda casual (there was nothing like "Please repeat the following words: "I will not disturb you while you perform your ritual in the next seven days"").

The wording may be important (and interesting) in a tribunal, or when signing with blood a contract with a Succubus; it would make the game really annoying to make it depend on such issues in this case. That would force paladins to be insanely cautious whenever they speak.


I see it as a way for him to escape the situation you created. Both the intent and the wording are important, which is more important is a personal opinion. Also, I'd only do the precise wording if they're making a vow or something, not in everyday chat.

Edit: Actually, I'd say that from a lawful perspective, wording is more important than intent.



Minor nitpick, succubus are Demons.

[AnswersQuestion]

Ok, let's say I'm the DM and i decided that the "free will" index can assume more values than just "true" and "false". It's usually "true". When a beatiful girl asks you something, it's "nearly true". When Charm is on, it's "not quite true". When Dominate is on, it's "False". I see we don't agree on this part, and I don't really care what RAW is on this matter.

You came here for nothing since you're not really listening to those who disagree, then. See you in another thread!

[Pigkappa]

I see it as a way for him to escape the situation you created.

The correct way would have been to score something different from 1 in the Will saving throw. I had also given him a +4 bonus because he had some good reasons (detect evil, and also a paladin is naturally hostile if someone tells them "don't worry about that ghost who produces infinite undeads, I'll take care of it and I won't tell you how") to be hostile toward the wizard.

Anyway, I'm not gonna answer again soon because it's 3:35 here and I need to sleep. Goodnight :smallsmile:.

[Gray Mage]

The correct way would have been to score something different from 1 in the Will saving throw. I had also given him a +4 bonus because he had some good reasons (detect evil, and also a paladin is naturally hostile if someone tells them "don't worry about that ghost who produces infinite undeads, I'll take care of it and I won't tell you how") to be hostile toward the wizard.

Anyway, I'm not gonna answer again soon because it's 3:35 here and I need to sleep. Goodnight :smallsmile:.

I still think the wording is very important, but the problem IMO isn't the lack of free-will when he was charmed, but the lack of one after he was normal again. Telling him that he can't try and see what he said in a way so that he can both follow the lawful and the good parts of LG and should instead chose one is kind of a jerk move, IMHO, expecially since a more sadist DM (apparently not you since if he had followed he wouldn't fall) could make him fall no matter what he chose.

[Pigkappa]

"Telling him that he can't try and see what he said in a way so that he can both follow the lawful and the good parts of LG and should instead chose one is kind of a jerk move"

Actually he just didn't ask me. He just went to the mine to attack the wizard.

[Merellis]

So, non-evil ghost is creating a ton of Undead, necromancer says he can fix it, Paladin disagrees. Necro casts Charm Person on Paladin, while being pinged as evil, and manages to convince the charmed Paladin to make a vow to not do anything while he does the ritual, while NOT telling what the Ritual will do.

He throws off the Charm, knows he was charmed, goes in, and attacks him before the ritual is started.

So far we have a few points.

1) Necormancer is Evil according to the Paladin.
2) Necromancer, who is assumed Evil, says he can handle the ghost and undead, but won't say how, and wants no interference.
3) Paladin says no.
4) Necromancer casts Charm Person on Paladin, and manages to convince him, EVEN WITH ADDED BONUSES TO HIS WILL SAVE, to make a vow to not interrupt the ritual.
5) Charm wears off, Paladin realizes he was charmed.
6) Goes and attacks Necromancer, then falls.

And this may have been the Paladins trail of thought as the Charm failed.

"I don't really like this guy after all" ... "Necro + Undead + Evil + Secret Ritual + Charm cast on me, the Paladin + Vow to not interfere in ritual = ???" ... "Equals, I just did something really, really, dumb and I should go stop this."

Yes he made a vow, but given the evidence, he either should not have made the vow, or the evidence kinda piled up against the Necromancer in a large way.

Make of it what you will. :smallamused:

[SuperFish]

Personally, I'd have been extremely upset if I, or another character in my party, fell for a reason like this.

In regards to the Charm Person: as far as I'm concerned, being Charmed is like being drunk, in that you aren't in full control of your normal mental faculties. You'll notice that using alcohol as a means to get someone into bed in the real world still falls under the definition of "rape". A vow made while Charmed, therefore, is no real vow at all.

As for the actions after the Charm...yeah, Necromancer was looking seriously suspicious. It'd be terribly naive and irresponsible of the pally not to do something.

[Winter_Wolf]

I don't even like paladins and I have some qualms about a paladin losing his abilities over this. Then again there are just so many factors to consider (which is part of the reason I don't like paladins).

For me, this would be the deciding factor: Did the pally find out he'd been charmed by the evil necromancer? If yes, then I'd say a standard chain of logic would lead to the belief that the necro was up to something nefarious, and the vow was not valid in the eyes of the paladin's deity. Dealing with the necromancer was the paladin's duty and would in itself be atonement for foolishly aiding and abetting evil, by correcting a mistake made under enchantment.

If no, then the paladin's player better explain the logic of the character in reaching the decision to kill a guy, and make it a good one.

[Warlawk]

Bottom line...

Any dm who charms any player then punishes them for a promise made under compulsion is bad and I feel bad for the players who end up playing under him. That goes double for tinkering with paladin CoC.

Not intended as a personal attack, just a general observation.

[Coidzor]

Well, the paladin should kick himself for losing an opposed charisma check, and meeting alone with a spellcaster.


As other people have said, to me the important factor isn't really the vow. It's that the paladin went and attacked someone without sufficient reason. Pinging on the evil-meter is not a sufficient justification for a smiting.

Leaving someone aware that you cast a spell on them to get into a sensitive area they don't want you to be in, on the other hand, was a poor decision on the wizard's part and the paladin had good cause to believe that it would come to unpleasantness in dislodging the wizard from the restricted area.

[Kelb_Panthera]

FWIW, Many classical societies consider a promise made under the influence of drugs and alcohol just as valid as a promise made without such influences. Those same societies consider a promise made in haste just as valid as a promise made after careful deliberation.

Charm effects don't strip you of your free will. Having your judgment of a character affected by a spell is no different than having your judgment of a character skewed by a disguise or a successful bluff. Charm Person specifically says that it can't make a character take an action that he wouldn't normally take without a further cha check. It's not dominate-lite. The paladin in question thought of the necromancer as a friend when he made the promise, then found out he had been charmed at the time. This doesn't necessarily invalidate the promise. He was very much aware of the fact he was making a promise to someone he barely knew. He should've held himself to the promise he made until he determined that the necromancer had no intention of upholding his end of the bargain. That said, I'd probably have made it a partial fall if I were DM. Maybe lose divine grace, or spell-casting, certainly not all supernatural paladin abilities.

[AnswersQuestion]

FWIW, Many classical societies consider a promise made under the influence of drugs and alcohol just as valid as a promise made without such influences. Those same societies consider a promise made in haste just as valid as a promise made after careful deliberation.

Charm effects don't strip you of your free will. Having your judgment of a character affected by a spell is no different than having your judgment of a character skewed by a disguise or a successful bluff. Charm Person specifically says that it can't make a character take an action that he wouldn't normally take without a further cha check. It's not dominate-lite. The paladin in question thought of the necromancer as a friend when he made the promise, then found out he had been charmed at the time. This doesn't necessarily invalidate the promise. He was very much aware of the fact he was making a promise to someone he barely knew. He should've held himself to the promise he made until he determined that the necromancer had no intention of upholding his end of the bargain. That said, I'd probably have made it a partial fall if I were DM. Maybe lose divine grace, or spell-casting, certainly not all supernatural paladin abilities.

Too bad the universal concepts embodied by alignments are not classical, but mostly modern, huh?

[Gray Mage]

"Telling him that he can't try and see what he said in a way so that he can both follow the lawful and the good parts of LG and should instead chose one is kind of a jerk move"

Actually he just didn't ask me. He just went to the mine to attack the wizard.

Yes, but the fact that you'd rather take the meaning instead of the word or have a god take his powers off anyways strike me that you wouldn't. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Also, since it could make him lose his powers me as the DM would pay attention to see if he had broken it or not, but that's because I'm not a fan of falling paladins.

[hamishspence]

The PHB, under Atonement spell, does say that

"casting it on someone so they Atone for Evil acts committed under magical compulsion costs the caster no XP"

So, an act can be committed under magical compulsion, still count as "an evil act" and still require atonement to get powers back.

In 3.0, the spell was explicitly clear that it was "unwitting evil acts" and "evil acts committed under magical compulsion"- that a paladin could get their powers back for- they could never get their powers back for a willing/willful Evil act.

Even though the class itself only mentioned willing/willful evil acts as causing a Fall (clarifying that such acts caused a permanent fall).

3.5 allowed them to get their powers back even if they committed a willing/willful evil act (though it would still cost XP to atone for) but it's not clear if they can Fall for Evil acts committed under magical compulsion, or unwitting Evil acts.

The text for the paladin class and it's falling rules is identical in both 3.0 and 3.5 (except for the clarification that willing/willful Evil acts cause permanent Fall). Yet, despite the class itself not saying so in 3.0, the rules allowed for Falling for unwitting Evil acts or those under magical compulsion.

3.5 may possibly work the same way.

[elpollo]

I started doing this little flow chart thing about when a paladin should fall, but it ended up being bigger than I'd like (i.e. more than one step - it was gonna be "Is the player ok with falling") as I realised that the party would also have to be ok with it as it's gonna put the paladin in the spotlight for a fairly large amount of time as he attempts to rise again. I then added the DM for completeness, as it's your game too.

If the paladin falling doesn't add to everyone's fun, don't do it (for reference, I don't force a lawful good alignment for paladins [and have them charisma based casters]). If you're forcing paladins to be lawful good explain what that means to you, and if that doesn't let them fill their character concept then let them rebuild the character as a different class.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Too bad the universal concepts embodied by alignments are not classical, but mostly modern, huh?

Which alignment is it you think covers promises? And for that matter, does that universal concept honor the word of the promise, or the spirit of the promise?

[AnswersQuestion]

Which alignment is it you think covers promises? And for that matter, does that universal concept honor the word of the promise, or the spirit of the promise?

The same one that understand promises made under influence hold no value because the vower's faculties were impaired.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The same one that understand promises made under influence hold no value because the vower's faculties were impaired.

Yes, but which one is that? As I said, the paladin's understanding of who he was making a promise to was compromised. He was very much aware of what he was promising. The same result could've been achieved by a rogue using only non-magical skill checks.

EG: rogue disguised as a cleric of the paladin's god makes some bluffs and works a bit of diplomacy to convince the paladin that it's in the best interest of all parties involved if he, and not the paladin's party, takes care of the problem. He warns the paladin that he'll be working powerful magic that could backfire horribly if he's interrupted and calls on the paladin to make a promise of non-interference. The paladin makes his promise and goes to town to wait it out, where he finds out that the cleric he made the promise to is a charlatan and not a cleric at all. Is -that- promise invalid as well?

[Stegyre]

As other people have said, to me the important factor isn't really the vow. It's that the paladin went and attacked someone without sufficient reason. Pinging on the evil-meter is not a sufficient justification for a smiting.
Someone pinging on the evil meter just tried to mind control the LG Paladin to stop him from interfering. Calling that conduct "suspicious" would be an understatement.

At least in D&D, Paladins are not required to presume innocence and establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Requiring them to act like modern-day prosecutors really messes with the fantasy trope. One could run a campaign that way, but it had best be expressly so.

I think this player got railroaded.

Am I the only one who feels like theres a subtext the DM isn't admitting? We have an NPC that the DM wants to send into the mine to "do something." The PCs (particularly the Paladin) don't agree and are suspicious (the Paladin, because the NPC is pinging -- that's why Paladins have that ability). So the DM basically forces the players to agree by charming the Paladin and making him promise not to interfere.

Charm wears off and Paladin (imo, rightly) rushes off to stop the NPC -- because if the NPC had good and honorable intentions, he could have reasonably explained them to an LG Paladin, without resorting to mind control.

"Luckily" for the NPC, he escapes retribution, and just to rub it in, the DM punishes the Paladin.

I smell railroading and DMPCing. :smallsigh:

EDIT:
Is -that- promise invalid as well?
Yes: the rogue committed fraud, and we usually regard fraud as making any promise achieved thereby voidable.

Good thing it's not binding, too. Let's say the rogue went off to perform the unspeakable rights to summon Cthulu. Are you really going to argue that the Paladin will fall if he breaks this promise instead of standing aside and letting unspeakable evil be loosed upon the world?? :smallconfused:

Mind you, however, the best result is if the Paladin finds a way to get the Rogue screwed by the Paladin's keeping his promise: "Oh dear! While you thought to take control of these undead for your own wicked ends, they have now grabbed you and are about to eat your brains. Ordinarily, I'd be obliged to stop them, being a Paladin and all, but you did make me promise not to interfere. In the grand scheme of things, I think Pelor will understand."

I'd give bonus XP for that.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Someone pinging on the evil meter just tried to mind control the LG Paladin to stop him from interfering. Calling that conduct "suspicious" would be an understatement.

At least in D&D, Paladins are not required to presume innocence and establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Requiring them to act like modern-day prosecutors really messes with the fantasy trope. One could run a campaign that way, but it had best be expressly so.

I think this player got railroaded.

Am I the only one who feels like theres a subtext the DM isn't admitting? We have an NPC that the DM wants to send into the mine to "do something." The PCs (particularly the Paladin) don't agree and are suspicious (the Paladin, because the NPC is pinging -- that's why Paladins have that ability). So the DM basically forces the players to agree by charming the Paladin and making him promise not to interfere.

Charm wears off and Paladin (imo, rightly) rushes off to stop the NPC -- because if the NPC had good and honorable intentions, he could have reasonably explained them to an LG Paladin, without resorting to mind control.

"Luckily" for the NPC, he escapes retribution, and just to rub it in, the DM punishes the Paladin.

I smell railroading and DMPCing. :smallsigh:

EDIT:
Yes: the rogue committed fraud, and we usually regard fraud as making any promise achieved thereby voidable.

Good thing it's not binding, too. Let's say the rogue went off to perform the unspeakable rights to summon Cthulu. Are you really going to argue that the Paladin will fall if he breaks this promise instead of standing aside and letting unspeakable evil be loosed upon the world?? :smallconfused:

Mind you, however, the best result is if the Paladin finds a way to get the Rogue screwed by the Paladin's keeping his promise: "Oh dear! While you thought to take control of these undead for your own wicked ends, they have now grabbed you and are about to eat your brains. Ordinarily, I'd be obliged to stop them, being a Paladin and all, but you did make me promise not to interfere. In the grand scheme of things, I think Pelor will understand."

I'd give bonus XP for that.

Ah hah! We simply disagree on the nature of a promise then. In the situation I outlined with the rogue, I'd consider the promise suspect, but valid until the paladin determined that the rogue had no intention of upholding his end of the bargain. If, and this is a mighty big if, the rogue did in-fact intend to eliminate the undead issue and simply wanted the PC party out of the way to claim glory for himself, the promise stands. The rogue gets a stern talking to, but the paladin doesn't interfere. If, on the other hand, the rogue just wanted the party out of the way to loot the place and then get out of dodge, the promise is voided and the rogue gets a thump upside his head.

[Starbuck_II]

If no, then the paladin's player better explain the logic of the character in reaching the decision to kill a guy, and make it a good one.

Dude he gave you a magical rufie (charm)? Rufies are given to girls because you are unable to think clearly: yeah, this guy deserves a beating.

[Stegyre]

Ah hah! We simply disagree on the nature of a promise then. In the situation I outlined with the rogue, I'd consider the promise suspect, but valid until the paladin determined that the rogue had no intention of upholding his end of the bargain.
As I said, a promise obtained by fraud is voidable, not void. Upon learning of the fraud (and presumably investigating) the Paladin has the option of either keeping it or not. But having that choice essentially means that he is no longer "bound" by the promise.

[Kelb_Panthera]

As I said, a promise obtained by fraud is voidable, not void. Upon learning of the fraud (and presumably investigating) the Paladin has the option of either keeping it or not. But having that choice essentially means that he is no longer "bound" by the promise.

Ah. I misunderstood then. Voidable is indeed a different word than void.

[Pigkappa]

I think this player got railroaded.

[spoiler]Am I the only one who feels like theres a subtext the DM isn't admitting? We have an NPC that the DM wants to send into the mine to "do something." The PCs (particularly the Paladin) don't agree and are suspicious (the Paladin, because the NPC is pinging -- that's why Paladins have that ability). So the DM basically forces the players to agree by charming the Paladin and making him promise not to interfere.


Nope. In my mind, the wizard wouldn't have gone to the mine actually; for example, the paladin could have said "I'm not gonna speak with you unless my friends are with me"; he could have resisted the Charm spell easily (Will save with +4 bonus...); the other PCs could have told him to screw up and could have tried to stop the wizard immediately.
There was another way (a Good one :smallsmile:) of solving the mine problem, which I considered the most likely to be chosen by the PCs.

Since they attacked the wizard (who ran away) and then decided to stay away from the town for 2 weeks to accomplish another mission (which is surely a Good one, and the Paladin will have his powers back when it is over) in the nearby forest and let everything calm down, things will be much more complicated, and funny, I hope. They'll likely come back when the wizard has prepared a decent defensive sistem and already started the ritual.

[turkishproverb]

...

The guy got away? And you'll have them come back when the wizard has set up defenses and is casting the spell?


Yea, this is looking more and more like you had a plot-line you wanted to happen and then defended, and after he pushed it back you subconsciously or consciously punished him for doing something that could have (and did, albeit slightly) hurt it.

I'm not saying you did (it's possible even if you don't realize you're doing it.), but you might want to consider how it would look to your players.

You had something you clearly intended the Necromancer to do.

The paladin tries to refuse him the chance.

The Necromancer (to a player: Death magic almost entirely) uses charm to get his way.

The paladin stops him, thinking it shouldn't effect his vow (as it logically shouldn't according to many if not most who posted here).

He stops the man from casting the spell you'd planned just yet.

You "punish" him (either for an offense, or for derailing your plan, depending upon the point of view) by turning off his powers/making him fall.

The caster "somehow" manages to escape (In the case of the players, it's possible they feel it's because you wanted him to escape)

And now, you're telling me you've sent them on another quest far away, with the intent to have them return just as he's CASTING THE SPELL?

Do you really think your players won't see that as railroading and/or vindictive?


Magical compulsion can cause a fall - BoED makes this clear, as I already stated. It's simply easier to get back in the saddle.

BoED uses that in relation to exalted. Typically held to higher standards than even paladins. It's a point of reference, but hardly one that is as related, serious or condemning as you make it out to be.

[Scow2]

I'd just like to say the following: Charm Person is not the same as Dominate Person. There is a significant difference between Charms and Compulsions that the rules are quick to clarify.

Technically speaking, being Charmed does not deprive the character of his free will. All it does is change their perception of the person who cast the spell on them. In fact, it only makes them Friendly (One step above Indifferent), Not Helpful. I hate it when DMs treat Charm Person as Dominate Person accessable early and almost just as powerful.

Therefore, the Paladin was not compelled to make a vow with the Necromancer. It cannot make anyone do anything they wouldn't normally do without an opposed CHA check (Which helps prevent metagaming the responses and demonstrates a person's mundane persuasive ability). So, saying the Paladin was compelled to swear a vow is as legal a claim as a kid saying he was compelled to throw a baseball through his neighbor's window because his friend told him to. Which is exactly the amount of influence Charm Person has in governing actions.

So... In the player's defense, he shouldn't have been forced to make the vow for his New Friend, because as much as he liked the guy, he could still not trust the motives behind the act, and get a chance to make an Opposed CHA check. Or, he could still get the opposed CHA check against the necromancer because he's not allowed to associate or aid evil people (Therefore, doing so is Something He Wouldn't Normally Do), even if said Evil Person was his friend since childhood.

But, to go on a rampage afterward and violate a vow made in full faith from both parties... That's worth a fall. All Charm Person does is emulate a successful Diplomacy check (For a given value of Successful)

[Coidzor]

But, to go on a rampage afterward and violate a vow made in full faith from both parties... That's worth a fall. All Charm Person does is emulate a successful Diplomacy check (For a given value of Successful)

Where's the rampage, actually doing the job he was sent there to do? Where's the full faith from both parties? As you said, this scenario seems more like treating it like early dominate person anyway.

[Aquillion]

The fact is, the paladin clearly stated that he would have left the wizard do his ritual, and then he attacked the wizard without even checking if he was really up to something evil. You're being way, way too strict.


A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Ex-Paladins

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.Emphasis mine.

This was, in my opinion, not even a technical violation of the Code of Conduct. The Code of Conduct doesn't actually require you to keep oaths; it requires you to not lie. The distinction is subtle but extremely important. You have to mean what you say when you say it, but you're allowed to change your mind later based on new information. A Paladin who swears to kill a man who he believes to be a criminal can forsake that oath after discovering otherwise without even technically violating the Code of Conduct; it's written that way deliberately, to ensure that Paladins are Lawful Good rather than Lawful Stupid.

You can't make an oath that you intend to break. But you can change your mind to adapt to new circumstances or information, without having it count as a violation.

However, all of this is moot. Even if it was a technical violation, it was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a gross violation, which is the only sort of violation that can make a Paladin lose their powers (aside from willing evil acts and an alignment change, both of which obviously don't fit this case.)

If the Paladin had been mind-controlled and forced to murder innocents, it might have made them fall, since that's a gross violation of the code. But being forced to -- at worst -- tell a lie? Absolutely not.

(On top of all this, the Paladin had very good reason to believe that the person they were going after was harming innocents -- after all, harming the Paladin by mind-controlling them counted as harming innocents. It might even have been a minor code violation to not seek to punish them. Mind control is a very big deal to anyone who values their freedom, and I don't see it as unusual to attack someone who uses it for such idle things.)

[Baldin]

eey,

I do not know if your question has been answered already, but i dont think the paladin would lose his powers, if he wouldnt have done anything then he would have due to the Code of Conduct saying : A paladin must help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends) and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Now the wizard being EVIL and want to do a ritual with UNDEAD clearly makes the wizard doing something eighter evil or chaotic.

So in my opinion he wouldnt break his codes.

besides if the spell you used was a Charm person, the character only takes the words of the caster as best as he can, this doesnt say that you can make some1 vow anything.

example: if i would take the words of some1 i know as best as i can and he asks me to vow not to stop him setting fire to a house, i still wouldnt do that.

cheers
baldin

ps. you could even count this vow as "Threatening"the paladin cos making the vow could cost him his powers giving him +5 on his save

[SocratesOnFire]

There have been some really over dramatic and under-informed posts on this thread, I'm amazed that it wasn't until the third page that someone began really pointing out the differences between Charm and Dominate. Due to the nature of charm, as altering the way the subject views the caster instead of compelling behavior, it is clear that a charmed paladin giving an vow under the effect of a charm is no different than a paladin giving a vow under false pretenses, and while some may claim that to be enough to invalidate the vow, that can in no way be construed as depriving the paladin of free will in his decision. Personally I think the vow should be upheld as valid as it was, after all, a VOW. This wasn't a casual statement of intention, the paladin swore an oath to not interfere with a the wizard, he made a binding verbal contract. A paladin that regularly makes vows only to break them should he change his mind (recognizing the difference previously mentioned between lying and oath breaking, where one may initially intend to keep one's promises but doesn't feel bound by them should circumstances shift) is no paladin at all. When he entered into a contract, he was obliged to uphold that contract even if later circumstances radically change. The Vow, "I shall preform X action" is not really a Vow at all if it really means "I shall preform X action unless I later think better of it." If your paladin said "I shall not interfere with your ritual" but really meant "I shall not interfere with your ritual unless I later change my mind," then he lied when he claimed it was a vow. Ergo, he should have fallen as soon as he lied to the wizard.

This is really moot anyway. Pigkappa, if your player has a problem with your ruling, you should talk it out with him. The worst thing possible for a paladin character is to have a player and DM that aren't on the same page about the paladin code. That can best be solved though relatively little time spent talking. I think you're ruling as it stands is fine.

P.S. Several of you guys are not really be constructive in trying to help the DM with a situation he apparently finds messy enough to place on a forum. I've read maybe three posters that really seemed interested in improving Pigkappa's game. The rest are straw manning both the rules and Pigkappa's synopsis. Come on guys.

[Aquillion]

Personally I think the vow should be upheld as valid as it was, after all, a VOW. This wasn't a casual statement of intention, the paladin swore an oath to not interfere with a the wizard, he made a binding verbal contract. A paladin that regularly makes vows only to break them should he change his mind (recognizing the difference previously mentioned between lying and oath breaking, where one may initially intend to keep one's promises but doesn't feel bound by them should circumstances shift) is no paladin at all.The Paladin Code doesn't mention a word about vows. Deliberately. Keeping vows even when it is evil to do so or allows something evil to occur is not Lawful Good, it's Lawful Stupid.

No matter how many vows like that a Paladin breaks, they will never fall, because their code makes no mentions of vows; on the other hand, a Paladin whose bullheaded pride makes them keep to a vow even to the point where it interferes with punishing the wicked or accomplishing good will eventually fall, because their behavior is at best Lawful Neutral, not Lawful Good, and because they are violating the Code every time they stick to a vow that interferes with it. When following a vow would violate the code, Paladins are not only allowed but required to break it, and risks falling if they continue to keep their word at the expense of their higher obligations to do good.

Paladins are not robots. The Code has a purpose, which it states pretty clearly -- you're to be honorable, to defend the good, to punish the wicked. The Paladin in this story acted in line with that code. A Paladin who mindlessly adheres to a dishonorably-made oath -- or an oath to do something dishonorable or against the code, by allowing the wicked to go free -- is violating both the letter and the spirit of the Code.


When he entered into a contract, he was obliged to uphold that contract even if later circumstances radically change. The Vow, "I shall preform X action" is not really a Vow at all if it really means "I shall preform X action unless I later think better of it." If your paladin said "I shall not interfere with your ritual" but really meant "I shall not interfere with your ritual unless I later change my mind," then he lied when he claimed it was a vow. Ergo, he should have fallen as soon as he lied to the wizard.Paladins do not fall instantly simply for lying. Aside from evil acts, only gross violations of the code cause you to fall. The fact that the Paladin should not have fallen for this is not at issue -- that much is obvious; the DM was unfamiliar with the rules for Paladins and made a clear mistake. Whether you feel that violating a coerced and dishonorable oath is a violation or not, it is clearly not a gross violation of the code -- there is no interpretation of the rules that could justify falling in that situation.

[Stegyre]

The Paladin Code doesn't mention a word about vows. Deliberately.
Well, that's speculation, especially considering all the other stuff WotC has and hasn't done. :smallwink:

Other than that, though, a big
+1:smallbiggrin:

[Pigkappa]

The caster "somehow" manages to escape (In the case of the players, it's possible they feel it's because you wanted him to escape)

Nope. It's not my fault if a level-3 group attacks a wizard with no ways of seeing invisible enemies; I think it's reasonable for a wizard to have an invisibility potion ready when he's preparing to start an evil ritual and there's a paladin in town.



And now, you're telling me you've sent them on another quest far away, with the intent to have them return just as he's CASTING THE SPELL?


Nope again. They already knew the other quest before this all began, and they decided on their own to go solve that quest after the wizard escaped. That was a poor choice indeed, but I didn't tell them to do so.



The story is: the PCs have been chosen by an oracle of Pelor to be the champions of the city of Tarant. An important cleric of the city of Tarant sent them to see what's happening in the Shrouded Hills town, which lies between the (moderately hostile) nations of Tarant (=Good nation, more or less) and Cumbria (=likely Evil nation) because he's heard that that town's economy is having some problems. Their mission is to solve those problems, and make it clear that they work for Tarant so that the town will thank Tarant and not Cumbria for that.

When they arrived, speaking with a few people they found out that:
1)A group of bandits is staying near one of the bridges (there are 2 bridges).
2)The local ore mine is haunted since 2 or 3 months, and since some miners have died nobody wants to go work there.
3)The furs and firewood which sould have arrived in September from the forest didn't arrive at all (they arrive in town in November).

They could choose which problem to address first. They solved correctly the bandits problem, then went to the mine and met the ghost speaking about Sarah, then spoke with the necromancer, then made him flee from the mine, and then went to the forest. They decided to stay away from the town for a few weeks because they felt that many people in town were starting to hate them for a few mistakes they made (e.g. threatening the mine's owner because he didn't want to answer them; breaking into the wizard's house; and a few other minor things), and it is essential that they are seen as heroes.



This is really moot anyway. Pigkappa, if your player has a problem with your ruling, you should talk it out with him. The worst thing possible for a paladin character is to have a player and DM that aren't on the same page about the paladin code. That can best be solved though relatively little time spent talking. I think you're ruling as it stands is fine.


I'm not having any problem with this player; as I said, this was a "minor" fall and he will get his powers back as soon as he accomplishes a Good quest (and they are already doing a Good quest which is going to end before they go back to the town), so we're not spending a lot of time to make him redeem. I posted this here to see if what I did was totally wrong for some strange reason (maybe there was some crazy manual saying that you can break a vow if that's for accomplishing a mission inside a mine, or something like that).

[Jarveiyan]

Let me just say that Aquillion has my vote(you tell him!). A champion of good has to do good or they will start slipping into neutral and maybe even evil, "Evil prevails when good men do nothing". In order to stay good stopping evil is required, if said paladin stays his hand due to a bad promise then he takes responsibility(along with the actual culprit) if anyone suffers from that. Over time you will get that overly cautious paladin due to the fact that he gets double punished for a promise he normally wouldn't have made. And then you'll get frustrated because it'll look like the paladin has a non-committal issue(when it's just the paladin making sure he doesn't make the same mistake twice). As has been stated Lawful Stupid will stand by and "stick" to the deal, Lawful Good will attempt to stop the necro promise or no promise(and promises are different from Sacred Vows, their not as binding). So no I don't think he should loose his powers for doing whats right.