[PF] A player who fails as a Paladin

[Desril]

I've got a player who's a paladin, and he's been doing a bad job at the whole "lawful good" thing. I'm against arbitrarily having a paladin fall unless it was a major failing, but I've run out of excuses I can make for him. Can the Playground justify why he should not fall, or if I am correct in stripping him of his powers? His failings include, but are not limited to:


Finding circumstantial (true, but he was not absolutely certain at the time) evidence of who was behind a kidnapping, charging them in a surprise attack from behind and slaughtering them without mercy. It was a rescue attempt, and there was no evidence the kidnapped had been made to suffer beyond what was required to capture her.
Killing enemies indiscriminately, only occasionally asking for a surrender, usually before combat.
Letting a group of neutral creatures get slaughtered by duergar because he didn't want to side with the evil creatures and didn't know what the vegepygmies were.
Killed duergar without mercy in order to protect a pair of evil lamia that the character had a personal attachment to.
Drew repeatedly (15+ times) from a deck of many things. Not fall worthy in itself, but...well "chaotic" doesn't do that justice.
Bargained with an evil (which he was aware of) green dragon (which he wasn't aware of) and used an ability gained from the deck to resurrect another dragon (which he was aware of was a green and most probably evil) in order to be teleported, while fully aware that he was free to simply walk away and cover the distance on foot. Justified by him as the green dragon was the lover of the evil being he was bargaining with and his deity is Aphrodite.
Played a game of chance with an evil red dragon and bargained with it (giving away the deck in the process) in order to ensure his and allies' survival.
Betrayed an oath to his king and pledged his allegiance to another (who has a legitimate claim to the throne) for personal reasons. He excused this by killing himself (knowing that one of the powers gained from the Deck would revive him instantly) "freeing [him] from his oath"
Is currently leading an assault force of goblins, ogres, and gnolls against a fortress commanded by a knight in a war against his former king.
Has only on one occasion ever attempted to convert a person to the cause of good, and that was to an NPC that had treated him with courtesy, had been keeping his family safe as a sign of good faith, and had done nothing openly evil, she simply commented that it was a pity he was a paladin and wouldn't be able to ally properly with her faction (thieves' guild).


He's done the last two because leader of said monstrous forces has noble ideals and intentions, though the ultimate outcome will be creating an empire that is, at best, neutral if not evil, but where all races are treated equally and dependent upon skill rather than being human-centric. He's heavily misguided and fully convinced that he's been acting perfectly lawful and good the entire campaign, but the only "good" acts he's done were saving a town from undead without asking for payment and helping a random peasant whose wagon had broken. Over 5 levels of adventuring. All other "good deeds" he has done were unnamed background fluff.

So, given all of that, what does the Playground have to say?

*Edit: I was also going to inform him that as he hadn't been acting in a LG manner to update his alignment to TN

*Edit the Second: I was intending to allow him an atonement if he actually becomes repentant and acts appropriately, or allow him to retrain into Samurai/Cavalier if he wanted it and gave up on being a Paladin over a couple of levels, so he wouldn't be permanently reduced (Antipaladin is also an option if he sees his failings for what they are and continues on the path to evil). He's also sufficiently overpowered via templates that losing Lay on Hands, Smite, and Divine Grace wouldn't cripple him as a player even if he gets stuck with the Ex-Paladin levels.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I've got a player who's a paladin, and he's been doing a bad job at the whole "lawful good" thing. I'm against arbitrarily having a paladin fall unless it was a major failing, but I've run out of excuses I can make for him. Can the Playground justify why he should not fall, or if I am correct in stripping him of his powers? His failings include, but are not limited to: Let's go through these, shall we?



Finding circumstantial (true, but he was not absolutely certain at the time) evidence of who was behind a kidnapping, charging them in a surprise attack from behind and slaughtering them without mercy. It was a rescue attempt, and there was no evidence the kidnapped had been made to suffer beyond what was required to capture her. There are a number of unknowns here (from our perspective anyway) that could tilt this either way, but it looks morally neutral with the assumption that the kidnapper would've used lethal force to prevent the rescue. Sneak attacks are neither evil nor chaotic.

Killing enemies indiscriminately, only occasionally asking for a surrender, usually before combat. Killing those who are trying to kill you is always neutral, barring intentional provocation of an otherwise indifferent person/creature. Asking for surrender is good, but not asking for surrender isn't evil.

Letting a group of neutral creatures get slaughtered by duergar because he didn't want to side with the evil creatures and didn't know what the vegepygmies were. You don't hold a character (paladin or otherwise) responsible for the things he didn't do. You might have a case if it's a clear matter of good V evil being observed, but if it's evil V evil you're definitely all clear, and if alignments are unknown (perhaps out of detect range) choosing not to get involved in someone else's fight is just prudent. A clearly one-sided fight and a wanton slaughter are difficult to distinguish unless you're already in the thick of it.

Killed duergar without mercy in order to protect a pair of evil lamia that the character had a personal attachment to.Protecting your allies/friends/charges is a lawful act, and is usually a good act unless it's got an evil motive.

Drew repeatedly (15+ times) from a deck of many things. Not fall worthy in itself, but...well "chaotic" doesn't do that justice. This was either a single (admittedly dramatic) chaotic act or you messed up. A person is supposed to declare how many cards he intends to draw, draws exactly that many, then the deck disappears to only the gods know where.

Bargained with an evil (which he was aware of) green dragon (which he wasn't aware of) and used an ability gained from the deck to resurrect another dragon (which he was aware of was a green and most probably evil) in order to be teleported, while fully aware that he was free to simply walk away and cover the distance on foot. Justified by him as the green dragon was the lover of the evil being he was bargaining with and his deity is Aphrodite. Now this one's a major problem. Knowingly making a bargain with an evil creature to restore a slain force of evil; how did he not fall right then and there? Lovers or not, a good love goddess shouldn't have supported that action, so unless aphrodite is LN she should've cut him off on the spot.

Played a game of chance with an evil red dragon and bargained with it (giving away the deck in the process) in order to ensure his and allies' survival. Protecting his allies from near certain death sounds like a good act to me. The code does not demand that a paladin throw his life away in a hopeless situation, especially if it means taking non-paladin allies with him. This is more a point in his favor than against him.

Betrayed an oath to his king and pledged his allegiance to another (who has a legitimate claim to the throne) for personal reasons. He excused this by killing himself (knowing that one of the powers gained from the Deck would revive him instantly) "freeing [him] from his oath"Fulfilling the letter of an oral agreement, rather than the spirit of the agreement, is still lawful behavior. If his oath was until death and he died, he was legitimately released from that oath. While betrayal is definitely a bad thing, if his personal reasons were non-selfish (I.E. he thought the new guy would bring about a better life for the people of the kingdom) then he's not necessarily acting more LN than LG, but it's definitely a grayer area than a paladin should aspire to.

Is currently leading an assault force of goblins, ogres, and gnolls against a fortress commanded by a knight in a war against his former king.Unless he has reason to believe that a significant portion, as in more than half, of his (monstrous) force is evil, this is a political move, not a moral one. He's no longer beholden to that king (he died to be released from that obligation) so it may leave a bad taste in your mouth, but it's clean on the law-chaos axis and doesn't invoke the good-evil axis at all.

Has only on one occasion ever attempted to convert a person to the cause of good, and that was to an NPC that had treated him with courtesy, had been keeping his family safe as a sign of good faith, and had done nothing openly evil, she simply commented that it was a pity he was a paladin and wouldn't be able to ally properly with her faction (thieves' guild).
Granting mercy is good, choosing not to offer it isn't evil.


He's done the last two because leader of said monstrous forces has noble ideals and intentions, though the ultimate outcome will be creating an empire that is, at best, neutral if not evil, but where all races are treated equally and dependent upon skill rather than being human-centric. He's heavily misguided and fully convinced that he's been acting perfectly lawful and good the entire campaign, but the only "good" acts he's done were saving a town from undead without asking for payment and helping a random peasant whose wagon had broken. Over 5 levels of adventuring. All other "good deeds" he has done were unnamed background fluff.

So, given all of that, what does the Playground have to say?

*Edit: I was also going to inform him that as he hadn't been acting in a LG manner to update his alignment to TN

My overall assessment from the points given is that he's showing a more LN than LG behavioral pattern. However, he should've already fallen from the bargain with the green dragon; a plainly evil act.

Since he -thinks- he's been acting LG, I wouldn't just force the alignment shift on the spot. I'd have his goddess start showing signs of displeasure to him though. Perhaps some of his class features fail or become unreliable, such as turn undead not recharging or his spells being impeded. Perhaps even something as direct as a divinely inspired dream, in which a representation of his goddess either directly or symbolicly tells him he's on the fast track to a fall from grace (HoH has some great tips for this).

The above assumes you haven't previously told him his behavior wasn't lining up with his alignment. If he's already had fair warning, I say go ahead and drop him.

[The Random NPC]

I'm of the opinion that Paladins serve the forces of Good and Law, in that order. They may also have a patron deity that they serve, but their powers and abilities come from Good and Law. That said, (ignoring the outliers) he is more of a LN than a LG. Might not constitute a shift in alignment, but a warning is definitely in order. Over all there isn't quite enough information to make a sound decision. For all we know, the Lamias needed to survive to prevent the end of the world or even were less of an evil than the duergar.

[TheOOB]

Remember that a paladin is a warrior and not a priest. It is their job to fight evil, not to help people. They are not expected to show mercy to the forces of evil, and they are not required to be in idiot and try to save or convert everyone they come across(unless their a paladin of Sarenrae or something).

As a general rule, a good definition of an "evil" act is any act which knowingly will cause direct harm to innocents.

Anywho, my take:


Finding circumstantial (true, but he was not absolutely certain at the time) evidence of who was behind a kidnapping, charging them in a surprise attack from behind and slaughtering them without mercy. It was a rescue attempt, and there was no evidence the kidnapped had been made to suffer beyond what was required to capture her.

They may have bad judgement, but a paladin is beholden to fight evil where they find it, and if they truly believed they were the kidnappers, I wouldn't call foul.


Killing enemies indiscriminately, only occasionally asking for a surrender, usually before combat.

I need more info on what you mean by "indiscriminately", but once battle has started, death is assumed. If the other side wants to surrender, they are welcome to, but if they don't then they die. Remember, Paladins are warriors.


Letting a group of neutral creatures get slaughtered by duergar because he didn't want to side with the evil creatures and didn't know what the vegepygmies were.

Inaction isn't evil, it's neutral. If this is a running theme with the character, they may shift over time to a neutral alignment(and thus fall), but they shouldn't fall just because they didn't save everyone.


Drew repeatedly (15+ times) from a deck of many things. Not fall worthy in itself, but...well "chaotic" doesn't do that justice.

That's stupid, not an issue of alignment. Also, if you're worried about a player causing problems in a game, you shouldn't have given them a DoMT, they eat campaigns.


Bargained with an evil (which he was aware of) green dragon (which he wasn't aware of) and used an ability gained from the deck to resurrect another dragon (which he was aware of was a green and most probably evil) in order to be teleported, while fully aware that he was free to simply walk away and cover the distance on foot. Justified by him as the green dragon was the lover of the evil being he was bargaining with and his deity is Aphrodite.

Bargaining with evil isn't explicitly evil, but it's dangerous territory. I'd argue a Paladin should never resurrect an evil creature, regardless of the potential good that it might cause, as an issue of moral purity. I *might* cause a Paladin to fall for this, but only if I cared a great deal about the philosophy of alignment in that game.


Played a game of chance with an evil red dragon and bargained with it (giving away the deck in the process) in order to ensure his and allies' survival. Finding a non-violent solution to solve a problem is actually a good act, and suicide by dragon is just stupid. One could argue giving an evil creature a minor artifact is evil however, regardless of the intent.


Betrayed an oath to his king and pledged his allegiance to another (who has a legitimate claim to the throne) for personal reasons. He excused this by killing himself (knowing that one of the powers gained from the Deck would revive him instantly) "freeing [him] from his oath"

Betraying an oath is a chaotic act, not an evil one, and a paladin doesn't fall for performing a chaotic act, only if they're alignment changes from lawful, which requires a long history of chaotic acts. Depending on your views, suicide may be an evil act. In any case it is stupid.


Is currently leading an assault force of goblins, ogres, and gnolls against a fortress commanded by a knight in a war against his former king.

Warrior, war, not seeing a problem here. Might ping as associating with an evil creature, but as long as the war itself isn't evil.


Has only on one occasion ever attempted to convert a person to the cause of good, and that was to an NPC that had treated him with courtesy, had been keeping his family safe as a sign of good faith, and had done nothing openly evil, she simply commented that it was a pity he was a paladin and wouldn't be able to ally properly with her faction (thieves' guild)

Warrior, not missionary. Converting people is the domain of clerics.

[Wise Green Bean]

I think the consensus is that the only really major problem is the bit where he resurrects evil dragon to get a ride. If he need to be somewhere urgently and walking might have made him late for something serious, that's probably alright. And he also didn't know for certain that the dragon being resurrected was evil(green dragons are always evil by RAW, but a lot of DMs allow exceptions). If he knew green dragons are always evil and he didn't NEED to be where he was going immediately, he falls.

[Gildedragon]

Ah, that guy should have fallen fast enough to break the sound barrier.

The lamia protecting is sketchy. But the dragon resurrection incident is outright evil.

The leading the monstrous army is quite problematic particularly if he knows that the result is "at best, neutral if not evil". It is grounds for alignment breaking if the state he's overthrowing is LN or any Good.

I'd talk to the player about if they actually want to play a paladin.

Overpowered via templates?

[Ranos]

Seconding everyone else in this thread, the one sketchy thing in there is the dragon deal. I wouldn't say resurrecting an evil creature is an evil act per se (you're not directly hurting anyone after all, just helping someone who might), but it could be a breach of the paladin code that says you don't help people who will use the help for evil ends.

But then, I know pathfinder paladins actually serve a god, not Law and Good, and they have alternate paladin codes for various gods. Maybe Aphrodite's code doesn't have that clause ?

[Desril]

They may have bad judgement, but a paladin is beholden to fight evil where they find it, and if they truly believed they were the kidnappers, I wouldn't call foul.

Not an evil act (though the kidnappers themselves were not evil but CN), but a dishonorable one, violating his oath to act with honor.





Inaction isn't evil, it's neutral. If this is a running theme with the character, they may shift over time to a neutral alignment(and thus fall), but they shouldn't fall just because they didn't save everyone.

While I agree that inaction is neutral, they did not ping when he used Detect Evil, and the Paladin's Code of Conduct requires he defends innocents.




That's stupid, not an issue of alignment. Also, if you're worried about a player causing problems in a game, you shouldn't have given them a DoMT, they eat campaigns.

Artifact of Chaos, and yes, stupid, he's the only one of my group who's obsessed with that deck, the rest of us are smart enough to never draw more than thrice, and even then, only if he got something really shiny.




Finding a non-violent solution to solve a problem is actually a good act, and suicide by dragon is just stupid. One could argue giving an evil creature a minor artifact is evil however, regardless of the intent.

It was mostly the giving a red dragon an artifact thing.




Betraying an oath is a chaotic act, not an evil one, and a paladin doesn't fall for performing a chaotic act, only if they're alignment changes from lawful, which requires a long history of chaotic acts. Depending on your views, suicide may be an evil act. In any case it is stupid.


It's not that he'd fall for a single chaotic act, but that he has committed long strings of non-good, non-lawful acts, showing that he's not really of LG alignment. Plus, from the way I saw it, weaseling out of the oath like that was a chaotic act, but I could see it being Lawful from a Devil's perspective. (He usually plays debatably evil, and his favorite PC was, in fact, a devil)



Thank you all for the insight.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I wanna nitpick this statement
Not an evil act, .... but a dishonorable one, ....

Is it? The concept of honorable action is inherently subjective to the society that values honor as a virtue. For a suprise attack to be dishonorable there has to be a societal agreement on the notion that an honorable warrior should always face his foes in a direct and forthright manner and that he should issue a challenge to battle before attacking.

For a RL comparison let's look to Bushido; the honor code by which the samurai lived. Bushido says absolutely nothing in regards to making a sneak attack. A samurai who announced himself to an enemy before attacking would be regarded as a fool by his fellows. It would be seen as taking a needless chance by increasing the chance of failure for no discernable reason.

Only if his foe was another samurai that he -should- have challenged to a duel, perhaps for impugning his or his lord's honor, would he be seen as a coward for failing to issue a proper challenge and attacking by suprise.

Making a habit of skulking and striking from the shadows might earn him a reputation as a treacherous foe and/or a weakling who lacks the strength to face his enemies openly, but those judgements would be reserved for a pattern of behavior, not an individual act of skullduggery, and would depend heavily upon the targets since those below the samurai were seen as, to varying degrees, lesser or even non-people.

This leads to my point: have you and the paladin actually discussed the details of his honor code? Have you described his people, from his homeland or his order, as having an honor code that strongly discourages suprise attacks? If not, then saying that attacking the kidnapper without warning was a dishonorable action is groundless. It's forcing your own, personal code of honor on a character that has no legitimate reason to share your views.

[jedipilot24]

If this is guy is supposed to be an LG paladin but he's done some unambiguously evil actions that have furthered the cause of evil, then he should definitely fall.

Look what happened to Miko for just one evil act:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0407.html

[Deathkeeper]

Might I ask, what exactly did he PULL from that deck? With that many draws I'd have thought he'd get some pretty crippling effects, if not the blatant "switch alignments" or similar (awful in the case of Paladin) effects.

[Answerer]

I second the notion that he's been playing more LN than LG. Perhaps suggest the Gray Guard Prestige Class, or let him have some of the fluff of the class without actually taking levels in it?

[TheOOB]

If this is guy is supposed to be an LG paladin but he's done some unambiguously evil actions that have furthered the cause of evil, then he should definitely fall.

Look what happened to Miko for just one evil act:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0407.html

Miki actually did dozens of evil acts, the DM just decided to let it go until that one. Attacking with lethal force for no reason is evil, even if the target detects as evil.

As for the OP, it sounds as if you have made up your mind already. I personally saw only one unarguably evil act (resurrecting an evil creature), and that is the only act that alone I would say might be cause for a paladin to fall.

The only rules baggage with a Paladins code of conduct is as follows: "A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act." So the two things that for sure cause a Paladin to fall are a)changing to a non Lawful Good Alignment, and b) willingly commiting an evil act.

There are further notes on the code of conduct, but they don't have game rules associated with them. A DM could argue that if the Paladin doesn't follow the other elements of the code at all, they might fall, but that is in rule 0 territory.

What I would do is warn the player their actions are putting their alignment in question, and say if they continue to act the way they have been they will turn True Neutral(which sounds like how they are acting).

Also, you mentioned detect evil in one of your arguements as to what a paladin should or shouldn't do. That is...dangerous. A paladin can't choose to kill someone or not save someone just because they do or do not glow red under detect evil. An innocent can be evil, and a criminal can be non evil.

[VanIsleKnight]

I've honestly taken to the habit of asking my players what they feel the definition of their alignment means to them, and how they plan on following it. All of us can make a case for what Lawful/Chaotic Good/Evil and Neutral can mean, and how it can apply to various classes and character concepts and deities.

Perhaps an IC discussion between someone representing Aphrodite (or herself even, if she thought it was necessary) of what expectations are placed on the Paladin is in order.

[Gildedragon]

I second the notion that he's been playing more LN than LG. Perhaps suggest the Gray Guard Prestige Class, or let him have some of the fluff of the class without actually taking levels in it?

Grey Guards are still required to be LG.

[RFLS]

Well...take what I'm about to say with a grain of salt, and read the whole thing before replying.

By the rules, he should fall so hard he leaves scorch marks around the crater. Yes, he's only committed one out-and-out evil act, but, his actions have tended towards chaotic on the law/chaos scale and neutral at best on the good/evil scale. Remember that an alignment shift also causes a paladin to lose his class features; I'd say that that player's definitely not playing a Lawful Good character.

That being said, there's a second part to my statement. Don't let the fluff get in the way of what the player wants to play. If he absolutely wants to play a....well, what you described, and he wants to do it with the paladin mechanics, let him. Take a leaf out of 3.5's Unearthed Arcana and allow different types of paladin. The only truly key fluff feature of a paladin is that they're the champion of a cause. So, the question I would ask were I DMing would be "Is he championing a cause?"

[Andreaz]

I second the notion that he's been playing more LN than LG. Perhaps suggest the Gray Guard Prestige Class, or let him have some of the fluff of the class without actually taking levels in it?Grey Guards DO NOT work like that!
In fact, Grey Guards are even more into the deep end of "being a paladin" than all paladins! They have leave to be more extreme exactly because they believe so hard in the cause as to be judged wise enough to be able to cut corners.


And even then, they pay much more for their mistakes than paladins do.

When you think of Grey Guard you shouldn't be thinking Punisher, but Tirion Fordring.

[Prime32]

Also, you mentioned detect evil in one of your arguements as to what a paladin should or shouldn't do. That is...dangerous. A paladin can't choose to kill someone or not save someone just because they do or do not glow red under detect evil. An innocent can be evil, and a criminal can be non evil.One popular houserule is to make the spell detect only evil thoughts or actions (EDIT: Plus magical effects and creatures who are literally made of evil). So you could tell if one merchant was trying to cheat another, but not whether he acts like that all the time or he was just having a bad day.

[Kelb_Panthera]

One popular houserule is to make the spell detect only evil thoughts or actions (EDIT: Plus magical effects and creatures who are literally made of evil). So you could tell if one merchant was trying to cheat another, but not whether he acts like that all the time or he was just having a bad day.

That's actually an effect of a canon variant presented in Heroes of Horror, if you feel a need for an official stamp of approval. It's called behavioral alignment.

[hamishspence]

Yup- I believe it was based on pre-3rd ed methods of handling the Detect Evil spell.

[Acanous]

Have him fall, ensure there's a source of Atonement available. Maybe give him a quest as part of that Atonement.

Like maybe tracking down the remnants of the families that dragon he rezzed just killed and making reperations.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Question, OP: did you make a thread asking for advice when this player had his deal with the green dragon over getting the teleport? It sounds familiar.

[Gildedragon]

Have him fall, ensure there's a source of Atonement available. Maybe give him a quest as part of that Atonement.

Like maybe tracking down the remnants of the families that dragon he rezzed just killed and making reperations.

Seconded,
I'd also add to that list: killing the dragon he got rezzed,
If it were a more lawful deity than Aphrodite I'd further add an injunction against using magic to travel when a mundane method is just as viable, to teach patience and humility.

[genericwit]

Your paladin fell, plain and simple. Some of the acts he's taken are bordering on evil.

Give him a choice: take levels in Grey Guard [Complete Scoundrel], or fall. The Grey Guard allows for vicious choices at a loss of casting.

If he wants to be a paladin, he has a code beyond clerics. Forget whatever anyone else is saying. A paladin has an obligation for mercy beyond clerics. They are, above and beyond, good. They will kill if they have to, but they will leave those alive that they can. They will preserve those they can. That's why they have lay on hands, and that's why they have remove disease. They can't stop or reverse death, but they are paladins. They preserve life.

If a being is evil, they extinguish it. That applies to demons, and other irredeemable beings. I think a paladin played right should protect life, and seek to right wrongs--not just with their smite ability, and not just through the might of will.

[Chilingsworth]

Your paladin fell, plain and simple. Some of the acts he's taken are bordering on evil.

Give him a choice: take levels in Grey Guard [Complete Scoundrel], or fall. The Grey Guard allows for vicious choices at a loss of casting.

If he wants to be a paladin, he has a code beyond clerics. Forget whatever anyone else is saying. A paladin has an obligation for mercy beyond clerics. They are, above and beyond, good. They will kill if they have to, but they will leave those alive that they can. They will preserve those they can. That's why they have lay on hands, and that's why they have remove disease. They can't stop or reverse death, but they are paladins. They preserve life.

If a being is evil, they extinguish it. That applies to demons, and other irredeemable beings. I think a paladin played right should protect life, and seek to right wrongs--not just with their smite ability, and not just through the might of will.

Yeah, as already said, Grey Guard doesn't work like that.


Those who seek membership [in the Grey Gaurds] merely because they resent the yoke of their code of conduct are unfit to be grey gaurds or paladins. Such weak-willed individuals are swiftly excommunicated from both orders.

The rest of your post is at least aurguably correct.

[Answerer]

Yeah, as already said, Grey Guard doesn't work like that.
That's how it works in character. Out of character, it's a different story.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Your paladin fell, plain and simple. Some of the acts he's taken are bordering on evil.

Give him a choice: take levels in Grey Guard [Complete Scoundrel], or fall. The Grey Guard allows for vicious choices at a loss of casting.

If he wants to be a paladin, he has a code beyond clerics. Forget whatever anyone else is saying. A paladin has an obligation for mercy beyond clerics. They are, above and beyond, good. They will kill if they have to, but they will leave those alive that they can. They will preserve those they can. That's why they have lay on hands, and that's why they have remove disease. They can't stop or reverse death, but they are paladins. They preserve life.

If a being is evil, they extinguish it. That applies to demons, and other irredeemable beings. I think a paladin played right should protect life, and seek to right wrongs--not just with their smite ability, and not just through the might of will.

Gotta address the bold.

This is -one- way to play a paladin. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong. I am, however, saying that it's not remotely the only way. The fact that you've presented it as the only correct way is not only disingenuous, but flat wrong.

By saying "ignore what everyone else is saying" you imply that you mean "only listen to me."

I apologize for being curt, if this was not your intent, but it just kinda rubbed me the wrong way.

If a paladin of St. Cuthbert took such a stance, he'd stand a good chance of being excommunicated for failing to smite those that the church and the faith see as deserving of retribution.

[TheOOB]

Have him fall, ensure there's a source of Atonement available. Maybe give him a quest as part of that Atonement.

Like maybe tracking down the remnants of the families that dragon he rezzed just killed and making reperations.

You can't atone Paladin abilities if the evil act was intentional IIRC


One popular houserule is to make the spell detect only evil thoughts or actions (EDIT: Plus magical effects and creatures who are literally made of evil). So you could tell if one merchant was trying to cheat another, but not whether he acts like that all the time or he was just having a bad day.

Yes, but the house rule is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Further, thinking about something evil isn't actually evil. That could reach Minority Report levels really fast.
Gotta address the bold.

This is -one- way to play a paladin. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong. I am, however, saying that it's not remotely the only way. The fact that you've presented it as the only correct way is not only disingenuous, but flat wrong.

By saying "ignore what everyone else is saying" you imply that you mean "only listen to me."

I apologize for being curt, if this was not your intent, but it just kinda rubbed me the wrong way.

If a paladin of St. Cuthbert took such a stance, he'd stand a good chance of being excommunicated for failing to smite those that the church and the faith see as deserving of retribution.

This.

Remember the rules for a Paladin. The two absolutes are Lawful Good, and no Evil acts. A Paladin is also expected to respect legitimate authority, act with honor, help those in need, and punish those who harm and threaten innocents. Those are not absolute all the time requirements(meaning you won't fall if you ever don't do any of those), but a character who doesn't at least try to follow those shouldn't be able to gain levels in Paladin, even if they don't lose what they already have.

That leaves a lot of room for different types of Paladins. Some are noble warriors and commanders, some are grim judges, some are dark inquisitors, some are protectors and healers, and some are even evangelists.

The Paladin I'm playing right now(okay well, he's classes Cleric, due to party needs, but as far as all role play and character development he's a Paladin) is a warrior first, priest second. He is first to the front line, and last to retreat and he actively seeks out combat(primary in defense, but he understands the value of aggressive defense). He spars very little mercy on those who harm innocents, and had performed summary executions in the past. He sees his spells and divine abilities as tactical combat abilities. He is one type of Paladin.

The last Paladin I played actually avoided combat at all costs. He believed everyone could be saved and that all lose of life was to be mourned. He felt more at home in a healers tent than a battlefield, and was known to be something of a philosopher.

[TheifofZ]

Alright. As I understand the situation, the player has done quite a variety of neutral and gray acts, with one strictly evil (even with good intentions) act.
First: The strictly evil act is automatically enough to have him Fall.
No matter the reason, or the intent, the wording in the handbook is pretty clear. If he commits an evil act, he falls.
Secondly: overall his alignment has seemed more consistent with a TN character than a lawful good one, and you should have given him plenty of warning about this before hand. If he continues to act in this manner, let him know that his alignment has changed, and give him an atonement spell+quest to change his alignment back.
Third: And to address the issue above: Yes, the paladin is expected to be good, righteous, and just and all that fluff. He doesn't have to act that way as long as his alignment is LG and he doesn't commit any evil acts.
There are just as many stories out there with vicious paladins that mercilessly strike down all evil of any sort as there are tales about just paladins that spread decency and good.
Fourth: You could work with him, and talk to him about changing his alignment to actually match how he acts, and change the class appropriately. Otherwise there are a few classes that let him work with ex-paladin levels.

[TuggyNE]

You can't atone Paladin abilities if the evil act was intentional IIRC

Not so, fortunately.
However, in the case of a creature atoning for deliberate misdeeds and acts of a knowing and willful nature, you must intercede with your deity (requiring you to expend 500 XP) in order to expunge the subject’s burden. Many casters first assign a subject of this sort a quest (see geas/quest) or similar penance to determine whether the creature is truly contrite before casting the atonement spell on its behalf.

The paladin class listing repeats this:
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.

[Psyren]

The whole "you can't atone if you did it on purpose" refers to exalted feats, which are stricter than normal paladin conduct.



Killing those who are trying to kill you is always neutral, barring intentional provocation of an otherwise indifferent person/creature. Asking for surrender is good, but not asking for surrender isn't evil.


That depends on how serious the threat to you is. If a child yelled that he was going to kill you followed by whacking you with a stick, a lethal response from you would be excessive, even if the child was sincere. Similarly, if you're in a fight to the death but it becomes readily apparent that the other person is badly outmatched, not showing mercy can be south of neutral.

[hamishspence]

The whole "you can't atone if you did it on purpose" refers to exalted feats, which are stricter than normal paladin conduct.

True- though in editions prior to 3.5 (3rd, 2nd, I think possibly 1st as well)- it applied to paladins as well- 3.5 dropped it.

[Starbuck_II]

The whole "you can't atone if you did it on purpose" refers to exalted feats, which are stricter than normal paladin conduct.



That depends on how serious the threat to you is. If a child yelled that he was going to kill you followed by whacking you with a stick, a lethal response from you would be excessive, even if the child was sincere. Similarly, if you're in a fight to the death but it becomes readily apparent that the other person is badly outmatched, not showing mercy can be south of neutral.

Ever watch The Good Son? Yes, lethal response is justified even if it was a child at times.


Wait, in a death match, not showing mercy isn't neutral? You do realize he is trying to kill you. It should be neutral to not show mercy but good is showing mercy.

Now if you are in friendly fight, showing mercy becomes neutral and killing is evil as the fight isn't to the death.

[DrDeth]

The answer is simple. He receives a Phylactery of Faithfulness. The item (thru you, as the DM) warns him next time. If he goes thru with the action, after being warned first, he falls.

Otherwise we get into endless argle-bargle about what is and is not a evil action. Since it appears the Player has not been deliberately trying to be evil, the Phylactery is a simple way to solve the dissonance of what the player thinks is Evil and what the DM does.

[Kelb_Panthera]

That depends on how serious the threat to you is. If a child yelled that he was going to kill you followed by whacking you with a stick, a lethal response from you would be excessive, even if the child was sincere. Similarly, if you're in a fight to the death but it becomes readily apparent that the other person is badly outmatched, not showing mercy can be south of neutral.

I do agree that if the "foe" presents no threat and is trying to kill you for some misguided reason (I have a hard time believing that a child foolish enough to a attack someone armed and armored, alone, with only a stick is even capable of acting rationally, and certainly isn't at the moment) then killing him would probably be evil. Not definitely, but probably.

I don't agree that being tremendously outmatched is get-out-of-death free card if you are in any way capable of actually delivering on the threat if you get lucky enough or approach the act with a sound strategy to mitigate your opponent's advantage. In attempting to kill another creature you're betting your life on the notion you can complete the act. If you're wrong, you lose the bet and forfeit your life. Simple as that.

That's why showing mercy in that situation is a good act. It's being generous enough to give back a life fairly lost.

[hamishspence]

Ever watch The Good Son? Yes, lethal response is justified even if it was a child at times.

That kid had already proven, when he died, that he was lethally dangerous.

A cop, who is attacked by a wrothful toddler wielding a stick, who kills the toddler, would have a hard time proving "justifiable homicide" under any system.

D&D isn't the modern world- but good aligned characters seeking to justify violence do need to show to the DM that, for example, there was an actual threat.

[MasterFu]

In the list you've provided, I'm seeing a lot of chaotic acts and lawful evil behavior, sprinkled with selective enforcement of his deity's sensibilities (but only when it benefits him directly).

Here's a thought exercise: Go back through that list and ask yourself what the character would have done if it was being played by Aphrodite (since he is supposed to be representing her). Then go thru again, except as played by Asmodeus.

Count me as another vote for "should have left an impact crater".

[herrhauptmann]

TL,DR:
Give him a phylactery of faithfulness.
Next time he does something which is borderline, tell him it starts to warm up.
If he starts to do something that will cause a fall, it grows red hot and emits a noise he hears.
At that point, put the rest of the game on hold while holds a talk with his conscience/deity.

Is Aprhodite LG or something? I'd have thought she was CG, and as such, he should get to be a Paladin of Freedom (CG Pally). That'll get him past the oath thing, and should help with the 'resurrecting a lover' issue. Perhaps get him to look at the Grey Guard PrC, now, before he truly falls.

Have you talked with the player?

[toapat]

Tirion Fordring.

except that Tirion Fordring fails the pragmatic requirement of the Grey Guard, Badly (Ooh, hey, we have this artifact that will let us make the Lich King dance like a puppet for us, lets destroy it right now instead of having him fall on his own sword.). Seriously, Grey Guard is about being extremely pragmatic with your actions in order to forward the cause of good, even if that means doing evil.

as far as mechanically, Tirion Fording has more in common with a Divine Spirit Crusader then a paladin, the only real exception being that he doesnt need to punch Garrosh through the face to heal someone else. Besides that, Paladins in Warcraft are actually CG, not LG.


The greatest challenge of the paladin is to every day, look upon the party rogue, Imagining themselves ripping the spine out of said rogue to beat the rogue to death with, and yet not doing so.


as far as alignment goes: Im of the variety who believes that behavioral alignment is alot better then the normal alignment system. On the other hand, the paladin hasnt really been forwarding good too well. Figure out what his favorite of the classical elements is, and when he next calls the mount, it shows up as an appropriate Elemental. See how long it takes him to figure out that he turned into an Incarnate from Dragon 310

[navar100]

except that Tirion Fordring fails the pragmatic requirement of the Grey Guard, Badly (Ooh, hey, we have this artifact that will let us make the Lich King dance like a puppet for us, lets destroy it right now instead of having him fall on his own sword.). Seriously, Grey Guard is about being extremely pragmatic with your actions in order to forward the cause of good, even if that means doing evil.


I think I found a good candidate for a Grey Guard persona. Admittedly he probably wasn't a paladin-type before being on camera, though a good guy, but now on camera I still think he fits - John Reese, "Person Of Interest".

[Crasical]

Finding a non-violent solution to solve a problem is actually a good act, and suicide by dragon is just stupid. One could argue giving an evil creature a minor artifact is evil however, regardless of the intent.

I wouldn't necessarily count giving a creature a Deck of Many Things as assisting it in any way...