Paladinhood.. what is the rulling?

[Kerilstrasz]

3,5 Edition...

How and why would a paladin would loose his paladinhood?
Plz post books and pages... 1 of my players rolling 1, and willing to play him
hard Paladin..ish! So.. i d like to be prepared.. thnx

[Grod_The_Giant]

Player's Handbook, page 44-45, under "Code of Conduct," "Associates," and "Ex-Paladins."

But those rules are pretty terrible. I'd work with your player to write your own code with a little more wiggle-room. And less responsibility for the actions of your party-mates.

[Jeraa]

There are only 3 ways to fall as a paladin.


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.

1) Ceasing to be Lawful Good
2) Willingly commit an evil act
3) Grossly violate the code of conduct (not just a minor violation - it must be a major violation)

And the paladins code:


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.

Not helping a single person isn't a major violation of his code. Refusing to help a whole wagon full of people is probably a major violation. But there is really no clear-cut way to determine if a paladin should fall, its entirely up to the DMs decision. Thats why you usually see so many threads about paladins.

[Yora]

"The code is more like a guideline anyway."

[ArcturusV]

The problem with "Falling" is that it is mostly up to how you interpret a few vague things.

All you need to know for fall conditions are on page 44-45 of the Player's Handbook, heading "Ex-Paladins".

If they cease to be Lawful Good, commits an evil act, grossly violates the code of conduct (Which is above and says that additionally a Paladin must respect legitimate authority, act with honor, not lie, cheat, use poison, help those in need as long as it's not for Evil or Chaotic ends, and punish those who threaten innocents). Also if you ever take up another class, other than a Prestige Class which specifically says otherwise, you can never again gain a level of Paladin.

Depending on who you ask, the part of "Associates" may or may not cause Paladins to fall. It's generally recommended you ignore it. It's stupid. It makes the Paladin play "mommy" to the party because they'll lose their powers if the teammates misbehave. But it is technically in the rules. The Associates says:

"While she may adventure with characters of a good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A Paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are Lawful Good".

Well those are how they fall, by the rules. The problems is that it is too damned easy to fall, if the DM rules it. So much about Alignment, Honor, etc, is up to your interpretation as a DM.

[Amnestic]

Tell him to invest ASAP in a Phylactery of Faithfulness. Costs 1000gp, and is generally integral into Paladins not falling. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness)

[drax75]

I disagree with a lot of post's here. to me Paladin is one of the hardest classes to play because they were so specific on the code.

Your best bet is to write a code if you want to make it easier, but that eliminates some of the challenge and i think fun of the class.

Keep in mind also that the paladin will never knowingly travel or work with an evil party member. Which means he sort of becomes the party Mom/cop.

This means its not just hard for him but also the party. Stealing, lying, murdering, poison use, these are all evil acts. So if you have a rogue in the party it hurts their ability to play the class.

As for the "gross violation" part i would even say enough minors would equal a major.

What i do for my players who wish to play this, is make them make a mark on their character sheet in red ink every time they do something un-paladiny. Enough red marks and they fall. Some acts are worth 1 mark and some are worth up to 3.

These marks can be removed with acts of charity, kindness, atonement, etc based on the severity of the crime. Refusing to atone or enough red marks and you're toast.

Just my .02

[Shining Wrath]

Spend an hour or so talking about scenarios with the player. Bat things around.

It's not important that you strictly apply RAW because RAW is incomplete and your world isn't like other DM's worlds. What's important is that your player is NOT surprised if they lose Paladin status. Which is different than grumping about it, of course - they'll probably argue "gray area" if it happens. But that's a lot better than having a player staring across the table at you in slack-jawed disbelief that you just dropped the bomb on them.

[ArcturusV]

Weeeeelll... it's a really, really rare situation that I've seen a Paladin fall and the player didn't argue it. I mean when you fall, that's a serious drawback. Even when you think something is cut and dry, I've still gotten players complaining about me making them fall as unfair.

Example: This campaign I had, this Paladin ended up falling 7 times before the Gods finally said "Okay, you're not learning, you're not even TRYING, no more atonement!"... One of the examples of Fall during the game? A villain was trying to flee a scene, had a hostage set up as a human shield (just some random commoner). I had told the players that, because of how this hostage was set up, the hostage effectively gave him Total Cover (90% of him was behind the cover of the human shield), and that any attack which didn't beat the cover would hit the hostage.

So the Paladin just charged in, and told me that they weren't even going to try to avoid the hostage, but trying to stab THROUGH the hostage to hit the villain behind. So yeah. Falling. Which got argued about how that shouldn't have been a fall action because they were smiting evil and such and that innocent was "going to die anyway" and "Probably wasn't innocent anyway...", etc.

But yeah. The reason I say it's vague isn't because the code itself is given in vague terms. But the terms the code refers to is vague. Just ask someone what Lawful Good really means, Chaotic, or Evil necessarily. The answers are not universal at all. Which is why alignment is such a sticking point.

[Evard]

Paladin of Freeeeeedom :D

[Kerilstrasz]

you all been very helpful...
(not the Pirates of Carib. quote so much but funny:P )

i think i ll get the player for some chat before playing and maybe sit down with
her and write her code of contact as fit her & my campaign (but still be as
strict as it could)..

at last 1 final clarification... on the 2ble alignment axis...
it's loose lawfull or commit ONE evil act the big guideline right???????

[Yora]

But it was still meant to be helpful. Paladins work best when they act according to principles which they apply to individuals situations to the best of their ability, not when they blindly do what abstract rules are dictating.

[snoopy13a]

Depending on who you ask, the part of "Associates" may or may not cause Paladins to fall. It's generally recommended you ignore it. It's stupid. It makes the Paladin play "mommy" to the party because they'll lose their powers if the teammates misbehave. But it is technically in the rules. The Associates says:

"While she may adventure with characters of a good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A Paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are Lawful Good".



It isn't really stupid. It just means that paladins should only be played in good-aligned parties. If the other players have lawful good, lawful neutral, neutral good, and (in most cases) chaotic good characters then the paladin doesn't have to play "mommy" because the characters should be in agreement nearly all the time.

It is when people play "chaotic neutral" or even "chaotic good" characters that are really neutral evil or chaotic evil that the paladin runs into trouble. Anyway, if one player want to be a chaotic neutral rogue that is going to lie, cheat, and steal, then maybe no one should roll a paladin . . .

Overall, if the party wants to play noble heroes in a "black and white" campaign with all of the characters having neutral good and lawful good alignments then a paladin fits right in. If the party wants to play in a morally gray campaign then maybe the paladin should stay at home. Having a paladin should be a party-wide decision that every player signs off on. It is essentially a commitment to having a lawful-good aligned party.

[ArcturusV]

It depends. I mean, one thing is you should never set up a situation where the Paladin has no reasonable choice to make. The "Demon Babies" thing and what not where it boils down to "Kill the babies, they are EVIL." and "... but... I'm killing babies... BABIES... they haven't done anything yet..." and things of a similar nature. If you give paladins an A/B option and both sides can be pointed out as being evil with no more than a 5 second deliberation on your part (No mental gymnastics, just as simple as the above example)... you probably shouldn't include it in a game with a Paladin in there.

The reason I say it depends on the Chaos/Evil act thing is that the code obviously stresses GOOD over LAW. You can have some leeway to do "neutral" or "Chaotic" things (On the Law vs Chaos axis) without undue effect. A singular Chaotic Act shouldn't impact your character. But a singular True Evil act would.

I suggest you do a lot of reading on the Alignment definitions in the book, and work out an understanding with your player. A lot of things that people think about the alignment axis intrinsically based off the words used, isn't really true. Least not as the book writes it out.

For example, a merchant seeking to amass wealth is, by book definition (as in where it lists Good vs Evil, not examples of specific alignments), actually Evil. Though we'd normally think of the pursuit of profit itself as neutral. Unless you were doing something else which makes the pursuit "evil". Yes, an honest merchant making a fair profit by "exploiting" things like basic economic principles of supply and demand, etc, would count as evil.

And the guy who runs around breaking the legs of those honest merchants until they give their profits up to some charity or large organization is unequivocally Good in DnD terms. Even though such behavior is basically mob anarchy and in our own rational view, usually a tool of Evil.

When you add on the Exalted Deeds/Vile Darkness book, and how they define Good and Evil as well, basically the Paladin will be unable to do anything in a lot of situations without falling for committing evil acts. Like... by Exalted Deeds a Paladin has a duty as a Good idealist to offer mercy to his/her foes, and attempt redemption, no matter how vile they are, because the highest ideals of good is that all life is sacred and anyone can be redeemed, etc. Yet it's also described as insanely evil if you allow evil to live, and that you need to kill on sight creatures that are inherently evil, like undead, fiends, etc. So what happens when you run into an intelligent Demon? I mean they are intelligent, they CAN be redeemed. There's even a WotC NPC statted up for a Demon Paladin of Lawful Goodness. But it also says by allowing it to live you are committing a grievous evil act, as their very nature IS Evil.

... it gets silly.

There's so much contradictions, vagueness, non-intuitive definitions, etc, that you are pretty much better off defining some common sense rules and passing them on to the paladin. It's rarely as clear cut and obvious as you can hope.

[snoopy13a]

For example, a merchant seeking to amass wealth is, by book definition (as in where it lists Good vs Evil, not examples of specific alignments), actually Evil. Though we'd normally think of the pursuit of profit itself as neutral. Unless you were doing something else which makes the pursuit "evil". Yes, an honest merchant making a fair profit by "exploiting" things like basic economic principles of supply and demand, etc, would count as evil.

And the guy who runs around breaking the legs of those honest merchants until they give their profits up to some charity or large organization is unequivocally Good in DnD terms. Even though such behavior is basically mob anarchy and in our own rational view, usually a tool of Evil.



You are overreacting a little to "exploitation." It isn't a reference to an average merchant making a profit. Rather, it is describing extreme practices such as price gouging, slum lords, and loan sharking. A fair profit isn't evil, but economically exploiting someone is.

Scrooge was evil because he was a loan shark. The typical banker is not. A price gouger who sells food at incredible markups to starving people is evil; the typical grain merchant is not. Slum lords who overcharge tenants for horrid living conditions are evil. Run-of-the-mill landlords are not.

In fact, if honest merchants donate to charity or do good works, then they can actually be good.

Further, robbing the rich to give to the poor is classic chaotic good behavior, not lawful good. And even then, the chaotic good "Robin Hoods" will use as little violence as possible, because the ends never justify the means when it comes to DnD alignment.

A paladin, on the other hand, would probably fight economic exploitation through non-violent means.

[ArcturusV]

Well, I know that's the more reasonable view we take. Though an honest merchant who donates is probably Neutral. "Lacking commitment to Good" and such. Note that Neutral in that regard (As in the Good vs Evil section on alignment in the player's handbook) notes that "good" behavior is sacrificing of yourself fully for others. Whereas Evil is defined as "someone who is out for himself". If you are seeking to better yourself by some method, it's in the realm of evil territory. It can lead to silly things, I agree.

Some of which kind of make sense. Like the typical "Enlightened" soul who goes Evil. They are so obsessed with obtaining enlightenment and purity for themselves they lose their humanity and become villains.

But it's it's base terms, how they list examples and reasons, etc. Good is defined as "Sacrificing of yourself for the good of everyone else" (Though most people define the Group-Centric as a Lawful Trait based off intuitive grasp of the idea of Lawful), and Evil is described as "Putting yourself above others". And neutral is "Not really committed to one way or the other".

Ignoring the kind of silly and unrealistic (Though it is listed) also "I am dedicated to the idea of evil in and of itself" ideal of Evil of course. Well, not ignoring it. Just not really relevant to Paladin code failings. If a paladin willfully dedicates themselves to evil for evil's sake I don't think you'd have to argue about Falling or not, just give him/her the Blackguard PrC right away.

[JusticeZero]

In fact, if honest merchants donate to charity or do good works, then they can actually be good.
Further, robbing the rich to give to the poor is classic chaotic good behavior, not lawful good.
Well yeah, because DnD defines good and evil in terms of selfishness, and not brutality or malevolence. It's a bit arbitrary. Which is fine; the crunch that tests it is from arbitrary sources. A lot of characters are soundly within 'evil' that are perfectly fine to have around, and there are good characters who you want to run very far away from.

[Malrone]

at last 1 final clarification... on the 2ble alignment axis...
it's loose lawfull or commit ONE evil act the big guideline right???????

I think I understand what you're asking.

If they loose the [Lawful] tag, then yes by RAW, they would fall, since a Paladin must not change alignment. This is less important, however, (an odd chaotic act could be tolerated for Good, if no other option were present) since alignment has inertia. By RAW, any [Evil] act, done willfully or no, causes a Fall. Full stop.

[Vknight]

Yeah the best way to break a Paladin

Give them a brutally injured and beaten evil guy
Have the evil guy mock them for there foolishness
Tell them that they will be getting away without any real damages to there business
And the only way to actually do anything would be to kill them but a good man cannot do that

[Figgin of Chaos]

Ditch the code. Let 'em steal from orphans and eat kittens without losing their powers. It's 3.5, so they'll still be much less powerful and versatile than the clerics.

[Shaynythyryas]

Don't forget that a lot of variants exist for Paladin, making possible any alignment for this class (but they must always stick to it).
Check with your player which alignment he thinks fits the more to whatever he's thinking about and grab the corresponding Paladin.

[Preaplanes]

I generally rule that Paladins can't KNOWINGLY work in a party with an Evil aligned member. That said, if they aren't Detecting whether or not they can smite a typical Humanoid during battle, they're doing it wrong, and on the third round after doing so, they could tell if a teammate is Evil, and will then no longer work with that party member unless their armor is lined with Lead or something similarly crafty.

That is, without a reason. Say a Paladin's lord sticks the Evil character on the Paladin as a burden, the Paladin is now a superior; the DM may rule that this counts as a Quest (hell, might even BE a Geas/Quest) or something similar. The Paladin would try to reign in the Evil and possibly shift the character's alignment. Most who aren't divine magic users don't don't give a care about their alignment anyway, at least not mechanically.

When having to make a choice between Law and Good (ooh, the king is Evil! What do you do?), err on the side of Good. Paladins can make a few Chaotic actions without falling (ie just so long as they don't become Neutral Good), but one Evil is straight to the fighter-without-bonus-feats.

A paladin can similarly have Lawful Neutral tendencies via Neutral actions on the chart, so long as they manage to stay on the upper side of that line and don't use any really Evil ones.

Not every paladin has to be a Miko Miyazaki (too Lawful Stupid) or a Dudly Do-Right (too Stupid Good), you've got a fair bit of wiggle room. Alignments are guidelines for a large number of personalities.

Hell, Garl is Lawful Good in Forgotten Realms if I remember correctly, and Neutral Good in 3.5 core... and he's the God of Trolling!

[TuggyNE]

Yeah the best way to break a Paladin

Give them a brutally injured and beaten evil guy
Have the evil guy mock them for there foolishness
Tell them that they will be getting away without any real damages to there business
And the only way to actually do anything would be to kill them but a good man cannot do that

Wait, at what point would a reasonably-played and RAW-obeying Paladin not simply Smite them into oblivion?

There is no provision in the Paladin code against striking (nearly) helpless foes, especially not if they're evil. Nor is that an evil act.

[icefractal]

This means its not just hard for him but also the party. Stealing, lying, murdering, poison use, these are all evil acts. So if you have a rogue in the party it hurts their ability to play the class.I have to disagree with most of these.

Stealing and lying are generally chaotic. They are not always evil - stealing is only evil to the degree that it harms people (stealing the staff of undead controlling so the Lich can't have his horde overrun the city is not what I'd call evil :smallwink: ). The same thing goes for lying - when the Dark Lord's enforcer squad shows up and asks you if any rebels are hiding here, answering them honestly - or even attacking them and confirming their suspicions - is not the "good" course of action.

Poison Use - that's not (in the general case) evil. Yes, the BoED says that - it is completely wrong.
* Couatls, creatures which are a paragon of Lawful Good, have and use a poisonous bite attack.
* Most poisons will never kill or permanently injure someone, and are a good way to capture foes non-lethally.
* Is poison painful? Maybe. Probably no more painful than being stabbed to death, and a lot less painful than something like Acid Fog.
* Poison was considered dishonorable in the middle ages because it threatened the feudal power structure - knights with superior training and equipment could be defeated by some peasant with a poisoned shiv. "The feudal power structure" is not, in fact, inherently Good. And it falls apart in D&D anyway.

I mean, poisoning a village's water supply is almost always going to be an evil act. But it's evil because you killed a bunch of innocent villagers, not because you used poison to do it.

Which leads us to murder. If you define murder as intentionally killing someone, then D&D characters commit murder dozens of times an adventure, Paladins included. If you mean "killing someone who wasn't trying to kill you", that narrows it down, but Paladins still do it - when a Lich tries to absorb the souls of the world for necromantic fuel, they're going to get smited, even if they sit quietly at a table playing solitaire while doing so.

If you define it as killing someone for no good reason, then sure - that falls into the "well, duh" category and most good-aligned party members would take issue with it, not just Paladins.

[Preaplanes]

Poison Use - that's not (in the general case) evil. Yes, the BoED says that - it is completely wrong.
* Couatls, creatures which are a paragon of Lawful Good, have and use a poisonous bite attack.
* Most poisons will never kill or permanently injure someone, and are a good way to capture foes non-lethally.
* Is poison painful? Maybe. Probably no more painful than being stabbed to death, and a lot less painful than something like Acid Fog.
* Poison was considered dishonorable in the middle ages because it threatened the feudal power structure - knights with superior training and equipment could be defeated by some peasant with a poisoned shiv. "The feudal power structure" is not, in fact, inherently Good. And it falls apart in D&D anyway.
Actually, that IS listed in the "No no"s.


Code of Conduct

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.


Emphasis mine.

[Misery Esquire]

"The code is more like a guideline anyway."

Pirate Paladin. What could possibly go wrong?

:smalltongue:

[JusticeZero]

Paladin code has a few arbitraries in it. The key here is to quit thinking that "Evil" is the same as "Bad". DnD alignment structures are put together in some very specific and arbitrary ways, and in all honesty people should just accept that and game it/ignore it. There is absolutely nothing worrisome about having an evil party member per se, because it just means they do things in the specific ways that the game flags as Evil, which are not the colloquial 'evil'. A guru on a mountaintop is Evil. A cloistered academic who just wants to be left alone with their books is Evil. An exterminator who is a really nice guy uses poisons all the time, so probably glows black with Evil. It doesn't make them love their wife any less.

Just assume that there are a few things you can do that trip the dumb karmic sensors and start stamping black or white marks on you, that are arbitrary and possibly bureaucratic; it'll all get sorted out in the afterlife. Meanwhile they can be gamed or they can hit you with unfair or silly results. "Wait, so you're saying that every time someone uses poison is an evil act? So that guy I smited for being the epitome of horrific evil and painful to even look at was just some guy who used poison to kill ants six or seven times every day?" Yeah, that's what we're telling you, pally-bro! Don't worry, your god will probably never notice the slipup! Alignment is descriptive, not proscriptive.

[TuggyNE]

A guru on a mountaintop is Evil. A cloistered academic who just wants to be left alone with their books is Evil.

Oh, really? They seem a lot more like Neutral.
"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

A guru on a mountaintop is not, generally speaking, killing whenever convenient, much less whenever they can pull it off.

[Divide by Zero]

Actually, that IS listed in the "No no"s.



Emphasis mine.

Against paladin code != Evil. Remember the post was talking about a party member's actions.

[ArcturusV]

Well Tuggyne, the reason why he listed things like the Scholar and the Guru is that Good is defined as "Making personal sacrifices to help others". Thus evil, being defined as Not Good, means that if you never make personal sacrifices to help others, you are in fact Evil, also the line about "have no compassion for others" very much fits the mountain guru who is actively cutting all worldly connections. The neutral is "Lack Commitment". However the Mountain Guru is VERY committed to his life of solitary contemplation. It is, in DnD terms, an entirely selfish life.

Add in how they actually describe examples of the nine alignments and that would likely make him Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil, dedicated to his own self, either using a system of religion or dogma in the case of religious gurus, or personal motivation with no regard to Law or Chaos.

That's the sort of silliness I referred to above. And it does exist in game if you read the stuff as written. Which is why almost no one seems to ever game stuff alignment wise as it's written. Because it's silly, and often counter intuitive.

Some Bhuddist Monk sitting on a mountain top meditating for days on end and driving away all worldly connections and concerns being evil? DnD suggests so. But no one is likely to think it in real life, and more likely to attribute them to Good... so we just go "Hey, that's good."

[Figgin of Chaos]

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.
Isolating yourself from the rest of the world doesn't, by rules as written, make you evil. According to the rules, the mountaintop guru and the book-obsessed scholar are Neutral, not Evil. Alignment rules are vague and contradictory, but not that stupid.

[Starbuck_II]

Isolating yourself from the rest of the world doesn't, by rules as written, make you evil. According to the rules, the mountaintop guru and the book-obsessed scholar are Neutral, not Evil. Alignment rules are vague and contradictory, but not that stupid.

True, and yet recluse Liches stay evil when they should become neutral.

[ArcturusV]

Well, it kinda does make you evil to isolate yourself, via RAW (One of the reasons I say it's silly by the way):

"have no compassion for others"

From the definition of "Evil" in "Good vs Evil". Now, most people think that the "no compassion for others" means something like going around kicking every guy you see square in the nuts because... no compassion. But that's not no compassion. That's sadism.

Choosing to ignore the world is lacking compassion for others. You know things go on in the world and you just don't care.

Thus why the Mountain Guru is evil. He has no compassion, all he cares about is his own enlightenment.

[TuggyNE]

Well, it kinda does make you evil to isolate yourself, via RAW (One of the reasons I say it's silly by the way):

"have no compassion for others"

From the definition of "Evil" in "Good vs Evil". Now, most people think that the "no compassion for others" means something like going around kicking every guy you see square in the nuts because... no compassion. But that's not no compassion. That's sadism.

Choosing to ignore the world is lacking compassion for others. You know things go on in the world and you just don't care.

Thus why the Mountain Guru is evil. He has no compassion, all he cares about is his own enlightenment.

Does he also kill without qualms whenever it would be convenient? Would he kill if it became convenient?

"Why, no," you say, "he's a guru, not a killer!" "Thank you," I say; "the rules for alignment are messed up, but not that badly messed up, because the guru does not count as evil." He may indeed have no compassion, but unless he also is willing to actively harm others, he's merely neutral.

Some people might think even labeling him neutral, not good, is a flaw, but in this case there are sound reasons to consider him non-good, so that actually mostly works out.

[ArcturusV]

Eh. Not all evil alignments are about killing everyone on sight or at the drop of a hat. So you can't poke out one thing and say that the fact a guy doesn't do that doesn't make him evil. In fact a lot of Devils and Demons do not actually kill on sight or without qualms. They have higher (and more evil) goals quite often. And they are the RAW exemplars of Evil.

It's one of those things where you can point out one thing that is Evil: Lack of Compassion. Nothing that is really "Good", and Neutral is "Lack of Commitment", which is clearly not the case as they are, as Mountain Gurus, lifelong dedicated to their path.

I do agree, it is silly. I don't think it's Right. It's just RAW.

In the grand scheme, when it came down to brass tacks I'd probably just call him neutral and call it a day as well.

Just saying for the OP that alignments are nowhere near cut and dry so you can't just presume that logic will rule the day or everyone really knows what is Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, etc.

[Pickford]

Weeeeelll... it's a really, really rare situation that I've seen a Paladin fall and the player didn't argue it. I mean when you fall, that's a serious drawback. Even when you think something is cut and dry, I've still gotten players complaining about me making them fall as unfair.

Example: This campaign I had, this Paladin ended up falling 7 times before the Gods finally said "Okay, you're not learning, you're not even TRYING, no more atonement!"... One of the examples of Fall during the game? A villain was trying to flee a scene, had a hostage set up as a human shield (just some random commoner). I had told the players that, because of how this hostage was set up, the hostage effectively gave him Total Cover (90% of him was behind the cover of the human shield), and that any attack which didn't beat the cover would hit the hostage.

So the Paladin just charged in, and told me that they weren't even going to try to avoid the hostage, but trying to stab THROUGH the hostage to hit the villain behind. So yeah. Falling. Which got argued about how that shouldn't have been a fall action because they were smiting evil and such and that innocent was "going to die anyway" and "Probably wasn't innocent anyway...", etc.

But yeah. The reason I say it's vague isn't because the code itself is given in vague terms. But the terms the code refers to is vague. Just ask someone what Lawful Good really means, Chaotic, or Evil necessarily. The answers are not universal at all. Which is why alignment is such a sticking point.

Just...wow.

Is "ever willingly commits an evil act" not as clear cut as I seem to think it is?

[Divide by Zero]

True, and yet recluse Liches stay evil when they should become neutral.

That's more a problem of the system being needlessly absolute in certain cases though, not the alignment definitions themselves.

[TuggyNE]

Eh. Not all evil alignments are about killing everyone on sight or at the drop of a hat. So you can't poke out one thing and say that the fact a guy doesn't do that doesn't make him evil. In fact a lot of Devils and Demons do not actually kill on sight or without qualms. They have higher (and more evil) goals quite often. And they are the RAW exemplars of Evil.

They undeniably kill without qualms whenever convenient, though. The fact that they have other goals is what makes it inconvenient for them.


It's one of those things where you can point out one thing that is Evil: Lack of Compassion. Nothing that is really "Good", and Neutral is "Lack of Commitment", which is clearly not the case as they are, as Mountain Gurus, lifelong dedicated to their path.

Except… no, Neutral is lack of commitment to Good or Evil, not lack of commitment period. You can be Neutral and still be faithful to your spouse, obey your oaths of fealty, and so on and so forth; similarly, you can be committed to the practice of Neutrality. Which, arguably, is precisely what a guru is.

What's more, you're misinterpreting part of a clause as being sufficient on its own to prove Evil, but it's got another (and more important) condition right next to it:
Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.

If the latter part of the phrase doesn't fit, then the sentence as a whole clearly doesn't apply.


Just saying for the OP that alignments are nowhere near cut and dry so you can't just presume that logic will rule the day or everyone really knows what is Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, etc.

Well, this I'll agree with. :smalltongue: