Lawful Good Paladin and Falling, Idea I need to figure out.

[ShadowFireLance]

So, I was thinking for a game I'm Dm'ing, the villain is a Lich, Currently, His Phylactory is a small, young, innocent girl living in a out of the way village.

The group is mostly full of LG, with only a NG Fighter. (NG Fighter, LG Paladin x2, and Cleric of a LG deity)

They just killed the Lich, and through some work, found out that his phylactory is the girl.

Should they Fall for killing the innocent child?

[HunterOfJello]

Choosing to accomplish the greater good through the sacrifice of an innocent is a textbook example of a reason that a paladin should fall. Killing an innocent child is an evil act, regardless of what good it achieves. If the paladin does it or even allows it to happen, they should 100% absolutely fall.

[TaiLiu]

...Wait, when the lich reforms, will it burst out of the girl?

[Phippster]

This is one of those scenarios where the answer is yes (by the books, at least), and if you don't give them an out for it you're going to come off as being a jerk. Giving Paladins (or Clerics, for that matter) a choice like that, where you give them NO alternatives is essentially just depriving them of playing the class it was meant to be played. I'd say that unless she willingly submitted to become his phylactery (barring doing it to save others or something), they can't kill her without falling for their actions. So do you let the lich reform? No, you find another way to fix the problem.

Have the players investigate ways to remove her link to the lich. Perhaps they need to pray to one of their respective deities to cleanse her, and they have to go on some quest to find the MacGuffin that allows the link between the two to be severed. Perhaps they need to find stronger holy ground than the church, some old altar or temple that was the home of the deity during their mortal life. If you decide it's evil, you need to give them a way to diffuse the situation without someone falling.

[GreenETC]

I'm pretty sure a phylactery has to be crafted, so there's no way for him to make it a living human being.

Also, this just seems like a problem waiting to happen. Have a friendly NPC come up with an idea where they can exorcise the girl, but they have to do so before the Lich reanimates again. There you go, boom, new quest arc.

Please don't just leave them to slaughter the girl and make the Paladin fall. If you leave them without any sort of help, it's just going to fall into interpretation problems, where they believe the greater good allows them to kill her, and you say no. Offer something for them to fix the problem without having to kill an innocent child to finish their quest.

[ShadowFireLance]

...Wait, when the lich reforms, will it burst out of the girl?
Indeed, But that's why you have a contigincied raise dead and restoration.

[Vedhin]

Well, if the girl is somehow the lich's phylacetry, she is a repository for its soul, so I would have to say that the Paladin shoulld not fall, provided the lich's soul is in the girl when she is killed. The whole "make a person your phylacetry" thing is just WRONG though, because of the moral quandry thing, and because nobody looking for immortality would just tie their lifespan to a mortal being if they could tie it to an item that doesn't age.

I reccomend that the PCs get the girl exorcised. Banish the lich's soul, let the girl live.

Essentially, DM's are not supposed to try to make paladins fall. They may offer moral quandrys, but there should always be an obvious and acceptable route. Not a choice between killing an innocent girl or letting a lich come back an indefinite number of times.

[Sparkzlight]

But choosing to kill the girl saves the kingdom.

The Paladin also loses his powers.

That's a pretty big sacrifice for the Paladin, becoming powerless.

[Lord Vukodlak]

First off its a really jerk move, for putting the paladin in that position without providing a third option.
My heroic characters strip away the Liches magical defenses(greater dispelling), grapple him, bind him in heavy chains and gags, toss him into a mud pit then transmute that mud to stone. Thus trapping the Lich in solid rock where he is unable to move, unable to speak and thus incapable of using his magic to escape.
Enjoy your Immortality Mr. Lich.

The whole scenario stinks of "screwing over the players" rather then a villain being clever. He isn't clever he's an idiot the girl could have an honest to goodness accident and trip down a flight of stairs and break her neck. Any nefarious enemies the Lich might have would have few qualms about killing the girl. Or you know what was the Lich planning to do when the girl died of old age? And why would she willingly come back to life just so she can experience death all over again the next time the lich is slain.

[ShadowFireLance]

...Wait, when the lich reforms, will it burst out of the girl?


First off its a really jerk move, for putting the paladin in that position without providing a third option.
My heroic characters strip away the Liches magical defenses(greater dispelling), grapple him, bind him in heavy chains and gags, toss him into a mud pit then transmute that mud to stone. Thus trapping the Lich in solid rock where he is unable to move, unable to speak and thus incapable of using his magic to escape.
Enjoy your Immortality Mr. Lich.

Second the Lich is stupid for picking a weak living creature for his phylactery. She could have an honest to goodness accident and trip down a flight of stairs and break her neck. Any nefarious enemies the Lich might have would have few qualms about killing the girl. Or you know what was the Lich planning to do when the girl died of old age?


This is an optimized party, and in turn, optimized Lich. Greater Dispelling countered by Dispel turning. Soild Rock is countered by a Still and Silent Greater teleport, If it was theoretical to happen, that is.

Change his phylactory. It's simple.

[GreenETC]

This is an optimized party, and in turn, optimized Lich. Greater Dispelling countered by Dispel turning. Soild Rock is countered by a Still and Silent Greater teleport, If it was theoretical to happen, that is.

Change his phylactory. It's simple.
Honestly, I'd say leaving his phylactery as a human girl is actually fine, and tension-filled, provided you figure out some way to convince them they need to outrace the Lich's regeneration and solve some puzzle to fix it. Just make sure that they're not going to be the type to smash and grab the girl.

[Vedhin]

Change his phylactory. It's simple.

This is not allowed, for the good reason that any lich worthy of the name would be truly immortal. Pesky adventuerers smash your phylacetry? Just make a new one! Have a bunch of almost-completed phylacetries scattered all over the world, and just change between them anytime one is in danger!
Negate your weakness entirely!

[Trunamer]

Should they Fall for killing the innocent child?
That depends; how many friends do you want to alienate? :smallwink:

Remember folks, don't obsess over the paladin CoC. Think of the children!

[DeltaEmil]

Have the paladin get a phylactery of faithfulness (in form of a little boy), so that the paladin cannot ever fall, because the paladin always does the right thing.

Then have the phylactery of faithfulness and the little girl lich's phylactery grow up, marry together, and become a happy couple, and make the lich vomit up his soul from all the ickiness and happy feelings the phylactery girl enjoying.

[ShadowFireLance]

This is not allowed, for the good reason that any lich worthy of the name would be truly immortal. Pesky adventuerers smash your phylacetry? Just make a new one! Have a bunch of almost-completed phylacetries scattered all over the world, and just change between them anytime one is in danger!
Negate your weakness entirely!

Actually, that's RaW legal. :smallbiggrin:


Have the paladin get a phylactery of faithfulness (in form of a little boy), so that the paladin cannot ever fall, because the paladin always does the right thing.

Then have the phylactery of faithfulness and the little girl lich's phylactery grow up, marry together, and become a happy couple, and make the lich vomit up his soul from all the ickiness and happy feelings the phylactery girl enjoying.

HAHAHAHAHAA, Have a cookie. Sir, have a Cookie. It's awesome! might work, cause of how cool it is.

[ArcturusV]

This may seem to be a weird, illogical leap to take, but what occurs to me is the following:

Lich made his phylactery into a girl.

When a Lich dies, the soul goes back to said Girl in order to reassemble.

... if someone casts Protection from Evil/Good/Law/Chaos on said girl... it would stop her from functioning as a phylactery for the duration of the spell, as it stops Soul shenanigans.

So as long as the Lich is sans Body and someone casts Protection from ____ on the girl... the Lich would cease to exist (No body, no functioning phylactery) immediately?

And a Paladin does have access to that option from level 4 onwards.

Least that's the nugget of the Third Way forming in my brain. The Paladin casts one first level spell, wins, and frees this girl from being some undead's home away from home.

[Vedhin]

Have the paladin get a phylactery of faithfulness (in form of a little boy), so that the paladin cannot ever fall, because the paladin always does the right thing.

Then have the phylactery of faithfulness and the little girl lich's phylactery grow up, marry together, and become a happy couple, and make the lich vomit up his soul from all the ickiness and happy feelings the phylactery girl enjoying.

This is win. Make that lich rue the day he made his phylactery a person!

[Kudaku]

The GM's guide to whether or not the paladin should fall. (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p9ew?Should-the-Paladin-Fall-A-Guide)

That said, why do we never get threads where troubled GMs are wondering if the party Druid should be excommunicated for not finding monstrous spiders appropriately adorable and worthy of reverence? Animals are people too!

[ShadowFireLance]

This is win. Make that lich rue the day he made his phylactery a person!

Only one problem I can see with that is, All it takes is one kill, and resurrect it.

[eggynack]

Specifically, you should provide a third option, but make it harder to achieve than either of the other two options. Give them the option of a quest that has a high apparent chance of failure, so that there's a risk attached to not just killing her. If there's no cost to picking the third option, there's no point to doing this to begin with. Alternatively, have the lich not kill the girl when he regenerates, so that the party can just return every so often to kill him repeatedly. That could possibly make things interesting, if they need roughly constant access to this girl in order to avert disaster. Maybe have someone kidnap her or something. Whatever options you provide, just make sure that they have a cost. If a choice doesn't have a cost, it might as well have never happened.

[Vedhin]

That said, why do we never get threads where troubled GMs are wondering if the party Druid should be excommunicated for not finding monstrous spiders appropriately adorable and worthy of reverence? Animals are people too!

This thread keeps generating win. Can I sig this?

[Gullintanni]

Cast Clone on the girl. Explain to the girl that destroying her body will move her soul into the new, non-phylactery body, freeing her from the Lich. Girl sacrifices her original body, thereby setting her free. Her soul inhabits the new body. Kill the Lich.

Painful, but, no loss of life.

Not sure if the Paladin falls, but an interesting solution in any case.

[jindra34]

Cast Clone on the girl. Explain to the girl that destroying her body will move her soul into the new, non-phylactery body, freeing her from the Lich. Girl sacrifices her original body, thereby setting her free. Her soul inhabits the new body. Kill the Lich.

Painful, but, no loss of life.

Or repeated Disjunctions. After all it uses her save... which should make it a 20 only. So multiple castings will solve that problem.

Edit: So there are other options. Non-lethal ones at that. Which if the paladin explores and pursues to the best of their ability should prevent falling. Going for the quick, simple, easy option? Fall. Doing everything else possible first? Probably not.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Actually, that's RaW legal. :smallbiggrin:

Umm actually no RAW its quite illegal.
From Libris Mortis.
"A lich can construct only a single phylactery. A lich whose phylactery is destroyed suffers no harm, but cannot construct a new one. If a lich without a phylactery is slain, the lich is forever destroyed."


This is an optimized party, and in turn, optimized Lich. Greater Dispelling countered by Dispel turning. Solid Rock is countered by a Still and Silent Greater teleport, If it was theoretical to happen, that is.
Does the Lich actually have still and silent spell feats? Can he prepare spells while buried in solid rock unable to move?(a wizard certainly couldn't) and clerics usually don't know teleport.

Or repeated Disjunctions. After all it uses her save... which should make it a 20 only. So multiple castings will solve that problem.

That be nice... if they had a wizard but then again a Cleric could possibly use miracle to move the phylactery into a handy nearby cow.

[ShadowFireLance]

Umm actually no RAW its quite illegal.
From Libris Mortis.
"A lich can construct only a single phylactery. A lich whose phylactery is destroyed suffers no harm, but cannot construct a new one. If a lich without a phylactery is slain, the lich is forever destroyed."


Does the Lich actually have still and silent spell feats? Can he prepare spells while buried in solid rock unable to move?(a wizard certainly couldn't) and clerics usually don't know teleport.

Ah, I forgot a key point.
this is a dry lich, meaning he has five phylacteries.

Lich: He almost always has a Still spell prepared. More then likely a Greater teleport, But being a Sorcerer....
He does have a few unique spells, like miracle, but hey, He's paranoia incarnate. Or as close as he can get.

[Erik Vale]

1: I thought a lich's phylactory had to be an object, possibly have a surgeon look for foriegn object with heals on hand [assuming not a GM handwave].

2: NG kills girl while LG's are busy argueing. The Paladin's didn't allow it or perform it, so as long as there is a suitible time of Paladin-Fighter argument, they are fine.

3: I doubt the paladin's god is going to make the atonement to hard. Also, does the Cleric have access to some form of ressurection?

4: Place the girl under constant guard with plenty of anti-undead enchantments around her. Kill the lich whenever it forms. At least the Lich will avoid AOE spells, and it won't have had time to prepare spells, so the Lich will be restricted to being a high level skeleton warrior...
Though I see the girl as commiting suicide at some point.

Edit: Also, stupid lich, he has restricted himself to a mortal lifetime with free resurections?

[ShadowFireLance]

1: I thought a lich's phylactory had to be an object, possibly have a surgeon look for foriegn object with heals on hand [assuming not a GM handwave].

2: NG kills girl while LG's are busy argueing. The Paladin's didn't allow it or perform it, so as long as there is a suitible time of Paladin-Fighter argument, they are fine.

3: I doubt the paladin's god is going to make the atonement to hard. Also, does the Cleric have access to some form of ressurection?

4: Place the girl under constant guard with plenty of anti-undead enchantments around her. Kill the lich whenever it forms. At least the Lich will avoid AOE spells, and it won't have had time to prepare spells, so the Lich will be restricted to being a high level skeleton warrior...
Though I see the girl as commiting suicide at some point.

1: It does. This has been Hard work at figuring it out.
2: Paladin would attack, he's been playing him Lawful Stupid.
3: Cleric does indeed.
4: He can reform in other places.

[Hiro Protagonest]

If you insist that this works despite rules, I won't argue (you ARE the DM). But I have to say: this is your call. Do you want to make it so that yes, the greater good overcomes the single evil? Or do you want to represent that paladins do have to basically uphold the morals of Superman to have an unblemished record (and possibly alienate a player or too in the process, if this whole setup hasn't alienated them enough)?

[Nettlekid]

Earlier, you said that the girl does in fact die every time that the Lich reforms, but there's contingent Revivify or whatever (you actually said Raise Dead and Restoration, which wouldn't actually heal the Con damage so she'd eventually stay dead, but Revivify and Heal would do the job.)

Now, I'd say that for the sake of the little girl, killing her once, destroying the soul link, and Raising her would be less evil than allowing her to stay in a torment for the rest of her life. But I understand that some would have the Paladin fall for that anyway.

I think what I'd do here is, for starters, guard the girl night and day. Kill the Lich again, but before you do, give the girl a piece of Thinaun steel to trap her soul the moment she dies. Have her hold it so that it'll fall from her grip as she's dying, before the contingent spell activates. Trapping her soul in there, you destroy her body and the link with the Lich, before Resurrecting her (or True Res, at half cost thanks to the Thinaun) and you've now destroyed the Phylactery without having to be the one that killed the girl. Which is nice. But maybe you still don't like that.

A thought occurs. If you stuck a Lich with a Thinaun Arrow or something, then when it's destroyed, would its soul get stuck in the Thinaun? Or I guess if its soul is in the Phylactery the whole time, then there's never a chance for the soul to get caught. Maybe you can trap it in the Thinaun from the Phylactery anyway. Or just put her in an AMF before you kill the Lich.

But all of this is moot because, honestly, you CAN'T make a little girl a Phylactery. Okay, if you're the DM and want to make it up then there's nothing to stop you, but it's not canon nor legitimate otherwise. It's a Wonderous Item, and although it's usually a box, "Other forms of phylacteries can exist, such as rings, amulets, or similar items." A little living girl is nothing like those inanimate objects.

[ShadowFireLance]

If you insist that this works despite rules, I won't argue (you ARE the DM). But I have to say: this is your call. Do you want to make it so that yes, the greater good overcomes the single evil? Or do you want to represent that paladins do have to basically uphold the morals of Superman to have an unblemished record (and possibly alienate a player or too in the process, if this whole setup hasn't alienated them enough)?

I can provide usage.

1: Item must be an Object, a Person's skull is, technically an object.
Make it a Phylactery, and then resurrect the person. :smallbiggrin:
I roll with my players, who are my best friends, they love this kind of thing, and the last session ended with...3 hours, I think it was, of debating if it was good or not, last i heard, they spent a full day arguing at Starbucks.

[Mando Knight]

I doubt that such a person could be host to such a despicable evil and neither be corrupted nor willing to die for the greater good, but...

A Paladin should take every effort to save the girl, but in the end, allowing the Lich to survive would be the greater evil. If in the end he must kill the girl to destroy the lich, that's what Atonement is for. If you don't allow Atonement, then that's what Smite DM is for.

[Erik Vale]

1: It does. This has been Hard work at figuring it out.
2: Paladin would attack, he's been playing him Lawful Stupid.
3: Cleric does indeed.
4: He can reform in other places.

1 and 3 make things easy. Surgery with heals on hand, and should the girl die on the table, obbliterate her [except for say, a lock of hair], followed by ressurection.

A Paladin could also mention the Girl is a Lich's phylactory before moving on. Some townsfolk might deal with it, and he didn't didn't do it, condone it or etc.

[ShadowFireLance]

I doubt that such a person could be host to such a despicable evil and neither be corrupted nor willing to die for the greater good, but...

A Paladin should take every effort to save the girl, but in the end, allowing the Lich to survive would be the greater evil. If in the end he must kill the girl to destroy the lich, that's what Atonement is for. If you don't allow Atonement, then that's what Smite DM is for.

Smite Dm, I love that term. Can I sig it?

[Kudaku]

This thread keeps generating win. Can I sig this?

Absolutely :smallsmile:

[Mando Knight]

Smite Dm, I love that term. Can I sig it?
Go ahead.

If the Paladin is playing Lawful Stupid, then he's probably going to fall eventually anyway, though...

[Kuulvheysoon]

A Paladin could also mention the Girl is a Lich's phylactory before moving on. Some townsfolk might deal with it, and he didn't didn't do it, condone it or etc.

That is not a Good Act. Heavily implying to townsfolk (likely her family and neighbors) that they should kill isn't the same as condoning it, true, it's it's tantamount to leaving her to die. Creating a more-than-likely-to-be-lethal environment then leaving her there?

Not cool, man. Not cool at all.

There's a difference between not being aware of it (as your other suggestion (2)) and knowingly leaving her there. It's like leaving someone on a floating raft in the middle of the ocean. Sure, you're not going to kill them, so you're not a murderer.

Telling them then leaving her? You're effectively choosing to use the townsfolk as your weapon (much like you'd be using the ocean/deydration as your weapon in my previous example).

[Lord Vukodlak]

I can provide usage.

1: Item must be an Object, a Person's skull is, technically an object.
Make it a Phylactery, and then resurrect the person. :smallbiggrin:
I roll with my players, who are my best friends, they love this kind of thing, and the last session ended with...3 hours, I think it was, of debating if it was good or not, last i heard, they spent a full day arguing at Starbucks.

Dry Liches are specifically restricted to canopic jars. So her skull is a canopic jar containing one of the lich's internal organs? That aside if bringing an ordinary regular person back to life is easy so long as you have the money they could simply bribe her do die and be brought back to life which ends the moral conundrum fairly easily as she's willing.
Now if one goes with the thought that most people are unwilling to return to life particularly everyday people why did she come back to life to begin with.

But really Miracle the Lich's phylactery into a nearby handy cow skull problem solved.

[ShadowFireLance]

Dry Liches are specifically restricted to canopic jars. So her skull is a canopic jar containing one of the lich's internal organs? That aside if bringing an ordinary regular person back to life is easy so long as you have the money they could simply bribe her do die and be brought back to life which ends the moral conundrum fairly easily as she's willing.
Now if one goes with the thought that most people are unwilling to return to life particularly everyday people why did she come back to life to begin with.

But really Miracle the Lich's phylactery into a nearby handy cow skull problem solved.

Pylomorph any object. =p

indeed.

[Erik Vale]

That is not a Good Act. Heavily implying to townsfolk (likely her family and neighbors) that they should kill isn't the same as condoning it, true, it's it's tantamount to leaving her to die. Creating a more-than-likely-to-be-lethal environment then leaving her there?

Not cool, man. Not cool at all.

There's a difference between not being aware of it (as your other suggestion (2)) and knowingly leaving her there. It's like leaving someone on a floating raft in the middle of the ocean. Sure, you're not going to kill them, so you're not a murderer.

Telling them then leaving her? You're effectively choosing to use the townsfolk as your weapon (much like you'd be using the ocean/deydration as your weapon in my previous example).

While that was the intended meaning, I've thought of another.
It gives someone smarter a chance to handle it.

Also, who says the paladin is sobre at the time? Get the paladin drunk first [have him drink and worry about his problem] and then somehow extract the paladin. He should however, be feeling very, very guilty.

[TuggyNE]

1: Item must be an Object, a Person's skull is, technically an object.

Not in the D&D sense, it isn't. It's part of a creature, nothing more. More to the point, it's not the specific sort of crafted object required for a phylactery. The only RAW way to get that to work that I know of would be to suppress the phylactery's magic briefly with a dispel and then double-PaO to get a permanent girl-shape. However, greater dispel magic or similar on the girl will reverse that, arguably without evil (?), and then it's just a simple matter of blowing up the phylactery in the usual fashion.

[Baka Nikujaga]

Would it be an acceptable assumption to assume that the process of phylactery to girl was completed through multiple instances of supernatural Polymorph Any Object?

[Edit]
Perhaps, you could use this revelation and subsequent attempt to find an alternate solution as a segue for the next arc in the campaign? As an example, after having detained (/captured/etc.) the girl, the party might have to travel to beyond the normal reaches of the Ethereal Plane and reach the Bastion of Souls. Or, alternatively, the party might have to unearth some archaic Truenaming ritual that would enable them to alter the existence of the girl so that she no longer acts as the lich's phylactery (if only because Truenames need more love).

[CRtwenty]

The GM's guide to whether or not the paladin should fall. (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p9ew?Should-the-Paladin-Fall-A-Guide)

That said, why do we never get threads where troubled GMs are wondering if the party Druid should be excommunicated for not finding monstrous spiders appropriately adorable and worthy of reverence? Animals are people too!

Because Druids usually don't get sticks up their butt and smite the party for not donating to the 11th orphanage they stumbled across in the wilderness. Seriously, who builds orphanages out there?

[zlefin]

you say the party and the lich are optimized, but they don't seem too optimized to me, certainly not high op as I see on these boards. Nor does the lich seem paranoid prepared (again by these board standards).

A paranoid lich should be impossible to find and should never go anywhere himself. And a phylactery that can be found by anyone, ever, is a phylactery that's not secure enough.

Given all the irregular rules, i'd say the best way to deal with it would be to obtain direct divine intervention somehow; since it's not clear what rules are in effect, it's hard to say what things might actually eliminate the lich.

If you like moral debates, just have moral debates, but don't make the paladin falling an issue.

[angry_bear]

Interesting concept for the Phylactery... I assume that eventually when the girl grows up, and has a kid, the child becomes the Lich's new phylactery? Ties him to a bloodline rather than a random object, and has an interesting storytelling dynamic... Nice.

Killing a child is evil, and so would telling the townsfolk then leaving the kid at their mercy... You're best off to create an adventure hook out of this, where the kid has to be purified in the MacGuffin light of some ancient magic or deity; where the nearest temple is through a dangerous something or other... Could make for an exciting escort mission.

[Steward]

Because Druids usually don't get sticks up their butt and smite the party for not donating to the 11th orphanage they stumbled across in the wilderness. Seriously, who builds orphanages out there?

It is an interesting question though. You never hear a DM talking about scenarios where a druid or a sorcerer has no choice but to give up his spellcasting ability, even if you're playing one of those druids that insist on perfect balance between good and evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BalanceBetweenGoodAndEvil) (warning: TVtropes link).

[DeltaEmil]

It is an interesting question though. You never hear a DM talking about scenarios where a druid or a sorcerer has no choice but to give up his spellcasting ability, even if you're playing one of those druids that insist on perfect balance between good and evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BalanceBetweenGoodAndEvil) (warning: TVtropes link).Beware the revenge of the Archdryad.

[Kudaku]

Because Druids usually don't get sticks up their butt and smite the party for not donating to the 11th orphanage they stumbled across in the wilderness. Seriously, who builds orphanages out there?

I think you misunderstood my question - I wonder why it is that the "should the paladin fall"-threads pop here on average once a week but the other classes with codexes or alignment limitations pretty much never do?

It's not like there aren't (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/cleric#TOC-Ex-Clerics) other classes (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/inquisitor#TOC-Ex-Inquisitors) that can (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/druid#TOC-Ex-Druids) fall (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk#TOC-Ex-Monks) from (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian#TOC-Ex-Barbarians) grace (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/cavalier#TOC-Order-Ex-).

For instance Druid's code of conduct is much more open to interpretation and potentially very limiting - a druid can fall if he "ceases to revere nature" - where do you draw the line?
Can a druid start a forest fire?
Use fire to clear land in order to build a farm?
Kill a monstrous spider?
Kill a deer?
Eat the produce of a domesticated animal?
Mow the grass?

For that matter, why does the druid class break down completely if his alignment shifts from CN with good tendencies to CG with neutral tendencies? NG and CN are already acceptable alignments after all.

Now I'm not arguing that you should pursue these other classes with more zeal - I just find it interesting that people repeatedly feel the need to hold the paladin to a higher standard than other classes who have similar limitations.

That said, I do think "My TN barbarian player made a promise and HE KEPT IT!! SHOULD HE FALL FOR BEING LAWFUL?!??"
or
"MY CN DRUID PLAYER IS BEING NICE TO PEOPLE, SHOULD HE FALL FOR CHANGING HIS ALIGNMENT?" would be a breath of fresh air :smallbiggrin:

[Vedhin]

I think you misunderstood my question - I wonder why it is that the "should the paladin fall"-threads pop here on average once a week but the other classes with codexes or alignment limitations pretty much never do?

It's not like there aren't (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/cleric#TOC-Ex-Clerics) other classes (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/inquisitor#TOC-Ex-Inquisitors) that can (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/druid#TOC-Ex-Druids) fall (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk#TOC-Ex-Monks) from (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian#TOC-Ex-Barbarians) grace (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/cavalier#TOC-Order-Ex-).

For instance Druid's code of conduct is much more open to interpretation and potentially very limiting - a druid can fall if he "ceases to revere nature" - where do you draw the line?
Can a druid start a forest fire?
Use fire to clear land in order to build a farm?
Kill a monstrous spider?
Kill a deer?
Eat the produce of a domesticated animal?
Mow the grass?

For that matter, why does the druid class break down completely if his alignment shifts from CN with good tendencies to CG with neutral tendencies? NG and CN are already acceptable alignments after all.

Now I'm not arguing that you should pursue these other classes with more zeal - I just find it interesting that people repeatedly feel the need to hold the paladin to a higher standard than other classes who have similar limitations.

That said, I do think "My TN barbarian player made a promise and HE KEPT IT!! SHOULD HE FALL FOR BEING LAWFUL?!??"
or
"MY CN DRUID PLAYER IS BEING NICE TO PEOPLE, SHOULD HE FALL FOR CHANGING HIS ALIGNMENT?" would be a breath of fresh air :smallbiggrin:

Yes, it is baffling how, despite all the classes that can fall, paladins are the only ones that get targeted. The whole Barbarians bit is silly though. No honorable Barbarians for you, they'll fall if they ever actually respect the leaders of their tribes, and following through when they give their word of honor is crazy-talk. No more power from anger for you if you dare to follow the rules.

In essence, the paladin's code is not something the DM is meant to target, it is meant to provide interesting roleplaying opportunities.

[Venusaur]

That said, why do we never get threads where troubled GMs are wondering if the party Druid should be excommunicated for not finding monstrous spiders appropriately adorable and worthy of reverence? Animals are people too!

Actually, they're vermin

[Studoku]

Actually, they're vermin
I don't like druids either but calling them vermin is a bit harsh.:smalltongue:

[TuggyNE]

I don't like druids either but calling them vermin is a bit harsh.:smalltongue:

Nice. :smallamused: