Would the Paladin fall if...

[Squirrel_Dude]

They do something evil but are never aware of the consequences of their actions. If they are deceived into doing something evil but are never made aware that their actions are evil, but are lead that they have done a good deed.

The example of I have of this is from this recent page (http://www.lfgcomic.com/page/687/) of looking for group. The short of it is that the main character saves some children at the behest of the villagers. After receiving the thanks of the people and leaving, it is revealed to the reader the the villagers were cannibals, and that they plan to eat the children.

So, dealing with both that specific situation and situations that are more generally like it, I have two questions.

1. Would the Paladin fall? Why?
2. If yes, when would they fall and how would you tell that story as a DM?

[Snowbluff]

1. Consequences don't matter. You could save an orphanage full of people named Tom Riddle and Geoffrey Dommer and no one in DnD would mind.

2. I would slap myself for messing with a paladin.

[Krobar]

Saving children isn't evil. What the villagers do with them after the Paladin leaves is beyond his knowledge and his control, and I wouldn't make him fall in this instance.

But once he finds out he'd better go do something about it. Or at least put that on his list if he has something even more vitally important to do first.

[Toy Killer]

I think the real line drawn is what the paladin feels as right or wrong.

For example, it's cool for a paladin to stop marauding Gnolls across the ridge from, well, Marauding. It's what paladins do for the helpless. an Orc tribe locates itself across the river, has never shown evil intent, simply driven out of their home location and the paladin order is directed to kill them without incentive as they shall not question the word of the faith?

Well, that's where things get weird...

[Kelb_Panthera]

I follow that comic. Gotta love Richard.

What Cale did there was an entirely good act with very unfortunate consequences.

In 3.5's alignment system you simply cannot hold one character responsible for the actions of others or for unforseeable consequences of his actions. The logical consequence of either is that everyone's actions are all alignments at once and noone can be anything but neutral, effectively removing alignment from everything but outsiders with the alignment subtypes.

[karkus]

1) Hell no; of course not. Even BoVD taught us that that sort of action isn't Evil, ironically.

It's all based on intention. It would probably be Evil to leave those kids there, though (well, maybe not Evil, but definitely Not Good. :smallwink:). From there on out, the Paladin should try again to save the kids from harm. If that doesn't work either, well... "third time's the charm."

[Porthos]

I think this strip pretty much says it all: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0547.html :smallwink:

The evil is on the heads of the people perpetrating it, not the person they took advantage of. Sure, IF the paladin can do anything about it, they should try to save the children. Die trying, even. But if the paladin is forced beyond circumstances that they control to not be able to save the children? No. Not their fault. They will mourn and they will seek to punish the wrong doers. But the soul that gets tainted will not be theirs.

After all, the cannibals could choose to not eat the children. That they decide to do so is their choice, not the paladins.

[ArcturusV]

Yeah. I wouldn't make a Paladin fall. For one thing, I don't think you can really call Cannibalism "evil" necessarily. Not without getting into murkiness that involves ultra vegan philosophy and so on. Cannibalism is evil because it was evil to certain desert dwelling tribes in our ancient history. But it's not really universal.

But otherwise? Yeah... I wouldn't even think of going down that "consequences" rabbit hole. Classes like the Paladin have a hard enough time in life without them having to triple guess everything that ever happens to them.

Ideally I like my Paladins to be genre blind. I think it's fitting. They're not the hyperparanoid types. They are supposed to be symbols to show Mortals that they can live to a higher standard, be more than they are. They take the high roads. They choose to do "stupid" things that we'd think of in terms of Genre Savvy (Like offering mercy to the Villain du jour). I like them to be able to be that guy, like Captain Marvel before he got Shazam'd.

And if you go throwing his good deeds in his face like that... you're not going to get that sort of character out of the Paladin. It's not really going to be an option. Before they gain 5 levels that stuff is probably going to have happened a time or two and they'll be fed up with it. Both for the "Hurr hurr, all your good deeds are evil!" and the "I keep losing my powers!!!" angles.

[Galvin]

I don't think it would make the paladin fall. The deed was rescuing the children. What if, the paladin rescues the children, brings them back, and then rides off into the sunset. Later that night, he is enjoying a nice supper when BAM! the gods strike him down and strip him of all divine powers. He wouldn't know what he had done to deserve this. However, if the entire time he was rescuing the children he knew he was bringing them for the exact purpose of being eaten, he would be struck down because he is directly aiding people eat children, and the most logical option for the paladin at this point is to rescue the children and carry them away to save them from the evil child eating townsfolk. In conclusion, paladin's are not really affected by the consequences of their good deeds. Paladins like to focus on the good their doing now than anything else.

[Sylthia]

I think they have to willingly commit an evil act. I think saving children would fall under the good category. I don't think it counts if the paladin is deceived.

[Galvin]

I think they have to willingly commit an evil act. I think saving children would fall under the good category. I don't think it counts if the paladin is deceived.

I agree. The paladin has to be aware of the act to be affected by the alignment change consequences.

[Killer Angel]

To fall, you must commit an evil act willfully, or you must violate you code. Your example doesn't qualify.

[BWR]

My dear sir, you must learn to distinguish between a fallen paladin and one who has merely slipped.

Atonement spells exist, sometimes divine characters screw up, lose their powers and need forgiveness. This doesn't mean they have fallen forever. They just have to pick themselves up and do better.


For the most part, I would not penalize a paladin in this case, unless he had a suspicion that something was not quite right and did not try to find out. At worst, the paladin might get a slight slap on the wrist requiring a quest or maybe even an atonement, but a truly fallen paladin (or cleric) is not just a mistake but actively forsaking your vows and your ethics/god.

[hamishspence]

The atonement spell does say it can restore class features lost due to "committing an evil act unwittingly"

And mentions restoring abilities of a paladin who has committed an evil act- doesn't say anything about it being specifically "wilfully"

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/atonement.htm

And in 3.0, the spell description explicitly stated it could restore a paladin's powers, who'd committed an evil act unwillingly or unwittingly- but not those of a paladin who'd willingly done so.

Implication- regardless of what BoVD says- it is possible to unwittingly commit an Evil act.

[marcielle]

When in doubt, I like to ask myself: Would falling teach the Paladin a lesson in morality?(Not one in knowledge, critical thinking, cunning, etc.)

[SethoMarkus]

Regardless of the text in the Atonement spell, the SRD for Paladin specifically says:


"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."

Bolding is mine.

Though a DM may decide to rule differently, at which point it would be houseruling, a Paladin cannot fall or otherwise lose their abilities for a transgression they are not aware of having committed. I believe the "willfully" portion of the Atonement spell refers to those that have committed an evil act intentionally, but not for the evil; it was not their desire to commit evil, but in the interest of time, or resources, or some other variable, they killed the helpless prisoner rather than bring him back to town for trial. (In such an example, the Paladin would also fall, but not because they are turning evil and turning away from their vows, but rather because they committed a single Evil act.)

[Traab]

Regardless of the text in the Atonement spell, the SRD for Paladin specifically says:



Bolding is mine.

Though a DM may decide to rule differently, at which point it would be houseruling, a Paladin cannot fall or otherwise lose their abilities for a transgression they are not aware of having committed. I believe the "willfully" portion of the Atonement spell refers to those that have committed an evil act intentionally, but not for the evil; it was not their desire to commit evil, but in the interest of time, or resources, or some other variable, they killed the helpless prisoner rather than bring him back to town for trial. (In such an example, the Paladin would also fall, but not because they are turning evil and turning away from their vows, but rather because they committed a single Evil act.)

I think there is wiggle room there. For example, the paladin just has to commit the act willingly, it doesnt mean he has to be aware of the acts evil nature at the time. So you cant mind control a paladin, then make him eat a puppy and drown an orphan in its puddle of blood to make him fall, but I think its possible to put up say, an illusion of a swarm of goblins running at the paladin, so he cuts them down, only to later learn they were the kids from the orphanage running out to greet "Uncle Pally" he willingly attacked, he just wasnt aware they were actually innocents.

Too be honest though, while I do see that as a loophole, I also see that as the actions of a true %^$#^%$# DM who deserves a good hard slapping.

[Drachasor]

Also, having the Paladin fall results in a world where Paladins cannot exist for any reasonable period of time. This is insane, so I agree with those that say only a horrible DM would do this; It's against, RAW, RAI, Sanity, and Good Gaming.

[BowStreetRunner]

We actually had something come up in a game that I think is relevant. In our case, the paladin was offered a choice by an evil demon - perform an evil act on the demon's behalf or allow a group of hostages to die. The paladin chose to do what the demon requested and promptly fell once he committed the act. On the other hand, the rogue tossed it back in the demon's face when faced with the same moral dilemma later in the story. He pointed out that if the demon chose to slay the hostages, that was the demon's choice, not the rogue's. The rogue told the demon he would never agree to do the demon's bidding under such duress - but if the demon hurt those he cared about he would become the demon's mortal enemy and spend his days thwarting all of the demon's plots. The demon decided to let the hostages go and tried to win over the rogue with a sizable bribe instead.

It was generally agreed afterward that had the paladin taken the approach the rogue did, he might have avoided falling. And of course the funniest part was when the rogue took the demon's payoff and then split, never doing the demon's bidding in the end.

[Lapak]

I'm in agreement with the 'paladin is responsible for their own actions' camp. What villains do after she leaves is not on her conscience; what they do that she has no way of preventing is not on her conscience; what they do in an attempt to make her betray her conscience is still not on her conscience.

Or to put it in list form: things that have no effect on a paladin's status.
- Paladin does something good for evil people (OP example)

- Evil people do something the paladin isn't aware of (still OP example)

- Evil people do something that the paladin cannot stop, paladin does not stop it ("Now, as you watch from a thousand miles away in a magic mirror, I will sacrifice this helpless victim! Bwah-ha-ha!")

- Evil people threaten to / actually do something evil unless the paladin does something [presumably less] evil ("If you do not agree to abandon your god and worship Iuz the Evil, I will torture this helpless child!", "If you do not betray the Rebel Prince I will murder one citizen a day!", etc.)

[hamishspence]

I tend to agree- for something to qualify as an "unwitting evil act" I think might require some degree of reckless negligence.

[Drachasor]

I tend to agree- for something to qualify as an "unwitting evil act" I think might require some degree of reckless negligence.

Pretty sure a Paladin can be stupidly incompetent and not fall.

[hamishspence]

BoVD's example of "something that, while not exactly making the paladin a murderer, should cause them to fall" involved them killing others through such negligence (causing a landslide- while knowing the danger).

[Drachasor]

BoVD's example of "something that, while not exactly making the paladin a murderer, should cause them to fall" involved them killing others through such negligence (causing a landslide- while knowing the danger).

True, but a dumber Paladin that wasn't aware of what was going on could do the same thing in be fine. You could have a Paladin that actually tended to make things worse and cause a lot of needless deaths, but was too stupid to be aware of the potential consequences of their actions until well after those actions were performed (if then).

[Krobar]

We actually had something come up in a game that I think is relevant. In our case, the paladin was offered a choice by an evil demon - perform an evil act on the demon's behalf or allow a group of hostages to die. The paladin chose to do what the demon requested and promptly fell once he committed the act. On the other hand, the rogue tossed it back in the demon's face when faced with the same moral dilemma later in the story. He pointed out that if the demon chose to slay the hostages, that was the demon's choice, not the rogue's. The rogue told the demon he would never agree to do the demon's bidding under such duress - but if the demon hurt those he cared about he would become the demon's mortal enemy and spend his days thwarting all of the demon's plots. The demon decided to let the hostages go and tried to win over the rogue with a sizable bribe instead.

It was generally agreed afterward that had the paladin taken the approach the rogue did, he might have avoided falling. And of course the funniest part was when the rogue took the demon's payoff and then split, never doing the demon's bidding in the end.

That Paladin should have taken choice #3: immediately kill the demon or die trying, and then rescue the children if he succeeded in killing the demon. Sometimes a Paladin just has to die for what he believes. That's part of what makes him a Paladin. At least that's how I would have played that.

[hamishspence]

This WOTC article discusses similar issues:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a

Though a paladin must always strive to bring about a just and righteous outcome, she is not omnipotent. If someone tricks her into acting in a way that harms the innocent, or if an action of hers accidentally brings about a calamity, she may rightly feel that she is at fault. But although she should by all means attempt to redress the wrong, she should not lose her paladinhood for it. Intent is not always easy to judge, but as long as a paladin's heart was in the right place and she took reasonable precautions, she cannot be blamed for a poor result.

While "reasonable precautions" might vary from paladin to paladin- there must be some IMO.

[Traab]

This WOTC article discusses similar issues:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a

Though a paladin must always strive to bring about a just and righteous outcome, she is not omnipotent. If someone tricks her into acting in a way that harms the innocent, or if an action of hers accidentally brings about a calamity, she may rightly feel that she is at fault. But although she should by all means attempt to redress the wrong, she should not lose her paladinhood for it. Intent is not always easy to judge, but as long as a paladin's heart was in the right place and she took reasonable precautions, she cannot be blamed for a poor result.

While "reasonable precautions" might vary from paladin to paladin- there must be some IMO.

Well that instantly invalidates my opinion of tricking a paladin into doing something evil without realizing it as counting towards making him fall. Good, otherwise it would suck so hard to be a paladin as to be virtually pointless. There would be entire troops of evil bastards roaming the countryside just looking for paladins to fool into falling if it was that simple.

[Krobar]

Well that instantly invalidates my opinion of tricking a paladin into doing something evil without realizing it as counting towards making him fall. Good, otherwise it would suck so hard to be a paladin as to be virtually pointless. There would be entire troops of evil bastards roaming the countryside just looking for paladins to fool into falling if it was that simple.

That's what the occasional wandering succubus (i.e. damsel in distress) is for. :smallamused:

[Traab]

That's what the occasional wandering succubus (i.e. damsel in distress) is for. :smallamused:

I thought she was there to kill that one horn dog who learns really slow even though it happens in every tavern they go to where he says, "Hey, I want to roll to find out if I can rock this barmaids world tonight. WOOT! Critical success! That means she brings her twin sister along too!"

[visigani]

The Fallen Paladin can be summed up in two words "Mens Rea".

Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind".[1] In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of some crimes. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus, or "guilty act," accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged (see the technical requirement of concurrence). As a general rule, criminal liability does not attach to a person who acted with the absence of mental fault. The exception is strict liability crimes.

[Lapak]

That's what the occasional wandering succubus (i.e. damsel in distress) is for. :smallamused:
The succubus would still have to get the paladin to do something actually evil (which would be out-of-character for a damsel in distress) and as soon as the situation became even mildly questionable, well, avoiding this kind of obvious trap is exactly why Paladins have Detect Evil at will. Pretty much any being who'd bother to spend any effort putting together a contrived make-paladins-fall trap would ping the Evilometer hard enough to leave the Paladin's ears ringing. :smalltongue:

[Krobar]

The succubus would still have to get the paladin to do something actually evil (which would be out-of-character for a damsel in distress) and as soon as the situation became even mildly questionable, well, avoiding this kind of obvious trap is exactly why Paladins have Detect Evil at will. Pretty much any being who'd bother to spend any effort putting together a contrived make-paladins-fall trap would ping the Evilometer hard enough to leave the Paladin's ears ringing. :smalltongue:

When the succubus has changed shape, disguised herself, and presented herself as a priestess of another good-aligned faith, or something like that, and the Paladin saves her from a burning building or from a wandering band of orc slavers, with a couple of good diplomacy rolls she can get pretty far if the player isn't paying attention. And she's got Charm Monster, Detect Thoughts and Suggestion at will, as well as Greater Teleport in case she can't pull it off.

In the end, if the player is sufficiently paranoid and paying attention he'll figure it out before he does anything really dumb. But that is far from assured.

[Lapak]

When the succubus has changed shape, disguised herself, and presented herself as a priestess of another good-aligned faith, or something like that, and the Paladin saves her from a burning building or from a wandering band of orc slavers, with a couple of good diplomacy rolls she can get pretty far if the player isn't paying attention. And she's got Charm Monster, Detect Thoughts and Suggestion at will, as well as Greater Teleport in case she can't pull it off.

In the end, if the player is sufficiently paranoid and paying attention he'll figure it out before he does anything really dumb. But that is far from assured.Dumb is not sufficient. 'Dumb' is not willfully evil. If she pushes the obviously-evil idea, the paladin will almost certainly at least double-check her motives; if she uses any of the spell-likes you mention other than Detect Thoughts he's under mental control and would most definitely qualify for an Atonement fix at the absolute worst. Actually getting a paladin to fall is (and should be!) a lot harder than waving a Damsel/Dude In Distress at them.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Regardless of the text in the Atonement spell, the SRD for Paladin specifically says:



Bolding is mine.Obviously. A Paladin can't take a penalty for doing something against his will, but the question is whether he can take a penalty for doing something wrong, by his own will, but that he was unaware he was doing.

[Krobar]

Dumb is not sufficient. 'Dumb' is not willfully evil. If she pushes the obviously-evil idea, the paladin will almost certainly at least double-check her motives; if she uses any of the spell-likes you mention other than Detect Thoughts he's under mental control and would most definitely qualify for an Atonement fix at the absolute worst. Actually getting a paladin to fall is (and should be!) a lot harder than waving a Damsel/Dude In Distress at them.

I used the word "dumb" in a much broader way than apparently you took it. A succubus doesn't walk up and say "burn down the orphanage." They're never that blatant. She'll start by cooperating with him in his fight against evil (especially LAWFUL evil, which she'll guide him toward). Then she'll ask for a favor. She'll build his trust. After all, corrupting a Paladin is a long-term goal.

I see a lot of threads around here about Paladins falling because DMs put them in a no-win situation. Well, I have news. That no-win situation could be engineered by a succubus. It's nobody's fault but his own if he chooses between bad choice #1 and bad choice #2, and ignores good choice #3 which is die fighting the good fight. And in my game if a Paladin dies fighting the good fight, i.e. sacrifices himself rather than fall, he's going to be rewarded. If the player wants to continue playing the Paladin, he'll have a True Resurrection and some kind of reward from his god.

As far as atonement goes? Sure, a Paladin can atone for a lot of things. But in the meantime, he's lost his powers when he needs them the most, and is probably even thankful that the one person who believes in him is still by his side. Too bad that one person is a succubus, and was behind it all. And once he's already lost his powers simply by becoming LN instead of LG, those suggestions and charms work a lot better to move him to evil, especially when he feels he's been abandoned by his deity for no good reason.

But again, it depends a lot on the PLAYER. If the PLAYER doesn't put two and two together, he doesn't put two and two together. If the player thinks he can get away with a bunch of little things that ultimately slip him to Lawful Neutral instead of Lawful Good (because the law is the law), for example, he's going to have a problem that he didn't see coming. This is as much a test for the player who chooses to play a Paladin than it is anything else.

Perhaps in my games demons, devils, dragons, all sorts of monsters are smarter than they are in your games.

[Deophaun]

The problem is with the emphasis on falling, instead of on roleplay. If the paladin slaughters a rampaging goblin horde, only to discover later that they were actually glamared/polymorphed children, the horror of that revelation should be played out through RP, not mechanics. The paladin should not fall for succumbing to such trickery, but the party as a whole will likely be shaken and have a crisis of confidence in themselves. The paladin would likely believe that he did something so horrible that his divine power had left him, and wouldn't bother to try casting divine spells, turning undead, or laying on hands. But, those abilities would still be there.

If the players don't RP it that way, then that just means they aren't interested in the DM's little morality play, and the game can continue without the ill-conceived detour into the heart of darkness.

[Drachasor]

Again, Paladins must KNOWINGLY commit evil to fall.

A moron who is a LG Paladin and sticks to it, can do all kinds of evil and stay a Paladin -- he just has to be too stupid to know what he was doing was evil. Trick him all you want and he won't fall.

Could actually make for a fun subplot on an adventure; stop the idiot Paladin.

[ArcturusV]

Even the Child into Gobbos thing shouldn't really be a Fall. He had no way to know after all. And he might be more of a grim Paladin who would look at the event, say "They're better off dead than Gobbos" and just look to put the boot in the bad guy who did it.

[jaybird]

Even the Child into Gobbos thing shouldn't really be a Fall. He had no way to know after all. And he might be more of a grim Paladin who would look at the event, say "They're better off dead than Gobbos" and just look to put the boot in the bad guy who did it.

Good is not Nice, after all, and there's a reason one of the Paladin's primary class features is called Smite Evil, and not Redeem Evil.

[Deepbluediver]

1. Consequences don't matter. You could save an orphanage full of people named Tom Riddle and Geoffrey Dommer and no one in DnD would mind.

Alignment and morality is often treated as all kinds of stupid in a game, but I have a hard time understanding how consequences wouldn't matter, at all.

Generally, when evaluating the ethics of some action, I try to look at 3 things: the action itself, the reasons for taking that action, and the end result.

Killing another humanoid is murder (usually). Their might have been mitigating circumstances, but ideally you would find a way to achieve the same result that didn't involve slaughtering something.

Motivation- yes the road to hell is paves with good intentions, but a paladin who is trying to do good to the best of their ability would still get a more lenient sentence than one who dove off the deep end and said "aw **** it, whatever gets the job done".

Finally, results- doing bad for good reasons is not a long-term goodly outcome. This isn't a straight balancing act; in order to be good, you need to avoid and stop evil, and repent when you slip up. But a paladin who has a net benefit on the situation is likely to find it easier to claw his way back than one who screwed up everything royally.



Putting it all together, when possible I would try to warn a character (paladin, cleric, even a non-divine character who was sliding down the path). A dream or vision, an encounter with a prophet, other creatures acting strangely, a temporary loss of some powers, etc. All can be good ways of making the player sit up and notice things, and hopefully take stock of the situation and give it some serious contemplation.

In the situation noted (returning children to cannibal parents) I probably wouldn't make the paladin fall outright; punishing players for things they couldn't have known about or prevented is just yanking on the chain and being a jerk. That situation, however, is also being playing at least somewhat for comedy; if I wanted to set something like that up, I would probably drop hints along the way that the players should investigate the circumstances further.

[Traab]

Again, Paladins must KNOWINGLY commit evil to fall.

A moron who is a LG Paladin and sticks to it, can do all kinds of evil and stay a Paladin -- he just has to be too stupid to know what he was doing was evil. Trick him all you want and he won't fall.

Could actually make for a fun subplot on an adventure; stop the idiot Paladin.

The Giant disagrees (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0406.html) :smallbiggrin: This was a paladin who truly, completely, utterly BELIEVED she was doing the will of the gods, that she was doing exactly what she, as a paladin, was supposed to do. How did that turn out for her again?

[dascarletm]

The Giant disagrees (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0406.html) :smallbiggrin: This was a paladin who truly, completely, utterly BELIEVED she was doing the will of the gods, that she was doing exactly what she, as a paladin, was supposed to do. How did that turn out for her again?

She could have those convictions, but killing him was out of line. I think that is where she failed. She took it too far. I don't think she would of fallen had she just arrested him or something.

[mangosta71]

Any time anyone asks a question that beings with "would the paladin fall if..." the answer is "If the DM wants him to, yes. Otherwise, no."

[Traab]

She could have those convictions, but killing him was out of line. I think that is where she failed. She took it too far. I don't think she would of fallen had she just arrested him or something.

Yeah but she honestly believed she was doing good, doing the will of her gods. While he isnt exactly the final authority on D&D rules, that seems to show that if you commit an evil deed, even if you truly and fully BELIEVE its good, just, and right, you can still fall.

[Deepbluediver]

Any time anyone asks a question that beings with "would the paladin fall if..." the answer is "If the DM wants him to, yes. Otherwise, no."

Ultimately, yes, the end result of any given situation is 99% in the GM's hands.
But the player should have some idea of what is happening and why.

I would require that anyone who wants to play a paladin or another class with similar roleplaying requirements and complications sit down with the GM first and discuss it. How they are going to react to certain situations, how the various requirements will be treated, what potential problems might arise, etc.

The GM taking it upon himself to force a paladin to fall is not good gameplay. Just because the books give it as a possibility doesn't make it any less of a **** move than if your forced a vow of passivity on the Fighter or a permanent curse of anti-magic on the Wizard.


The Giant disagrees (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0406.html) :smallbiggrin: This was a paladin who truly, completely, utterly BELIEVED she was doing the will of the gods, that she was doing exactly what she, as a paladin, was supposed to do. How did that turn out for her again?

Personally, on my 3-point metric, I would rule that this is:
1) an evil act (it's murder, and not even the self-defense kind)
2) Miko intended to do good, and believed her course was the best one available to her
3) it made a bad situation worse

So 2 against 1, it comes out to evil. Had she been able to, and had later changed her mind, she probably would have been given a chance to repent though.

As to the claim that being oblivious/idiotic somehow protects a paladin from consequences: first, why would the gods agree to make some one a paladin like that in the first place? and why would they continue channeling power into some one who works counter to their goals?

[dascarletm]

Yeah but she honestly believed she was doing good, doing the will of her gods. While he isnt exactly the final authority on D&D rules, that seems to show that if you commit an evil deed, even if you truly and fully BELIEVE its good, just, and right, you can still fall.

True, but there is a difference between a bad judgement call (Miko) and not having any possible way of knowing the action you committed would lead to bad stuff.

It would had been different say if he was magic'd to looked like Xylon and she killed him thinking she was attacking a lich.

I could extrapolate more on this. Basically I'm saying that you can think something evil is good and then fall and you can think that something evil is good and also not fall.

Actually I agree with you more than Drachasor's point. I don't really know why I'm saying... anything...:smallconfused:

[Traab]

True, but there is a difference between a bad judgement call (Miko) and not having any possible way of knowing the action you committed would lead to bad stuff.

It would had been different say if he was magic'd to looked like Xylon and she killed him thinking she was attacking a lich.

I could extrapolate more on this. Basically I'm saying that you can think something evil is good and then fall and you can think that something evil is good and also not fall.

Actually I agree with you more than Drachasor's point. I don't really know why I'm saying... anything...:smallconfused:

Yeah, my post was to answer this,


Again, Paladins must KNOWINGLY commit evil to fall.

A moron who is a LG Paladin and sticks to it, can do all kinds of evil and stay a Paladin -- he just has to be too stupid to know what he was doing was evil. Trick him all you want and he won't fall.

Could actually make for a fun subplot on an adventure; stop the idiot Paladin.

I was basically saying that committing an evil act makes you fall, even if you honestly believe its a good one. Of course, im sure you could match me by showing the comic from Goblins were Kore, a paladins worn to destroy all evil, straight up murders an innocent dwarven child because he was "touched by evil beings, so the seed of evil has been planted in him." or some such rot. The kid was barely more than a toddler and he just executed him. No fall.

[Lapak]

I used the word "dumb" in a much broader way than apparently you took it. A succubus doesn't walk up and say "burn down the orphanage." They're never that blatant. She'll start by cooperating with him in his fight against evil (especially LAWFUL evil, which she'll guide him toward). Then she'll ask for a favor. She'll build his trust. After all, corrupting a Paladin is a long-term goal. Sure. Can't disagree with you there.

I see a lot of threads around here about Paladins falling because DMs put them in a no-win situation. Well, I have news. That no-win situation could be engineered by a succubus. It's nobody's fault but his own if he chooses between bad choice #1 and bad choice #2, and ignores good choice #3 which is die fighting the good fight. And in my game if a Paladin dies fighting the good fight, i.e. sacrifices himself rather than fall, he's going to be rewarded. If the player wants to continue playing the Paladin, he'll have a True Resurrection and some kind of reward from his god. And this is where we part ways on agreeing, because people talk about 'no-win' situations a lot with paladin, or situations where the Paladin needs to take 'the third option' to avoid falling, and such situations just... they just aren't that common! Most of the suggested ones I've seen aren't even legitimately 'two bad choices,' just 'one evil choice and one sucky choice.' There are precious few scenarios where the decision is actually even a difficult one, assuming your doing anything more than paying lip-service to playing a paladin in character.
But again, it depends a lot on the PLAYER. If the PLAYER doesn't put two and two together, he doesn't put two and two together. If the player thinks he can get away with a bunch of little things that ultimately slip him to Lawful Neutral instead of Lawful Good (because the law is the law), for example, he's going to have a problem that he didn't see coming. This is as much a test for the player who chooses to play a Paladin than it is anything else.

Perhaps in my games demons, devils, dragons, all sorts of monsters are smarter than they are in your games.Or, with no offense intended, possibly your players are less smart. Because seriously, I don't run into many who opt to play a paladin and then wander along merrily hedging their way into Neutrality, regardless of temptation. In my experience, most of the time the player who picks that class does so because they want to be an uncomplicatedly, uncompromisingly good character and would either get massively suspicious of a 'best friend NPC' who even nudged them towards a bad choice or take it as an opportunity to start campaigning for the NPC to be more actively good. "Oh, I know that seems like the best option, my dearest NPC, but sometimes the harder path is the one that we must choose to achieve the best ends for all" kind of thing.

[Drachasor]

True, but there is a difference between a bad judgement call (Miko) and not having any possible way of knowing the action you committed would lead to bad stuff.

It would had been different say if he was magic'd to looked like Xylon and she killed him thinking she was attacking a lich.

I could extrapolate more on this. Basically I'm saying that you can think something evil is good and then fall and you can think that something evil is good and also not fall.

Actually I agree with you more than Drachasor's point. I don't really know why I'm saying... anything...:smallconfused:

But what you are saying IS my point. I wasn't talking about believing you were doing good. Knowingly committing an evil act means that you understand the evil consequences of what you are doing -- that doesn't mean that you think they are evil.

[Sylthia]

I think the Paladin falling rules would be similar to the threshold doctors have for malpractice.

I'm a doctor and basically, to be found guilty of malpractice, one has to bring harm to a patient through action or lack of action in manner that a reasonable doctor would believe deviates from acceptable patient care. Or the proper legalese that states that.

Likewise to fall, a Paladin must deviate from her code and willingly commit an act that a reasonable paladin would consider evil. A paladin could twist herself to believe she is doing the will of her gods, but a "reasonable" paladin would believe that killing an elderly old man who is no imminent threat to you an evil act.

[Drachasor]

I think the Paladin falling rules would be similar to the threshold doctors have for malpractice.

I'm a doctor and basically, to be found guilty of malpractice, one has to bring harm to a patient through action or lack of action in manner that a reasonable doctor would believe deviates from acceptable patient care. Or the proper legalese that states that.

Likewise to fall, a Paladin must deviate from her code and willingly commit an act that a reasonable paladin would consider evil. A paladin could twist herself to believe she is doing the will of her gods, but a "reasonable" paladin would believe that killing an elderly old man who is no imminent threat to you an evil act.

There's a difference in that a doctor can be found guilty of malpractice for incompetence. An incompetent Paladin, who still only strove for truly good ends and only made good acts (given the knowledge and insight his limited intelligence allowed) would not fall.

Sure, he's such an idiot that he falls for EVERY trick in the book, but being gullible, awful at sense motive, easily fooled by illusions, etc, etc, will not cause a fall.

If a doctor regularly fails important skill checks, on the other hand, he'll lose
his license.

[elonin]

The paladin code of conduct is like pouring salt into an open wound. To address the question at hand he shouldn't fall as long as he couldn't be reasonably expected to know what is happening. If he were to get a premonition etc and failed to act it should count. Another angle to this, did he detect evil on the caretakers and get a positive response?

[Perseus]

They do something evil but are never aware of the consequences of their actions. If they are deceived into doing something evil but are never made aware that their actions are evil, but are lead that they have done a good deed.

The example of I have of this is from this recent page (http://www.lfgcomic.com/page/687/) of looking for group. The short of it is that the main character saves some children at the behest of the villagers. After receiving the thanks of the people and leaving, it is revealed to the reader the the villagers were cannibals, and that they plan to eat the children.

So, dealing with both that specific situation and situations that are more generally like it, I have two questions.

1. Would the Paladin fall? Why?
2. If yes, when would they fall and how would you tell that story as a DM?

In my games?

There is no such thing as losing your Paladin abilities... You may "fall" but you become a variant paladin (changing smite evil for perhaps smite chaos or smite Law depending on the situation).

[Kelb_Panthera]

The paladin code of conduct is like pouring salt into an open wound. To address the question at hand he shouldn't fall as long as he couldn't be reasonably expected to know what is happening. If he were to get a premonition etc and failed to act it should count. Another angle to this, did he detect evil on the caretakers and get a positive response?

Unfortunately, the character the OP is referring to isn't a paladin at all. He's a ranger and not necessarily a D&D ranger at that.

The situation simply sparked an idea that lead to the creation of this thread. If Cale were a paladin either he or Richard would have to leave the party or they'd have to fight to the death. They'd have to fight to the death anyway if they ever met again -after- parting ways. Richard is not just CE, he's stupid evil but useful enough to put up with it.