Does the Paladin fall? (PF)

[Yeturs]

Wherein we ask the million dollar question: Does this paladin fall?!

Female Elven Paladin (because whats optimization?) in Pathfinder, so charisma focused. Were in a huge city setting. We need to get into a district controlled by gangs, and the bridge in has a gang member taking tolls (with pretty heavy backup nearby)

My paladin, in fullplate and all, walks up solo style to make a distraction so the group can try and subtly get in. The plan was to throw a fit about how outrageous the toll was, then pay it and go on in, thereby circumventing the need for the party to pay the gold too.

Does the paladin fall here?



Well, that isn't quite what happened in the end. The ganger wanted 1000 gold for passage. He said my shinny armor "let him know i got it". Turns out, i didnt. I believe the conversation went something like this...

Paladin: "Oh, come now. Surely you have a use for a woman like me in a place like this?"
Ganger: "Nah lady, you are a troublemaker, can tell by your sword on your hip."
Paladin: "You know how dangerous these streets can be, I need this for protection. The armor too. Please? I can make it worth your while in particular... we just need somewhere more... private." Diplomacy roll- very high number-
Ganger: "Yeah okay lady, lets find our way to my place!"

Then i just strolled in.

DOES THE PALADIN FALL?!



Last bit, the one that has me genuinely worried. We make it back to his place, and he immediately begins to disrobe. Now, I said to him "Hold on, this armor takes time to get off. Want to give me a hand?"

the Ganger promptly stumbles, pants around his ankles, over to me. I promptly clock him in the head with my gauntlet fist. One shot, down he goes. I search him, find a key to a back door, and a very valuable time-telling device. I take the key and his bandana, try and disguise myself, still in full plate, as best i can as a ganger, pull his pants up, heal check him to make sure he will live, soak him in beer, and leave him with the bottle in his hand. ( i also didnt take his watch)

Does the paladin fall?

Okay, I probably shouldnt have gotten away with that XD My GM didnt call me out on it though, he must think the dude was bad enough to warrant it? I dunno.

What does the playground think? At what point did i cross the line from "Lawful Good" to "Kinda Sketchy"?

[Galvin]

I don't think the paladin would fall. Nothing really evil that warrants having the gods strip him of all mighty divine power.

[Sucrose]

...Well, strictly speaking, nothing you said was a lie.

"Surely you could find a use for me in a place like this"-they probably could, were you willing

"I need this for protection"-from the assorted monsters that you fight

"I can make this worth your while in particular."- Can does not mean will.

Beyond that, we have no direct potential violations, though the whole plan could be argued to be acting without honor, given that it involves deception.

The Pathfinder Code of Conduct is more stringent than the 3.5 one, wherein only a gross violation (rather than any violation) or an evil act would be sufficient to fall, so I could see a DM ruling against you. However, given that you didn't gut him like a fish, but just essentially played a prank on him, in the service of justice, I can see why one could argue that the Paladin does NOT fall.

[Crake]

I think it would probably constitute a warning, because it's not lawful good behavior, but not grounds for an instant fall. However, keep acting like that and you can expect a fall in the near future.


...Well, strictly speaking, nothing you said was a lie.

Gods don't care about semantics

[Sucrose]

I think it would probably constitute a warning, because it's not lawful good behavior, but not grounds for an instant fall. However, keep acting like that and you can expect a fall in the near future.



Gods don't care about semantics

Depends on the god. Several LN ones (who can sponsor Paladins) do care quite a bit about semantics.

[Studoku]

Your alignment was never in any trouble here. You can keep a lawful good alignment while performing the occasional chaotic action.

The problem is that the paladin code specifies:

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.
Seducing someone so you can attack them while they're unarmed and unprepared is certainly not honourable.

[Jack_Simth]

Wherein we ask the million dollar question: Does this paladin fall?!Fall over laughing? Maybe. Lose Paladin powers? Eh, depends on the DM, and the DM's read on intent, and how much action it takes to change alignment.

You're not exactly operating in a Lawful manner - however, you're not exactly operating in a chaotic one, either. For the most part, these are moderately charged neutral acts. A lot of them should shift you off the LG spot (probably to NG)... but exactly how many constitute "a lot" is up to the DM.

[KillianHawkeye]

Seducing someone so you can attack them while they're unarmed and unprepared is certainly not honourable.

Yeah, this was the only point where falling is even a possibility. The honorable thing to do would have been to pay the toll (one way or the other :smallwink:), and met back up with your party in a prearranged location.

[Kyberwulf]

I think being a paladin isn't in your future. You have a very duplicitous side. Your partaking in Deception. Getting across the bridge. Although that isn't bad. However your teammates get across is up to them. But your providing a distraction. Agree to a price, and going to his place with no real intention of paying that price, is lying. Then you proceed to his place. Where in you proceed to renege on your agreed upon price. Assault him, proceed to mug him. Then leave him there.

I would say that is very un-paladin like behavior.

[Deophaun]

Yeah, I'd say once you assault the guy, you have fallen. Even in 3.5, that's a pretty flagrant violation of the Paladin's Code.

And really, you shouldn't have been rolling Diplomacy. You should have been rolling Bluff.

[ArqArturo]

Only if the divine power granting the paladin her gifts is a god of commerce and taxes.

[Kane0]

No, no and no, though expect a few raised eyebrows.

To me, that sounds like a fantastic paladin. She knows what life is really like but still does not lie, cheat, steal or kill unless necessary. She provides the beacon of good and law when at all possible, but sometimes it just isn't the best means available.

If you did that against the town guard, then different story. These were gang members and although you took an unlawful approach, it was better than needless bloodshed in the streets. You probably won't be promoted within the church anytime soon though.

Edit: I think of it this way:
-Standard 'safe' paladin behavior: Pay the toll and cross
-Suspicious behavior, but nothing major: Find a way out of paying the toll, or sneaking past. Like your scenario.
-You're-gonna-fall behavior: Draw your sword and threaten/kill the thug demanding the toll, and anyone else that backs him up.

[Kyberwulf]

She lied about paying him... cheated him out of that payment afterwards, and stole his items he had on him. The fact that they are bad guys doesn't matter. Paladins are suppose to be a moral compass. Most of this situations, is ... negligible with proper penance. However.. outright mugging a guy isn't.

[Kane0]

She lied about paying him... cheated him out of that payment afterwards, and stole his items he had on him. The fact that they are bad guys doesn't matter. Paladins are suppose to be a moral compass. Most of this situations, is ... negligible with proper penance. However.. outright mugging a guy isn't.

She didn't steal any more than was necessary to get to her destination, the bandana for a disguise and the key for the door. No gain was to be had from that loot other than her original goal.

[Drachasor]

By the PF rules, you'd fall because ANY lie results in a fall. The PF rules are stupid.

I'd say your DM handled it well. Ignore where the code is stupid.

[Kyberwulf]

She didn't Steal.. Keyword there, anymore then was necessary. Theft is theft. Assault is assault. Mugging is mugging.

[Raven777]

Might I suggest taking the Oath of Vengeance (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin/archetypes/paizo---paladin-archetypes/oathbound-paladin/oath-of-vengeance)?


Code of Conduct: Never let lesser evils distract you from your pursuit of just vengeance.

[Kane0]

I'd say your DM handled it well. Ignore where the code is stupid.
This.

If taking the lesser of two evils still makes you fall then IMO that's a bad way to play. Yes the rules state that breaking the code fells you but a good DM will give you some leeway for picking the option that breaks the code the least.

I remember seeing a good thread about this a while back, i'll see if i can dig it up...
Edit: Can't find it, but did save the list it ended up with here (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xPkT1uih2imRUbXxTS6oGexDF2Gz31aHpIWj1_Hjzx4/edit?usp=sharing). If anyone can find the original thread, let me know.

[Kyberwulf]

Furthermore, allowing Gangs to harass innocent people trying to cross a bridge. That is another blip on the alignment radar. Extortion is an evil act.

[Deathkeeper]

She didn't Steal.. Keyword there, anymore then was necessary. Theft is theft. Assault is assault. Mugging is mugging.

By that argument, stealing the plot-artifact from the obvious BBEG's fortress would make a paladin fall.

[Kyberwulf]

First of all, it isn't stealing, its being confiscated. Second, thwarting evil is always a good thing. There is a difference between doing right... and Sucker-punching a guy who has his pants around his ankles because you made him think he was going to get lucky.

[Yeturs]

I was considering the oath for story reasons (reverent shade thing possessed and stole my friend away, i swore vengeance on the rooftop we were fighting on, in the blood-soaked rain. Properly dramatic and everything. Also, we already knew reverent shade thing is working for the BBG. Double perfect. Also im level 4 right after that encounter. TRIPLE PERFECT!)

Thanks, Raven777!
/tangent

I think it was a little shady, yes. I also want to point out, all i took from the guy was his bandana with the gangs insignia, his key to the back door, and probably his dignity. I did heal check him, first aid and bandaids, and i had a pretty good heal check.

I will bring up the oath to my GM. He didnt say anything about my actions, so im pretty sure he is fine with what i did. I was mainly just curious what the playground had to say, and i liked the story, so i thought i would share!

Hopefully my DM has us run into him again. That would be fun to RP!

[jaybird]

What do you call three Paladins standing in the middle of the road with their swords drawn?

An ambush.


GM rulings should not push Paladins towards the behaviour in the example above.

[Kyberwulf]

I know you didn't do anything fall worthy. Your on the fence though. lol If you feel the need to ask other people, or to justify your actions. Chances are you know you did something wrong.

[Deophaun]

If taking the lesser of two evils still makes you fall then IMO that's a bad way to play. Yes the rules state that breaking the code fells you but a good DM will give you some leeway for picking the option that breaks the code the least.
You are assuming that the course the player chose was the least bad option. This wasn't a "Choose A or B" scenario. This was a "Here's problem X: How do you solve it?" Out of an ocean of possibilities, the Paladin's choice was to mislead, seduce, and assault a guy when his guard was down. Yeah, I'd say that is a gross violation of the Code.

[Kane0]

Thwarting evil is always a good thing.

You have a good point, but how long do you relistically expect a paladin to live and keep his Paladinhood with that kind of outlook? The PHB Code is simply too restricting and while great in theory does not work in application.


You are assuming that the course the player chose was the least bad option. This wasn't a "Choose A or B" scenario. This was a "Here's problem X: How do you solve it?" Out of an ocean of possibilities, the Paladin's choice was to mislead, seduce, and assault a guy when his guard was down. Yeah, I'd say that is a gross violation of the Code.
I think that given the circumstances he picked out a good enough option. If the player/character had a chance to deliberate then naturally there would have been better course of action to take, but they were in the middle of the situation and had to come up with something.
I as a player am not a quick enough thinker to come up with something that good, so my improvisation would have been reduced to "well, Plan B it is then. I draw my sword". So I applaud the OP on his ability to come out of that situation with only a bit of misleading dialogue and a KO punch instead of bloodshed.

Edit: I found the list from that thread, it ended up to be more like a revised in game code rather than an explanation of the PHB code. See above for the link.

[Deophaun]

I think that given the circumstances he picked out a good enough option. If the player/character had a chance to deliberate then naturally there would have been better course of action to take, but they were in the middle of the situation and had to come up with something.
He picked an option that should have required him to use a Bluff check (not a class skill) as opposed to using his high Diplomacy to convince the thug to charge the normal fee (you know: their original plan). In other words: he willfully abandoned the plan to pursue an alternative that did not play to his class's strength and ran against type. Gross. Violation.

[Bedivere]

Hi, I'm the DM.

This is an odd setting and thus I'm being a bit more lenient on Paladin rules. The setting is an alt. history of Ravnica, where the city is plunged into strife and chaos. Paladins aren't dedicated to Gods so much as guilds, ideals, or powerful forces.

This particular Paladin is dedicated to Selesnya and receives powers from the Voice of All. Though Selesnya is a pretty typical guild for paladins (second only to Boros) and I could see them having traditional rules, the Paladin was working toward an overall goal of harmony and thus no immediate penalty was incurred.

Little things like lying or cheating will add up, but I don't believe an individual incidence would cause her to fall. Something rather more drastic, like if she had gutted the bastard, would cause more concern.

Also, the gangs aren't necessarily evil. A man's gotta eat right? They don't have powerful guilds to protect them on da streets.

But I'll be watching you, Paladunce.

EDIT: Also yeah, bluff.

[Kane0]

He picked an option that should have required him to use a Bluff check (not a class skill) as opposed to using his high Diplomacy to convince the thug to charge the normal fee (you know: their original plan). In other words: he willfully abandoned the plan to pursue an alternative that did not play to his class's strength and ran against type. Gross. Violation.

I don't think she knew what the original cost was, and she opted to use bluff in order to get out of paying a non-good, non-lawful organization instead of diplomacy to reduce the amount she would be giving them. Not an outright good or lawful act, and not something that her church would like to hear, but still not the worst thing possible. A warning and a bit of repenting after her report to the church should be more than enough, I can't see her being thrown out the door for this.

But then again I just don't subscribe to the original code, but rather something more like this (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xPkT1uih2imRUbXxTS6oGexDF2Gz31aHpIWj1_Hjzx4/edit) for my games.

Edit:

-Snip-
Good to hear the DM's take on this. The Paladin code is such a can of worms here.

[Kyberwulf]

How can you play a paladin if you don't think Thwarting evil is always a good thing?
Imposing the fall rule over everything is not the good thing. The code is always a good thing. Trying to strive to met the code is always a good thing.
I agree, while most of what she did wasn't in align with the code. It wasn't bad enough to warrant a fall. Neither was the mugging that she did do. This is the very important part. She didn't try justify what she did. She felt remorse about doing it. (I am assuming.) As long as she does penance for her actions, she should be safe.
Nothing she did was a Gross violation. Maybe a misdemeanor.
The problem isn't so much what she did now. It's what it will lead to if it isn't taken seriously. It's a slop she will slide down. Gradually at first. Then soon it will be faster and faster, until she falls off the path of righteousness.

[137beth]

By the PF rules, you'd fall because ANY lie results in a fall. The PF rules are stupid.

I'd say your DM handled it well. Ignore where the code is stupid.

Seconded.

IMO, you should follow the Golden Rule of Paladins:
When in doubt, do not strip a Player Character of most of their power.. ESPECIALLY if it is already a fairly weak class, like a paladin or fighter. If the PC is a fighter, don't go out of your way to destroy their 200,000 gp magic weapon. If they are a paladin, ALWAYS err on the side of them not falling. If you are unsure, consider giving the paladin a warning. If they take their evil up a notch, then have them fall.
If you try going the other way around (starting by having them fall, and then trying to revise your standards/decisions later) you end up with a lot of unnecessary hurt feelings.

[Deophaun]

I don't think she knew what the original cost was
The PC knew that the price was being inflated due to her armor.

and she opted to use bluff
Diplomacy. This, IMHO, was a screw up. It should have been a bluff check. It probably wouldn't have worked in that case, and might have made the Paladin reconsider.

in order to get out of paying a non-good, non-lawful organization instead of diplomacy to reduce the amount she would be giving them.
So Paladin's can't do business with neutrals anymore? Man, they must be real selective about the kids their orphanages take in.

But then again I just don't subscribe to the original code,
I don't either. I prefer to eliminate the fluff. You want to play a fighter with fancy powers, go right ahead. But, if we're talking RAW...


Nothing she did was a Gross violation.
Obviously we have very different opinions on what a gross violation is. Gross violation, in my term, is not a synonym for "evil." If it was, then the proscription that a paladin fall for gross violations of the code would be redundant. Stealing the watch, for example, would be evil. Not simply because "stealing is wrong" but because there are no mitigating circumstances. That would be a fall all on its own. Killing the guy would be evil, because the guy was not a threat to anyone. It would be murder. That would be a fall all on its own. Requiring an evil act to trip the gross violation trigger is removing the gross violation trigger.

Meanwhile, the paladin's actions were premeditated. She resolved at the bridge to bring the guard back, seduce him into a vulnerable position, and attack him when he was defenseless. That's flagrant; that's gross.

[Kane0]

The PC knew that the price was being inflated due to her armor.
True.


Diplomacy. This, IMHO, was a screw up. It should have been a bluff check. It probably wouldn't have worked in that case, and might have made the Paladin reconsider.
True again, but thats not how it played out so it becomes a what-if.


So Paladin's can't do business with neutrals anymore? Man, they must be real selective about the kids their orphanages take in.
I said non-good and non-lawful because i have no way of knowing exactly how evil and/or chaotic they are, as Bedivere later explained. The paladin might have known more but this case isn't business, it's a form of extortion.


I don't either. I prefer to eliminate the fluff. You want to play a fighter with fancy powers, go right ahead. But, if we're talking RAW...
Agreed, I'm not a fan of RAW. To me if one replaces the word 'Code' with 'Guidelines' then that would be plenty enough to work with.

[Kyberwulf]

It isn't a gross violation. It was just a Violation. As long as she does the penance for it, it should be cool.

[Coidzor]

What does the playground think? At what point did i cross the line from "Lawful Good" to "Kinda Sketchy"?

When you felt the urge that lead to you making the thread.


A warning and a bit of repenting after her report to the church should be more than enough, I can't see her being thrown out the door for this.

But then again I just don't subscribe to the original code, but rather something more like this (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xPkT1uih2imRUbXxTS6oGexDF2Gz31aHpIWj1_Hjzx4/edit) for my games.

No, see, that's part of why so many people hate paladins and hate playing paladins. The player doesn't need to constantly be running to mummy for clarification or punishment.

Two pages of code? That's one and a half pages too long.

[geekintheground]

Hi, I'm the DM.

This is an odd setting and thus I'm being a bit more lenient on Paladin rules. The setting is an alt. history of Ravnica, where the city is plunged into strife and chaos. Paladins aren't dedicated to Gods so much as guilds, ideals, or powerful forces.



just wanted to pop in and say: this sounds AWESOME! im gonna have to try something similar

[Kane0]

When you felt the urge that lead to you making the thread.

When you have to ask yourself "Does this make me fall?" 9 times out of 10 you should instead ask "Should this be a warning or an outright fall?"

Edit:


Two pages of code? That's one and a half pages too long.

I would love to be this kind of Paladin. It sounds so... freeing.

[Crake]

If the player wants to keep up this kind of activity, then perhaps he/she should consider going into greyguard from complete scoundrel?

[Berenger]

The most evil option would have been to fund the future actions of an unlawful, criminal organisation with a thousand gold pieces. :smalleek:

[Kane0]

If the player wants to keep up this kind of activity, then perhaps he/she should consider going into greyguard from complete scoundrel?

Or perhaps a refluffed Shadowbane Inquisitor or Stalker from Complete Adventurer?

[Firebug]

The most evil option would have been to fund the future actions of an unlawful, criminal organisation with a thousand gold pieces. :smalleek:

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.

Agreed. So people are arguing its appropriate and Lawful for the Paladin to pay off some gangers to cross the bridge? I mean, the gangers are not officials of the town government and are extorting the common folk. Ie, they are breaking the Law. And more importantly, if an innocent wanted to cross and didn't want to pay, would they be threatened with violence until they paid up?

The Paladin in this case arguably didn't punish that ganger enough. After he woke up he should have been frog marched to the local magistrate and forced to pay restitution for the tolls he has illegally collected. Preferably with hard labor breaking rocks.

[JusticeZero]

No. The Paladin didn't do anything even remotely sketchy. The restriction is mostly to prevent murder hoboes.

[Anteros]

Technically I think you probably should fall...however I wouldn't enforce it if I was the DM. Seducing someone and then assaulting them in their home is at the very least slightly evil.

If you made a habit of that type of behavior in my games you would fall.


Agreed. So people are arguing its appropriate and Lawful for the Paladin to pay off some gangers to cross the bridge? I mean, the gangers are not officials of the town government and are extorting the common folk. Ie, they are breaking the Law. And more importantly, if an innocent wanted to cross and didn't want to pay, would they be threatened with violence until they paid up?

The Paladin in this case arguably didn't punish that ganger enough. After he woke up he should have been frog marched to the local magistrate and forced to pay restitution for the tolls he has illegally collected. Preferably with hard labor breaking rocks.

Of course not. You're acting like there's no third option when there are hundreds. The code isn't "Do no evil and don't lie...unless it's convenient." The difference between a paladin and a normal good character is the higher standard.

[BWR]

I'm not sure I would have this paladin fall, but quite she would be looking at making restitution to her god/code. Possibly loss of some powers until she atoned (not necessarily the spell, but did something to atone).
You lied, blatantly illegal by the code. You deceived someone. You acted dishonorably by attacking an unarmed person. These are the actions of a rogue or a bard, not a paladin. As far as violations go these were rather minor, but violations nonetheless.

[geekintheground]

OR you didnt lie. at the time you said it you fully meant it 100%, but then you remembered you had to go help your group (abandoning them would be awful!) so you had to postpone the "payment" till a later date.... eventually is my favorite word :smallwink: :smallcool:

[Sith_Happens]

What does the playground think? At what point did i cross the line from "Lawful Good" to "Kinda Sketchy"?

The last part is extremely sketchy, but "sketchy" does not a fall make unless it becomes serial behavior.

Personally, if the plan was to distract the toll keeper while the party sneaks past, I'd have just kept him talking and then let the party figure out my way in. Different strokes, I guess.


The setting is an alt. history of Ravnica,

http://who-is-awesome.com/who-is-awesome.jpg


Obviously we have very different opinions on what a gross violation is. Gross violation, in my term, is not a synonym for "evil." If it was, then the proscription that a paladin fall for gross violations of the code would be redundant. Stealing the watch, for example, would be evil. Not simply because "stealing is wrong" but because there are no mitigating circumstances. That would be a fall all on its own. Killing the guy would be evil, because the guy was not a threat to anyone. It would be murder. That would be a fall all on its own. Requiring an evil act to trip the gross violation trigger is removing the gross violation trigger.

Meanwhile, the paladin's actions were premeditated. She resolved at the bridge to bring the guard back, seduce him into a vulnerable position, and attack him when he was defenseless. That's flagrant; that's gross.

To me, a gross violation is something like "broke an oath" or "betrayed a superior." You know, something serious in and of itself.

[SiuiS]

Nothing here is an explicitly evil action taken in full conscience. Paladins DO NOT FALL over petty crap. They fall for gross violation of their ideals and for spiritual treason. Nothing else.


You shouldn't be lying though. So you had etter find a way to make it worth his while!

[Auramis]

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.

If I were DMing and we were going with the paladin code or the code of the stereotypical knight in shining armor, I'd find a way to convey a slap on the wrist for that behavior. While there is leniency for some chaotic actions here and there with most DMs, the code does state that helping those in need shouldn't lead to chaotic or evil ends. Chaos shouldn't be the route to take to stop more chaos. Maybe make it so a spell fails in combat or something along those lines. Maybe the horse doesn't allow itself to be called for a day. Something from the higher powers to basically say, "watch what you're doing."

Immediate disqualification isn't normally the right step to go, save for in extreme cases like murder, poison, or anything evil.

If all else fails, paladin of freedom or holy liberator is just a few levels around the corner, eh?

[Deathkeeper]

As long as this isn't a regular thing, I would say that this event is only slightly sketchy. In the big picture, the Paladin avoided inconveniencing his team (presumably a force of good), refused to help criminals, and found a way to do so without causing any permanent damage (unless the gang beat the guy up later). The seduction thing is the only part that gets me a little.
In general, I ask that Paladins in my game essentially follow a Superman code, in the sense that while acting as an example of good and honor, it's not the end of the world if you have to bend the truth to save lives as long as it isn't common, and you're allowed to laugh at humor, even morbid or lewd. I hate stick-in-the-mud paladin characters.

[Kioras]

I see nothing at wrong with it.

If the gangsters were not the legitimate authority, then they were imposing an illegal tax, which would be harming innocents and as such it could be argued that paying the tax is going against the legitimate authority of the location.

It is similar to some bandits on the kings road, setting up a toll, with the implied threat to pay or be robbed. The only difference is that they did not start off the encounter attacking and robbing.

The after actions I would have no problem with, a true lawful behavior might be to afterwards come back and arrest the whole gang itself, and return his clothes to him on his to his cell.

After all you never told a lie, he just drew the wrong conclusions. Paladin does not mean lawful stupid or good is dumb.

[TheTinyMan]

If I were DMing and we were going with the paladin code or the code of the stereotypical knight in shining armor, I'd find a way to convey a slap on the wrist for that behavior.

This is my attitude, too, although my idea of a 'slap on the wrist' is a bit milder. I'd have the paladin have a nice, portentous dream that says, 'not cool, sister.' Maybe dream that some sacred item burns her, or some aspect of her ideals seems inaccessible or foreign, or a montage of herself slowly sliding down a slippery slope into a blackguard or something.

And then, as the DM, I'd congratulate the player on being awesome. :-) That kind of behavior, happening only occasionally, keeps the character interesting, especially if she's internally conflicted.

[Psyren]

Oh hey, this thing (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/m-p/phylactery-of-faithfulness) still exists in PF. Never play a paladin without one. (In fact, it works even better in PF since headbands no longer take up your head slot.)


By the PF rules, you'd fall because ANY lie results in a fall. The PF rules are stupid.

You should try reading rules before trashing them next time. If you had, you would know that (a) both Codes use the exact same wording when referring to lies, and (b) the PF Code is actually superior since it allows you to work with evil characters to fight a greater evil.

Research is a good thing.

[Deophaun]

You should try reading rules before trashing them next time. If you had, you would know that (a) both Codes use the exact same wording when referring to lies, and (b) the PF Code is actually superior since it allows you to work with evil characters to fight a greater evil.

Research is a good thing.
Careful who you accuse of not reading.

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.

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin.
Also, "must not associate with evil" is not part of the paladin's code. It is a completely separate section with no penalties for violating the prohibition. It is dead letter in 3.5.

[Fax Celestis]

Seducing someone so you can attack them while they're unarmed and unprepared is certainly not honourable.

Knocking them out instead of needlessly killing them is certainly worth something, no?

[Craft (Cheese)]

Yeah, this was the only point where falling is even a possibility. The honorable thing to do would have been to pay the toll (one way or the other :smallwink:), and met back up with your party in a prearranged location.

I'd say paying the toll (either way) would be dishonorable. Just not crossing the bridge would be dishonorable because you would be shirking whatever mission you needed to complete inside.

Paladin codes are stupid, is what I'm trying to say.

[Deophaun]

Knocking them out instead of needlessly killing them is certainly worth something, no?
It's worth the debate over whether she falls (In 3.5: it's a fall in PF either way). Otherwise, that needless killing would have been murder, which would be a fall all on its own without the subterfuge.

I'd say paying the toll (either way) would be dishonorable. Just not crossing the bridge would be dishonorable because you would be shirking whatever mission you needed to complete inside.
Fortunately, the amount of approaches to the situation is not limited to A)Pay toll B)Don't cross and C)Seduce and attack naked, unarmed men.

Paladin codes are stupid, is what I'm trying to say.Agree.

[Fax Celestis]

It's worth the debate over whether she falls (In 3.5: it's a fall in PF either way). Otherwise, that needless killing would have been murder, which would be a fall all on its own without the subterfuge.

Well, let's ask the relevant question, then: is the paladin in question apologetic/repentant for her actions?

[Deophaun]

Well, let's ask the relevant question, then: is the paladin in question apologetic/repentant for her actions?
That's a question to be asked when they seek atonement. Doesn't change the action.

[Fax Celestis]

That's a question to be asked when they seek atonement. Doesn't change the action.

That would depend upon the deity they follow.

[Psyren]

Careful who you accuse of not reading.

"grossly" is not defined anywhere in the rules and is thus too vague to be meaningful here.



Also, "must not associate with evil" is not part of the paladin's code. It is a completely separate section with no penalties for violating the prohibition. It is dead letter in 3.5.

If you're going to try and legalese like that you're actually worse off. "A paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters" - meaning that anyone who does cannot be a paladin. You would lose your entire class by doing so, rather than just falling and needing atonement, by RAW.

At best, you could say that you were a paladin once and are not one now, therefore the "Ex-Paladins" entry should apply to you.

[Deophaun]

"grossly" is not defined anywhere in the rules and is thus too vague to be meaningful here.
Which is the entire point of his statement. In 3.5, you only fell if you "grossly" violated the code, which is a point of contention. In Pathfinder, you fall if you violate the code. Period. There is no vagueness.

As I said, be careful of who you accuse of not reading.

If you're going to try and legalese like that you're actually worse off. "A paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters" - meaning that anyone who does cannot be a paladin. You would lose your entire class by doing so, rather than just falling and needing atonement, by RAW.
Um, no. Nowhere is what you said Written in the Rules. It might be RAI, but that's a different matter.

[Psyren]

Period. There is no vagueness.

Of course there is. Every single one of the things that make you fall in PF could make you fall in 3.5, and vice-versa.



As I said, be careful of who you accuse of not reading.

Pot meet kettle? :smallamused:



Um, no. Nowhere is what you said Written in the Rules. It might be RAI, but that's a different matter.

Capitalizing Your Words doesn't change what the rules say. By RAW, Paladins will never do X - therefore, if you do X, you aren't a paladin. QED.

Legalese is a double-edged sword.

[Deophaun]

Of course there is. Every single one of the things that make you fall in PF could make you fall in 3.5, and vice-versa.
Then please explain why the wording between 3.5 and Pathfinder is different. You would have noticed this had you read the entries, and read what is posted.

Capitalizing Your Words doesn't change what the rules say. By RAW, Paladins will never do X - therefore, if you do X, you aren't a paladin. QED.

Legalese is a double-edged sword.
By RAW, a dominated person does whatever the dominator says if they fail a will save. Therefore, if you don't do whatever the dominator says, you aren't dominated. QED. (You fall from being dominated)

That's the furthest you can take it. The player says "I want to associate my paladin with the evil guy." The DM says "Nope."

How a paladin falls is expressly defined: You cease to be lawful good. You commit an evil act, or you (grossly, in 3.5's case) violate the code of conduct. Associating with evil does. not. register. That means either it is dead letter, or the situation will never happen because paladins are physically incapable of the act. The is no Rule that is Written that says you fall from association with evil. Ergo, it is not RAW.

Parts bolded to aid reading.

[Psyren]

Then please explain why the wording between 3.5 and Pathfinder is different.

Maybe they didn't like the word "gross." It's not relevant to a RAW discussion unless you have a definition for it somewhere.



By RAW, a dominated person does whatever the dominator says if they fail a will save. Therefore, if you don't do whatever the dominator says, you aren't dominated. QED. (You fall from being dominated)]

If you fail your will save you have no option to resist the dominator's orders anyway, so I fail to see how this is relevant.

And yes, you actually do fall for acts you commit while dominated. The Atonement spell (in both editions, again) makes this clear.



Associating with evil does. not. register.

I never said anything about "falling" with regards to that section. I merely said what the rules say - Paladins will never (knowingly) do it. Again, if you're going to rely on legalese, you have to take everything that goes along with that.

[Deophaun]

Maybe they didn't like the word "gross." It's not relevant to a RAW discussion unless you have a definition for it somewhere.
Except it does. In Pathfinder, if a woman asks "Does this dress make me look fat" and the Paladin lies, he has violated the code, so he falls. No ifs, ands, or buts. Port that situation to 3.5, and you actually get to argue about whether that is a gross violation or not.

If you fail your will save you have no option to resist the dominator's orders anyway, so I fail to see how this is relevant.
Because it's the same situation. The prohibition against assoicating with evil creatures is not worded as if the player has a choice to disobey.

And yes, you actually do fall for acts you commit while dominated. The Atonement spell (in both editions, again) makes this clear.
See, this is where that reading thing would come in handy. I said "from" being dominated, as in "you once were dominated and now, because you disobeyed, you are no longer dominated, and must seek atonement," not "for" being dominated. One letter difference, but reading makes it all better.

I never said anything about "falling" with regards to that section. I merely said what the rules say - Paladins will never (knowingly) do it. Again, if you're going to rely on legalese, you have to take everything that goes along with that.
If they do not fall, then they lose nothing, as falling is how they are cut off from the class features. He can even continue to take paladin levels, because the only thing preventing that is A) falling or B) multiclassing, of which he has done neither. So, you have introduced a penalty that is no penalty at all, which still makes the clause dead letter.

[Fax Celestis]

Except it does. In Pathfinder, if a woman asks "Does this dress make me look fat" and the Paladin lies, he has violated the code, so he falls. No ifs, ands, or buts. Port that situation to 3.5, and you actually get to argue about whether that is a gross violation or not.

That's all well and good, but actually playing this way is patently ridiculous.

[Deophaun]

That's all well and good, but actually playing this way is patently ridiculous.
And I've stated as much twice in this thread already. Thank you.

[Psyren]

Except it does. In Pathfinder, if a woman asks "Does this dress make me look fat" and the Paladin lies, he has violated the code, so he falls. No ifs, ands, or buts. Port that situation to 3.5, and you actually get to argue about whether that is a gross violation or not.

You get to argue in both cases actually, since "acting with honor" can be interpreted either as a moment-to-moment check or an overall situation.



Because it's the same situation. The prohibition against assoicating with evil creatures is not worded as if the player has a choice to disobey.

The character has a choice to associate all they like. They simply stop being a paladin if they do.



See, this is where that reading thing would come in handy. I said "from" being dominated, as in "you once were dominated and now, because you disobeyed, you are no longer dominated, and must seek atonement," not "for" being dominated. One letter difference, but reading makes it all better.

I'm not sure you understand how domination works. If you fail your save, there is no disobedience, willing or otherwise.



If they do not fall, then they lose nothing

If you're not a paladin anymore, then continuing to have paladin class levels would violate RAW. Again, this isn't about the "Ex-Paladins" entry.

You could certainly apply that entry to this situation using RAI, but if you bring intent into it then the associates entry will likely cause you to fall normally.

[Deophaun]

You get to argue in both cases actually, since "acting with honor" can be interpreted either as a moment-to-moment check or an overall situation.Acting with honor is defined as not lying. That part is not debatable: it's RAW.

The character has a choice to associate all they like. They simply stop being a paladin if they do.
Except you have quoted nothing that says this. You are making this up.

I'm not sure you understand how domination works. If you fail your save, there is no disobedience, willing or otherwise.
I'm not sure you understand how associating with evil works. If you take a level of Paladin, there is no association, willing or otherwise.

If you're not a paladin anymore, then continuing to have paladin class levels would violate RAW. Again, this isn't about the "Ex-Paladins" entry.
RAW states that "a paladin who gains a level in any class other than paladin may never again raise her paladin level, though she retains all her paladin abilities." What class did the paladin gain a level in when he associated with evil creatures?

[Psyren]

Acting with honor is defined as not lying. That part is not debatable: it's RAW.

Certainly, but is that overall or for every individual statement? Every individual word? If a bone-weary Paladin says "I'm not going to sleep tonight" and plans to sleep tomorrow morning, would she fall before reaching the "tonight?" Even with RAW, you have to draw the line somewhere.



Except you have quoted nothing that says this. You are making this up.

"A paladin will never"
"nor will she"
"may accept only"

If you do those things (or not, in the case of 3), you are not a paladin, by RAW. (Which is the problem with invoking legalese of this nature.)



If you take a level of Paladin, there is no association, willing or otherwise.

Exactly, they cannot coexist. But you can certainly keep being a classless character, so that is what will happen.



RAW states that "a paladin who gains a level in any class other than paladin may never again raise her paladin level, though she retains all her paladin abilities." What class did the paladin gain a level in when he associated with evil creatures?

As above, you don't actually need a class. You can be a Human 1, Elf 1, Minotaur, Pixie etc.

[Deophaun]

Certainly, but is that overall or for every individual statement? Every individual word? If a bone-weary Paladin says "I'm not going to sleep tonight" and plans to sleep tomorrow morning, would she fall before reaching the "tonight?" Even with RAW, you have to draw the line somewhere.
Not lying is not lying. There's really nothing more that can be expanded upon here.


"A paladin will never"
"nor will she"
"may accept only"

If you do those things (or not, in the case of 3), you are not a paladin, by RAW. (Which is the problem with invoking legalese of this nature.)
But you are omitting the language that allows the paladin to choose otherwise.

Exactly, they cannot coexist. But you can certainly keep being a classless character, so that is what will happen.
See, I think you're having problems reading again.

[Psyren]

Not lying is not lying. There's really nothing more that can be expanded upon here.

So he would instantly fall then? How about if he had a coughing fit before the "tonight?"

I mean, you could argue that atonement exists so there's a safety net, but it seems a bit harsh.



But you are omitting the language that allows the paladin to choose otherwise.

There is no such language, unless you count unknowing association, which isn't a choice.



See, I think you're having problems reading again.

Funny, I was just thinking the same about you.

[Lost Demiurge]

The people demanding the toll had no legal right to do so, and the paladin found a nonlethal solution to the problem without robbing the guy, or doing anything beyond temporary inconvenience to him.

She did practice deception, but it was to avoid bloodshed, and against a criminal with bad intentions. So a little penance, maybe.

I'd say the situation was handled in a neutral manner.

And since the GM came in and specified that this is a setting with grey areas, and lawful good gods who aren't total pedants, then I'd say that the paladin's good to go.

[Drachasor]

Maybe they didn't like the word "gross." It's not relevant to a RAW discussion unless you have a definition for it somewhere.

You mean like a dictionary? In the context provided it means "extreme." So in 3.5 only extreme violations result in a fall. In PF any violation results in a fall. This is a massive difference -- for instance, violating part of the code in a small way to serve other parts in a major way results in a fall in PF. And let us remember that the code does indeed have potentially conflicting elements.

If you want to claim "gross" doesn't mean anything because it isn't defined, then you might as well say that "violations" isn't defined either.

While the "associations" text is more flexible in PF, what results in a Fall is not. And frankly, the whole "associations" text is quite unworkable in practice.

I'd note that it does seem to be the case the "associates" text is entirely distinct from the Code of Conduct and hence what results in a fall. Given that it has some bizarre implications* if you counted it as "ex-paladin" material, this is probably a good thing.

*It would seem that if an evil character followed you and your party around despite the party not wanting them around, then that would be against the association text. And note, someone can be evil in terms of always looking out for themselves without ever doing anything that would justify violence towards them or killing them. And unwilling association is still knowingly associating. Kind of a side issue, however.

[Psyren]

You mean like a dictionary?

That's not a RAW source in either system.



If you want to claim "gross" doesn't mean anything because it isn't defined, then you might as well say that "violations" isn't defined either.

For one, sure, you actually could. That's the problem with trying to rely on RAW legalese as Deophaun was doing, to weasel out of any consequence of a paladin knowingly associating with evil. Again, I'm fine with a common sense approach, but throwing out common sense in favor of legalese in one respect throws it out in all of them.

[Firechanter]

Short answer to the original question: No.

Comment: it would take a very d...head DM to have this Paladin fall. One that is bent on screwing over his players.

Elaborate answer:
Lawful Good does not mean Lawful Stupid. You're obliged to obey to _legitimate_ authority. A gang extorting money from people is not legitimate. On the contrary, if anything then you are obliged to put an end to that, if this is within your power at all. The local authorities seem to be unable or unwilling to do so (maybe they get a cut).

Luring the ganger into literally dropping his pants, then knocking him out: I count that as a Good act. Maybe not exactly Lawful, but Good. Because it was the way to solve the situation with minimal bloodshed. The alternative would have been to call him out to direct combat, which he probably wouldn't have survived. Not every crime warrants death.

BTW, the DM obviously wanted you to get into conflict with the gangers - otherwise the toll would have been 1GP or something. He raised the stakes so you would do _something_. Which is totally legitimate, btw. You decided to handle the situation in the least violent way, which is also legitimate.

--

Last not least, I regard this whole "Falling" clause as a very "fluffy" rule. Paladins should not be monitored more strictly, alignment-wise, than any LG Cleric. I mean, Clerics are much more powerful, yet they don't have such a clause in their class description.
IMHO, Good beats Law: if you are in a situation where there is a conflict between being Lawful and being Good, be Good. I'd say that was the situation here.

[Drachasor]

That's not a RAW source in either system.

...

For one, sure, you actually could. That's the problem with trying to rely on RAW legalese as Deophaun was doing, to weasel out of any consequence of a paladin knowingly associating with evil. Again, I'm fine with a common sense approach, but throwing out common sense in favor of legalese in one respect throws it out in all of them.

It's assumed you actually use the english language, you know, the language all the text is written in. Otherwise even defined terms aren't defined.

In any case, do you agree then that in PF it is far easier to fall than in 3.5? Given the change in wording that RAW and RAI seem pretty darn clear.

[Psyren]

It's assumed you actually use the english language, you know, the language all the text is written in. Otherwise even defined terms aren't defined.

I don't like RAWpidity any more than the next guy, but trying to claim paladins get a free pass to associate with evil characters is what leads us down roads like these.



In any case, do you agree then that in PF it is far easier to fall than in 3.5? Given the change in wording that RAW and RAI seem pretty darn clear.

No, I don't. As I said at the beginning, "grossly" is too vague to be meaningful, and the one area that is clear (association with evil characters) is permitted in PF as opposed to 3.5's prohibition. So 3.5 falling is easier.

[Kudaku]

Please note that beer contains alcohol, and alcohol is a poison. Since the paladin soaked the unconscious ganger in poison, she has violated her code and should fall.

RAW jokes aside, the character has a fairly unorthodox approach to solving problems - which I personally find novel and refreshing. I must admit I glossed over parts of this thread so I didn't see it mentioned - is she a 'general' paladin or a paladin of a specific deity? The Golarion deities have some addenda to the paladin code that could cause some conflict with her behavior, but I'm not sure if you've written up similar codes in your custom setting.

[Segev]

I really wish people would stop trying to take "a Paladin will never associate..." and make it into some sort of iron-clad defining RAW that somehow impacts mechanics. It doesn't. Any reading - at all - that tries to treat it as if it does (at least insofar as any of the arguments trying to use it to make a point go) inevitably leads to asinine interpretations. While RAW can do that at times, there are perfectly legitimate ways to read it without going to those foolish extremes. Thus, presented with two valid ways to read the RAW, it makes sense to go with the one that makes sense rather than trying to claim the nonsensical one is the only valid reading.

To drive the point home, the legalese parsing of "A Paladin will never..." being expressed here is predictive. This means that, should a Paladin ever (knowingly) associate with an evil being, the claim in this thread that a Paladin loses his entire class forever is flawed. No, no. It is retroactive: a paladin "will never." Thus, any who ever will are not and never were Paladins.

It retro-actively makes you not have been a paladin, by that reading, and thus all the times you used paladin powers are retroactively undone. Which probably means your party died off a few levels ago. Have fun unsnarling THAT tangle!

[Psyren]

I really wish people would stop trying to take "a Paladin will never associate..." and make it into some sort of iron-clad defining RAW that somehow impacts mechanics.

The alternative is "paladins can chum around with evil characters no problem" and "paladins don't have to care if someone consistently offends their moral code." Your paladin no longer has to stand out in the hallway with his ears plugged while the rest of the party tortures goblins for information - as long as they don't participate themselves, now they can be in the room! Yay!

[Firechanter]

Sarcasm aside, it was iirc in the BoED where it said that Paladins actually, if required by circumstance, _can_ associate with Evil guys and even go adventuring with them; they just should terminate the relationship (and, possibly, the Evil guy) if said alliance is doing more harm than good.

[Psyren]

Sarcasm aside, it was iirc in the BoED where it said that Paladins actually, if required by circumstance, _can_ associate with Evil guys and even go adventuring with them; they just should terminate the relationship (and, possibly, the Evil guy) if said alliance is doing more harm than good.

And for the record, I'm perfectly okay with that - which is why I appreciate PF's clarification being right there in core.

But I will note that BoED says nothing about "adventuring with" evil characters. The example it gives (two evil drow houses in conflict) don't go so far as to say you should actually accompany them anywhere, just that your goals may coincide and there should be limits on the relationship.

[Segev]

The alternative is "paladins can chum around with evil characters no problem" and "paladins don't have to care if someone consistently offends their moral code." Your paladin no longer has to stand out in the hallway with his ears plugged while the rest of the party tortures goblins for information - as long as they don't participate themselves, now they can be in the room! Yay!

No, the alternative is showing some intellectual fortitude, wise judgment, and moral agency sufficient to hold such in line and neither act the bloody-handed murderer nor the prissy fool who values his own comfort over actually doing the right thing.

Admittedly, that's a harsh painting of what can sometimes be the right move (i.e., it's sometimes the right thing to just dissociate oneself from evildoers without first engaging in violence), but the point is that staying with them as long as you CAN keep them in line and the efforts of the group are perpetuating good that could not be done without their aid, it's not something a Paladin -can't- do. May not WANT to, depending, but still. (And "working to reform them" is something that, if you can control their evil so it does not harm the innocent, is definitely "good that couldn't be done otherwise.")

[Oko and Qailee]

Both intent and method matter when it comes to alignment.

Did the Paladin know that the people collecting tolls were evil?
What is the reason for entering the city? If it's overall good then bypassing the toll is necessary.
Can the Paladin afford to pay the toll?

I would say this is borderline evil unless you know they are evil and your overall motive is Good, in which case this would be a chaotic most likely, but not evil (which doesn't require you to fall)

Chaotic? I would say yes
Evil? Arguable. If you knew nothing of the guy you were trying to pass and had no greater good purpose then yes, yes it was. Because that guy may not be evil.

[Oko and Qailee]

Also, other methods of the city need to be looked at. If your first inclination was to beat a guy and frame him as a drunk, well... you probably could have done without that.

As a DM I wouldn't make you fall, but only because I hate making my players feel bad, but if I had to make a down to heart call, yes I think you should fall for the last thing you did, at the least.

[Grayson01]

I normally side on the Idea that Paladins should not be played Lawful Stuiped and that Paladins should have some room. This situation is and handling Is extreamly (Grossly) Un-Paladinly. You lied, you stole, seduced and promised something even in uncertain terms but not deliver, attacked and unarmed person in a defenceless position. This is extremly Un-Paladinly. I hear a lot of statements about this being the least Vilent actions and it might have been but placing the extorters under arrested could have been. Intimadting them out of the way could have been much less violent, and wasn't even tried. No the Paladin should not have payed the "Toll", nor should she have allowed them to continue extorting others, the Paladin should probably not have been the one to be the distratcion. Even if I do love the idea of a Scoundral Paladin it can be played. The Paladin is suppsoed to be the Pargon of Goodly, Noblity, Honor, and Heroism. That is the whole point of the Paladin, now if you want to Refluff the Class I can understand that or heck use one of the Varaints. Paladin of Freedom is a great choic, this would have been a great act for one of those. I am reserved to say that the Paladin should fall in this case. It is tough to play a Paladin by design, you have to really wanna strive to play a character who dose the Hard Right and not the easier choice. The Hard Right in this situation was not the one taken, and despite what quite a few people have said in this post, it was the easier less virtuos (un-Paladinly) path taken.

[Drachasor]

No, I don't. As I said at the beginning, "grossly" is too vague to be meaningful, and the one area that is clear (association with evil characters) is permitted in PF as opposed to 3.5's prohibition. So 3.5 falling is easier.

How the heck is a word that means "extreme" too vague?

[The honest illusionist]

How can you play a paladin if you don't think Thwarting evil is always a good thing?
What if I thwart evil by equipping my undead minions with poisoned weapons so we can more effectively assassinate evil while its sleeping?

A paladin isn't just an exemplar of good. They're exemplars of Lawful Good. They shouldn't be able to rationalize the dishonourable (or worse) means to their good ends like some common chaotic good rogue. The Paladin's Code is all about the means. Paladin's expressly aren't allowed to sink to the level of thugs and scoundrels, even if it's to stop the villains.

That doesn't mean they have to be stupid (cut infinite solutions to a problem in half and you still have infinite solutions). It just means they don't get to do what's easy instead of what's right. I like the idea of a paladin as a player archetype. Sometimes limitations are more interesting than power.

[Drachasor]

What if I thwart evil by equipping my undead minions with poisoned weapons so we can more effectively assassinate evil while its sleeping?

A paladin isn't just an exemplar of good. They're exemplars of Lawful Good. They shouldn't be able to rationalize the dishonourable (or worse) means to their good ends like some common chaotic good rogue. The Paladin's Code is all about the means. Paladin's expressly aren't allowed to sink to the level of thugs and scoundrels, even if it's to stop the villains.

That doesn't mean they have to be stupid (cut infinite solutions to a problem in half and you still have infinite solutions). It just means they don't get to do what's easy instead of what's right. I like the idea of a paladin as a player archetype. Sometimes limitations are more interesting than power.

It seems like you are implying a Paladin couldn't lead a resistance to group that was fighting an evil tyranny.

Edit: Granted, in Pathfinder this is definitely the case unless the DM wisely ignores the changed wording for ex-paladins.

[Psyren]

How the heck is a word that means "extreme" too vague?

It's subjective.


No, the alternative is showing some intellectual fortitude, wise judgment, and moral agency sufficient to hold such in line and neither act the bloody-handed murderer nor the prissy fool who values his own comfort over actually doing the right thing.

That sounds great in theory, but RAW says nothing about "holding them in line." If you can manage to do that, then they're probably less likely to offend your moral code, but paladins are ill-equipped to supervise their evil teammates every hour of the day. Not unless they MoJ all of them anyway.

[Drachasor]

It's subjective.

Well, it certainly has a grey area. But it's not exactly subjective. A white lie certainly wouldn't be an extreme violation by any reasonable standard, for instance.

In general, it's a lot less subjective than many other rules.

Or more to the point, I'd like to see the person that sincerely sees any violation as meaning the same thing as extreme violations of a code. Just because there isn't a hard and fast rule as to what counts as a gross violation does not mean that the word has no meaning.

For example, if you were discussion whether something was an extreme violation or not (e.g. a white lie), then you've very likely already admitted it IS a violation, because gross violations are a subset of violations in general.

Hmm, I can't help but feel the PF Devs encourage this sort of confusion in people. A good portion of their FAQs, which they consider akin to errata, "clarify" rules as meaning something at odds with the actual text.

[Hytheter]

It seems like you are implying a Paladin couldn't lead a resistance to group that was fighting an evil tyranny

According to BoED, he shouldn't. He always respects legitimate authority, and should strive to change the system from within using diplomatic means.

"In an evil culture or one that tolerates evil, lawful good characters are in a difficult situation. On the one hand, they abhor evil and cannot stand to see it institutionalized. On the other hand, they believe in legitimate authority and will not overthrow a kingdom because of evil practices within it. Lawful good characters usually try to work to change flawed social structures from within, using whatever political power is available to them rather than toppling those structures by force."

[Oko and Qailee]

How can you play a paladin if you don't think Thwarting evil is always a good thing?.

Because, redeeming an evil doer is a legit thing.

It is an evil act to be like "oh look at this person aligned as evil, I'm going to just kill them", when in fact they were evil in a school yard bully sense and could have been redeemed.

You don't have to be stupid good about it, but mercy and redemeption are indeed good things as defined by D&D

[Oko and Qailee]

According to BoED, he shouldn't. He always respects legitimate authority, and should strive to change the system from within using diplomatic means.

"In an evil culture or one that tolerates evil, lawful good characters are in a difficult situation. On the one hand, they abhor evil and cannot stand to see it institutionalized. On the other hand, they believe in legitimate authority and will not overthrow a kingdom because of evil practices within it. Lawful good characters usually try to work to change flawed social structures from within, using whatever political power is available to them rather than toppling those structures by force."

It says "they usually try to..." not "they always"

If there is no way to fix the system the solution is to make a new better system. A chaotic person only chooses to overthrow the current one, a lawful one would overthrow it and then establish a new system.

[Kyberwulf]

Wow, thwarting evil doesn't have to mean you kill them. It just means you stop their plan. You can go about this however you want. Some ways a paladin can. Some can't. In the end though, thwarting evil is always good.

You could thwart evil by Undead monsters equipped with Poisoned weapons, and take them in their sleep. That's fine and dandy. It just isn't the paladin. That is a Gross exaggeration of what this paladin did. Most people are in agreement that she should do some penance for her actions. As they wheren't the shining example of Paladinhood.

[Drake2009]

.... Youve got to be kidding me. She falls! she tried to seduce him doesnt matter if she was actually going to do it or just clock him on the head. No paladin could do that and not fall. At least thats what my dm would probobly say.

[The honest illusionist]

Wow, thwarting evil doesn't have to mean you kill them. It just means you stop their plan. You can go about this however you want. Some ways a paladin can. Some can't. In the end though, thwarting evil is always good.

You could thwart evil by Undead monsters equipped with Poisoned weapons, and take them in their sleep. That's fine and dandy. It just isn't the paladin. That is a Gross exaggeration of what this paladin did. Most people are in agreement that she should do some penance for her actions. As they wheren't the shining example of Paladinhood.
Maybe that's because what I described is not what that particular paladin did? I was responding to the logic of 'the ends justify the means' for paladins, not the OP's question directly. That said, while the token case is a little different, the same type of issue still applies: "I was thwarting evil-doers" is not a catch-all excuse for violating the Paladin's Code. The Paladin's Code is a specific set of rules, which puts conduct ahead of getting the job done. A paladin gets the job done by being a paragon.

[Fax Celestis]

.... Youve got to be kidding me. She falls! she tried to seduce him doesnt matter if she was actually going to do it or just clock him on the head. No paladin could do that and not fall. At least thats what my dm would probobly say.

Please tell me where in the paladin's code it says anything about chastity or abstinence.

[Hytheter]

Maybe that's because what I described is not what that particular paladin did? I was responding to the logic of 'the ends justify the means' for paladins, not the OP's question directly. That said, while the token case is a little different, the same type of issue still applies: "I was thwarting evil-doers" is not a catch-all excuse for violating the Paladin's Code. The Paladin's Code is a specific set of rules, which puts conduct ahead of getting the job done. A paladin gets the job done by being a paragon.

Yeah, if you wanna play an "end justfies the means" Paladin, take a looks at Grey Guard.

[The honest illusionist]

It seems like you are implying a Paladin couldn't lead a resistance to group that was fighting an evil tyranny.

Edit: Granted, in Pathfinder this is definitely the case unless the DM wisely ignores the changed wording for ex-paladins.
I'm not sure if you're implying that I think paladins can't be tactical, or they can't disobey unjust 'lawful' societies. In the second case, lawful doesn't mean that Paladins must accept any form of rules or authority they encounter. The paladin code doesn't say anything about accepting all authority, and it's not what being lawful good means. Lawful Good creatures see the means as an end in itself. Their ethics are based on the virtue their actions embody, not neutral good's intent or the chaotic good's results.

A paladin would have no compulsion to follow a simple 'law' that says all who enter a city must kill innocent prisoners. If they just followed such a law to blend in to a Lawful Evil society, it would be a chaotic action at best. (Even if it was for a good cause and the prisoners would surely be executed by someone else, because the ends don't justify the means to a paladin.) A lawful philosophy has nothing to do with a nation's laws, it's just a similar word.

For the first case, Paladins can be tactical without being dishonourable. Take Miko, usually an example of how not to play a Paladin: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0215.html

What does she do? After sneaking into an ogre camp, she wakes all the enemies up, allows them to arm themselves, and then asks them if they are fully prepared to fight. And then what? She orders the casters to nuke the general area as she leaps out of the way.

While paladins don't do is poison their weapons, kill helpless enemies, or murder them in their sleep, assassination is not the only method of resistance. Paladins, however, can choose their encounters wisely, they can rely on an opponent's over confidence, they can rally support, and if all else fails, they can retreat.

[Coidzor]

When you have to ask yourself "Does this make me fall?" 9 times out of 10 you should instead ask "Should this be a warning or an outright fall?"

Edit:

I would love to be this kind of Paladin. It sounds so... freeing.

I'd say it's more like 5/10 times that, 2/10 times "Should I even be stopping to consider falling here?" another 2/10 times "Maybe I should get more information on the situation?" and then the last time "Is the DM the kind of person who'd be playing head games with me here or am I just making this more complicated than it needs to be?"

I always saw the essence of doing Paladinhood proper as knowing what was right and strongly cleaving to it. Not just an adventurer or even a hero, but a Hero. Falling is simply hanging up one's white hat, whether it's to put on a black one instead or to go hatless for the rest of one's days. I always feel like there's way too much emphasis put on the code and not enough on being a hero.


Which is the entire point of his statement. In 3.5, you only fell if you "grossly" violated the code, which is a point of contention. In Pathfinder, you fall if you violate the code. Period. There is no vagueness.

For those following along at home, this is probably a bug rather than a feature, just so we're clear.


Then please explain why the wording between 3.5 and Pathfinder is different. You would have noticed this had you read the entries, and read what is posted.

Sean K. Reynolds is my go-to excuse to explain apparent differences in design philosophy, but he's probably not the one to thank for that one, I'll admit. It seems more likely that it was merely forgotten or was left out due to being viewed as too confusing, or, what I find to be most likely, because the person editing that section didn't like words that they didn't understand. But I'm a rather uncharitable bastard in that regard, so we should probably disregard that last one. :smallamused:


Except it does. In Pathfinder, if a woman asks "Does this dress make me look fat" and the Paladin lies, he has violated the code, so he falls. No ifs, ands, or buts. Port that situation to 3.5, and you actually get to argue about whether that is a gross violation or not.

Trick question. She's a succubus and she energy drains him. (http://spoonyexperiment.com/2012/11/25/counter-monkey-beware-the-woman-for-they-come-from-hell/)


According to BoED, he shouldn't. He always respects legitimate authority, and should strive to change the system from within using diplomatic means.

Problem there being what is legitimate authority and cue hours and hours of discussions.


You could thwart evil by Undead monsters equipped with Poisoned weapons, and take them in their sleep. That's fine and dandy. It just isn't the paladin. That is a Gross exaggeration of what this paladin did. Most people are in agreement that she should do some penance for her actions. As they wheren't the shining example of Paladinhood.

And most people would be wrong because they're looking at the wrong issue here. Penance isn't the answer, the player figuring out how they actually want to play the character so they stop making themselves feel conflicted is the answer.


.... Youve got to be kidding me. She falls! she tried to seduce him doesnt matter if she was actually going to do it or just clock him on the head. No paladin could do that and not fall. At least thats what my dm would probobly say.

You may find this of interest. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy_mIEnnlF4)