Paladins and Vampires

[AlanBruce]

Greetings! I do hope this does not turn into an alignment thread. ideally, just a quick response on maybe a mechanics issue.

The party's paladin/cleric has a long and very rich backstory. In it, this character traveled through the world before the campaign began and had many teachers. In one of his travels and during his stay at a fiefdom that followed Heiroineous, the paladin met and fell in love with the Lord's daughter.

His affections were returned, but, before getting married, she left with her sister and a huge army to fight an undead infestation far away in the mountains.

The paladin left the fiefdom and continued his training for a few more years and the campaign began officialy.

Cue in several months later in game and the party finds themselves now in the same undead infested valley that the paladin's fiancee marched in years ago.

Her armies have been turned to all manner of undead- skeletons, zombies, shadows, wraiths- you name it.

The party has been smiting and blasting their way through the valley until they came upon the paladin's fiancee.

Now a vampire lord.

The party was apprehensive at first, but the paladin asked for weapons to be sheathed and they both had a civilized conversation. Promises to free her one day and all that jazz.

As a sign of help, the paladin cut his palm and allowed her to feed, leaving him at 1 Con (the party's bard had a wand of restoration).

The vampire, satisfied with feeding, allowed them to pass through her domain (they are tracking the source of the undead infestation). The role playing between paladin and fallen fiancee was great and I found his "sacrifice", so to speak to be very noble- even if a simple wand healed it all up.

Now, as much as I enjoyed that, mechanically, would there be any consequences? I believe paladins are supposed to "destroy all evil". A vampire is not only evil, but an undead, something paladins and good clerics usually target first.

How would you go about this? Stripping powers for this sound s tad unfair, but then there is that infamous paladin code.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

[hamishspence]

I believe paladins are supposed to "destroy all evil".

All the code says is "punish those who harm or threaten innocents".

And sometimes it may not be practicable at that moment.

[The Trickster]

Meh. I suppose it depends on her personality now. Is she actually, irredeemably evil? Is she planning mass slaughter?

If letting her feed off of him keeps her from biting other people, then I would say that his act may be, in a way, good.

[Cikomyr]

Since the Vampire Lady is IN the cursed valley already, which apparently has already fallen to the Undeath Curse, the Paladin is not allowing any innocent to be put in danger - as far as he knows. Maybe the Vampire Lady lied to him and is going to go butcher innocents, but he doesn't know that.

the Paladin's mission is to go destroy the root of the evil, hoping that it will free his Lady (and maybe others) from the curse. That's perfectly acceptable.

If there was no "outside curse" that may allow the liberation of the Lady, then the Paladin should have purged her out of the world.

If the Lady Vampire was leading an offensive against uncursed land, then it would have been the Paladin's duty to stop her.


Whether or not you think the Lady was lying to her ex-fiance or not, I do not think there is an argument for putting doubt in the Paladin's morality here. Maybe it was the smart thing to do (avoiding to weaken the party in a fight that could be avoided), maybe it was the stupid thing to do (leaving potential enemies active who may alert the Bad Guys to your presence), but it wasn't morally WRONG

[BWR]

Difficult. Depends a lot on what sort of god he has and what sort of vows the paladin made. In most cases I would inflict an immediate loss of paladin abilities requiring an Atonement: I'm a bit nice when it comes to paladins (and clerics) - they can fairly easily lose their powers for some failure, but can usually get them back easily enough with an Atonement and some sort of quest or sacrifice. If the god and vows are really explicit - like 'kill all undead ASAP - not necessarily on sight (no need to be actually suicidal for no good reason)', this would be an immediate fallen paladin, requiring more than an Atonement to make up for it.
If the god and vows are a bit more forgiving, I can accept that the paladin is putting his ex-fiancee vampire on hold while he takes care of the business he's already engaged in. Taking her on might be beyond the party's powers right now and they already have pressing engagements. But at some point, sooner rather than later, he will have to come back and destroy her. Again, depending on the vows he may not have to explicitly warn her that he's going to, but neither should he lie if asked.

As for vows to free her...unless he can get hold of a Wish or Miracle, he must destroy her first, and he should do that before securing a means of Resurrecting her.

[holywhippet]

Code of Conduct

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Associates

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


By RAW a vampire is always some kind of evil. Being a vampire lord means the fiancee is able to keep their lawful or chaotic tendencies so there is that at least.

On the other hand, the rules says a paladin should help those in need and the fiancee would qualify.

I suppose the question is, how do you regard the vampire compared to the original being? Is the original person still there but now with a different world view or tendencies or is their original personality gone? The rules for vampire lords keeping their lawful or chaotic aspect suggests the former.

[Cikomyr]

2 factors:

- There is a chance to free her from the curse without destroying her. "The Source of Evil"
- There is no indication that she is actively a danger to living beings

[HaikenEdge]

By RAW a vampire is always some kind of evil. Being a vampire lord means the fiancee is able to keep their lawful or chaotic tendencies so there is that at least.

On the other hand, the rules says a paladin should help those in need and the fiancee would qualify.

I suppose the question is, how do you regard the vampire compared to the original being? Is the original person still there but now with a different world view or tendencies or is their original personality gone? The rules for vampire lords keeping their lawful or chaotic aspect suggests the former.

I think Libris Mortis goes more into this and, if I recall correctly, establishes that the morality of vampires is really up to the individual vampire.

[hamishspence]

Being a vampire lord means the fiancee is able to keep their lawful or chaotic tendencies so there is that at least.

3.5 ordinary vampires keep their lawful or chaotic tendencies- it's 3.0 that had standard vampires be CE. The Vampire Lord is a 3.0 template.

[AlanBruce]

Difficult. Depends a lot on what sort of god he has and what sort of vows the paladin made.

The player states his paladin "follows all the gods" (except for the evil ones, obviously), although his domains as cleric are those of Cuthbert, having a few levels in church inquisitor.


I suppose the question is, how do you regard the vampire compared to the original being? Is the original person still there but now with a different world view or tendencies or is their original personality gone? The rules for vampire lords keeping their lawful or chaotic aspect suggests the former.

She was good prior to transformation. Now, she is NE, but recognizes people and, as explained earlier, can maintain peaceful contact with the living.


Since the Vampire Lady is IN the cursed valley already, which apparently has already fallen to the Undeath Curse, the Paladin is not allowing any innocent to be put in danger - as far as he knows. Maybe the Vampire Lady lied to him and is going to go butcher innocents, but he doesn't know that.

She is in fact in the valley and has not left it since she marched in with her army.

The closest she's been to leaving the valley was when the source of evil in that place asked her and her sister to send troops to a nearby trading post to kidnap an npc the party was traveling with.

[Kelb_Panthera]

There's no mechanical issue here.

Paladins not only needn't attack any evil creature on sight, they're actively discouraged from that behavior by the guidelines outlined in BoED. Indeed, the line that says they must "punish those who harm or threaten innocents" doesn't actually call for them to destroy anything. Punishment can be meted out in a number of non-lethal ways; political censure, fines, imprisonment, banishment, geas, mark of justice, etc.

[shylocke]

Book of exalted deeds talks of this. The example they used was a paladin finding to succubus Lesbos that just wanted to be left alone. Kill because they are demons or leave because they are not bothering anyone. Depends on paladin and deity but i would say leave them be. As for a consequence, some religious/crusader types might consider your paladin tainted.

[Vhaidara]

I'm going to be blunt here. If I were the paladin ad you had me fall for that, i would stand up, gather my things, and leave, probably never to return.

You have found a player who can roleplay a paladin properly. That man deserves bonus experience. For all of his characters.

[weckar]

If he was going to fall, it should have happened immediately.

I think the more pressing concern, because he gave blood willingly, is whether she envenomed him.

[HaikenEdge]

I'm going to be blunt here. If I were the paladin ad you had me fall for that, i would stand up, gather my things, and leave, probably never to return.

You have found a player who can roleplay a paladin properly. That man deserves bonus experience. For all of his characters.

If this forum had a reputation system, I'd be pos repping this hard. The Paladin did the right thing, so reward him, not punish him. If you want Paladins to be Lawful-Stupid-Destroy-All-That-Ping-Evil, you probably should have told the player that before hand, because what the player did was the logical and reasonable thing to do.

[AlanBruce]

I'm going to be blunt here. If I were the paladin ad you had me fall for that, i would stand up, gather my things, and leave, probably never to return.

You have found a player who can roleplay a paladin properly. That man deserves bonus experience. For all of his characters.

I never had his paladin fall. In fact, if you read my original post, you'll see that I found this all very enjoyable from a RP perspective.

I was, however, curious about what penalties- if any- would result from this since I have never had a player use a paladin that way.

[Cikomyr]

I never had his paladin fall. In fact, if you read my original post, you'll see that I found this all very enjoyable from a RP perspective.

I was, however, curious about what penalties- if any- would result from this since I have never had a player use a paladin that way.

Penalties should be in-story, is all. No need to go all mechanics on his ass.

You wanna have a very cheesy, but still satisfying plot twists?


Have the Vampire Lady be dominated again by the Big Bad, so she reveals the arrival of the Paladin and the Party. Basically, make it that she is compelled by the Dark Powers to sell out her lover.

Either the paladin should feel personally betrayed, or the rest of the party should find him stupid.

But then, near the final showdown, somehow have the (sanctified, and willingly given) paladin blood inside the Vampire Lady allow her to reject domination by her master and join up to give everybody a chance to win this thing. Proof that the Paladin's trust in love and redemption was the last star of hope.

[Ionbound]

On the note of cheesy, I've got a very nasty angst plot twist.

So, your paladin and co. go off, and kill whatever nonsense is causing this plague of undeath. This, not to tell you how your MacGuffins should work, but for the purposes of this twist, kills off all the undead in the valley except for the Paladin's fiancee, and they go off, and do happy good-guy paladin-y things. For a few days, anyways. Then, it's revealed that cutting off the source of evil did just that, prevent it from spreading any further. Everything else that happened was an elaborate ruse fiancee, who, when she tasted the Paladin's blood was reminded of how much she loved him, and, when he left, came up with this brilliant plan to make him think she had been restored to humanity, and then "share the love" so to speak.

[Yogibear41]

Screw the code, that's his lady. If Paladins get their juice from a god in your world he can just find another if that god cuts him off, if they get their juice from "all that is good and blah blah blah I don't see how you can beat that kinda of true love when it comes to goodness"

[HaikenEdge]

Since we're all giving them out, I've got my own interesting plot idea:

Let's say the party goes and defeats the big bad and uses the magic McGuffin. However, rather than restoring the fiancee to humanity, have it instead just give her sunlight immunity and restore her alignment, so that she can travel with her best beloved, but still has most of her undead traits, including her insatiable craving for negative levels and diet dependency on blood. I find this interesting because the Paladin will need to find ways to help his fiancee control her addiction (insatiable craving) and kept her fed (diet dependency), all while ensuring no innocents are hurt.

[weckar]

Thinking about it... if the Paladin doesn't know what the eventual solution will do to his Lady, he may have missed a perfectly good mercy kill there. As a direct consequence, he may cause suffering to someone who he, directly or indirectly, has taken as a ward....

Which no doubt counts as an evil act, by the way, even if the person in question is undead.

[Isamu Dyson]

Screw the code, that's his lady. If Paladins get their juice from a god in your world he can just find another if that god cuts him off, if they get their juice from "all that is good and blah blah blah I don't see how you can beat that kinda of true love when it comes to goodness"

Love does not necessarily equal good.

[Cikomyr]

Thinking about it... if the Paladin doesn't know what the eventual solution will do to his Lady, he may have missed a perfectly good mercy kill there. As a direct consequence, he may cause suffering to someone who he, directly or indirectly, has taken as a ward....

Which no doubt counts as an evil act, by the way, even if the person in question is undead.

Disagreed entirely.

Having a character, especially a PALADIN of all people, keeping hope is an important part of any good story.

Otherwise, everybody just becomes the grizzled cynical veterans. And while that archetype is fun, it's only is moderate amount of dosage.

[weckar]

I'm not against keeping hope. I'm just saying the alignment conflict may come later: when the solution has to be enacted.

[Red Fel]

A lot of people seem aware of the Paladin's role as a sword of faith. If people forget, there's a nice little class ability called "Smite Evil" there to remind them.

But I'm always pleased to see when someone remembers the other aspect of the Paladin, the shield. The protector. The healer. The merciful and kind. It warms the charred pits of my empty, blackened, villainous heart when a player is able to take a Paladin and show mercy, warmth, compassion, and - dare I say - humanity.

The only consequences to the Paladin should be plot-related - that is, the natural consequences of leaving a known vampire alive. There may be none, there may be some; there may be damage, to life or reputation; or there may simply be a rekindled hope amongst the undead. I can see no justification for this Paladin to suffer any consequence in terms of his faith, his code, or his powers.

The player deserves a cookie; the Paladin deserves a hug.

[Vogonjeltz]

I think Libris Mortis goes more into this and, if I recall correctly, establishes that the morality of vampires is really up to the individual vampire.

This is so, the book of exalted deeds also says paladins are ok to associate with evil aligned for purposes of redeeming them

[Vedhin]

A lot of people seem aware of the Paladin's role as a sword of faith. If people forget, there's a nice little class ability called "Smite Evil" there to remind them.

But I'm always pleased to see when someone remembers the other aspect of the Paladin, the shield. The protector. The healer. The merciful and kind. It warms the charred pits of my empty, blackened, villainous heart when a player is able to take a Paladin and show mercy, warmth, compassion, and - dare I say - humanity.

The only consequences to the Paladin should be plot-related - that is, the natural consequences of leaving a known vampire alive. There may be none, there may be some; there may be damage, to life or reputation; or there may simply be a rekindled hope amongst the undead. I can see no justification for this Paladin to suffer any consequence in terms of his faith, his code, or his powers.

The player deserves a cookie; the Paladin deserves a hug.

What this quote says, basically. I am 100% behind anyone that plays alignments intelligently. If it's a Paladin, Chaotic Neutral, or Chaotic Evil, I am 137% behind them.



Also, may I sig the 2nd paragraph? Possibly with the purple bit edited.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Thinking about it... if the Paladin doesn't know what the eventual solution will do to his Lady, he may have missed a perfectly good mercy kill there. As a direct consequence, he may cause suffering to someone who he, directly or indirectly, has taken as a ward....

Which no doubt counts as an evil act, by the way, even if the person in question is undead.

You can't hold the paladin responsible for the actions of creatures he doesn't have control over. If his former lover turned vampire eats a mess of people it's on her, not the paladin for choosing not to kill her.

Alignment -can't- work that way because it would mean that -every- action is evil at some point as the consequences of that action play out over the infinity of time. Would you really have the paladin fall 3 weeks later when he's nowhere near the event because he, potentially, could've prevented it? How about that rat that he didn't kill when he was nine, is he responsible for every commoner that dies of filth fever because his pet rat contracted the disease after he had to let it go?

A creature is only responsible for -his own- actions. Actions taken by others in response to his are the responsibility of those creatures.

[Grayson01]

You can't hold the paladin responsible for the actions of creatures he doesn't have control over. If his former lover turned vampire eats a mess of people it's on her, not the paladin for choosing not to kill her.

Alignment -can't- work that way because it would mean that -every- action is evil at some point as the consequences of that action play out over the infinity of time. Would you really have the paladin fall 3 weeks later when he's nowhere near the event because he, potentially, could've prevented it? How about that rat that he didn't kill when he was nine, is he responsible for every commoner that dies of filth fever because his pet rat contracted the disease after he had to let it go?

A creature is only responsible for -his own- actions. Actions taken by others in response to his are the responsibility of those creatures.

There are some times when the Paladins in actions or actions can contribute to an evil act being done by someone else thathe would share blame in and there for should fall. Such as Letting a known Murder go free (doesn't have to kill him, but must bring him to justice). There are also other times that A Paladin is responisble for the actions of another that would cause him to fall. The examples you gave are pretty frindge cases and are not ones a paladin would fall for, but saying that a Paladin can never violate his code because of the actions of another is a bit as extream.

As to the OP this is a great example of a Paladin being played right, Bonus RP XP in buckets!

[AlanBruce]

Thank you all very much for the responses.

How I even considered goping mechanical here is beyond me.

Good thing that didn't happen.

The source of this undead infestation is an accident, so to speak.

It's a child, who in reality is the negative energy plane made flesh. He took over a valley of stone giants, in time, zombified them all and made the nearby gnome outpost leave in fear.

Cue in the paladin's beloved and hers sister- a warrior who trained alongside the paladin and is now a vampire lord as well, crusading into the valley.

The rest is already known.

At this point, the paladin and the party have met up with the child and challenged him to a duel- the party vs. his finest- an undead cabal of nerull cultists, the paladin's fiancee's wizard circle (she's a sorceress), and her sister's squad of death knights.

Not all at once, of course. Fights are 1 vs. 1 or a 2 on 2, but the paladin has asked for his fiancee, sister, and the npc cleric they went to rescue to be allowed to leave.

Whether they'll succeed..remains to be seen.

[Segev]

Honestly? Even if her alignment never shifted back to Good, if her association with the Paladin had her refraining from evil for his sake, and restricting her feeding to volunteers (not dominated/charmed ones, either), he could potentially get away with (gasp) associating with her on a long-term basis.

Of course, she might also count as slipping towards TN at that point, if she's going to refrain from evil so much.

[Kelb_Panthera]

There are some times when the Paladins in actions or actions can contribute to an evil act being done by someone else thathe would share blame in and there for should fall. Such as Letting a known Murder go free (doesn't have to kill him, but must bring him to justice). There are also other times that A Paladin is responisble for the actions of another that would cause him to fall. The examples you gave are pretty frindge cases and are not ones a paladin would fall for, but saying that a Paladin can never violate his code because of the actions of another is a bit as extream.

Um.... why would a paladin, whose purpose is to punish evildoers, choose to let a known murderer go in the first place? Without some mitigating circumstance that's nonsensical. If holding him long enough to turn him over to an authority is impossible (or unnecessary because of a death warrant or the like) and the murderer doesn't have a bargaining chip of some sort, the paladin -should- kill him unless he's going to try to redeem him.

If he allows the murderer to go, after defeating him, to show that strength need not abandon mercy, how is that evil? Especially if it was his intent to seek that person out later for a more thorough redemption attempt?

Hell, even if he -doesn't- intend to seek him out, if he first extracted a promise from the murderer that he would never again harm an intelligent creature and failed the subsequent sense motive when the murderer makes that false promies, how can you call it evil to show mercy? Naive, certainly. Evil, definitely not.

[weckar]

You can't hold the paladin responsible for the actions of creatures he doesn't have control over. If his former lover turned vampire eats a mess of people it's on her, not the paladin for choosing not to kill her.

Alignment -can't- work that way because it would mean that -every- action is evil at some point as the consequences of that action play out over the infinity of time. Would you really have the paladin fall 3 weeks later when he's nowhere near the event because he, potentially, could've prevented it? How about that rat that he didn't kill when he was nine, is he responsible for every commoner that dies of filth fever because his pet rat contracted the disease after he had to let it go?

A creature is only responsible for -his own- actions. Actions taken by others in response to his are the responsibility of those creatures.

Nor did I imply that. The ward in danger was in fact the vampire, not her victims. By choosing to not kill her, and in fact feeding her, he is effectively choosing to protect her. This is even more strongly enforced by their history and therefore his likely motivations. So, if it comes to a time where the undead in the valley will be destroyed by HIS actions (including her) that's just part of being a Paladin. An unfortunate part, but so be it. When that destruction would include major SUFFERING however, there is no excuse to a Paladin who had the opportunity to make a quick kill earlier, especially on an effective ward.

[Grayson01]

Um.... why would a paladin, whose purpose is to punish evildoers, choose to let a known murderer go in the first place? Without some mitigating circumstance that's nonsensical. If holding him long enough to turn him over to an authority is impossible (or unnecessary because of a death warrant or the like) and the murderer doesn't have a bargaining chip of some sort, the paladin -should- kill him unless he's going to try to redeem him.

If he allows the murderer to go, after defeating him, to show that strength need not abandon mercy, how is that evil? Especially if it was his intent to seek that person out later for a more thorough redemption attempt?

Hell, even if he -doesn't- intend to seek him out, if he first extracted a promise from the murderer that he would never again harm an intelligent creature and failed the subsequent sense motive when the murderer makes that false promies, how can you call it evil to show mercy? Naive, certainly. Evil, definitely not.

Depending on the circumstances it can be very evil and that was one example. And fine here is another example with said murderer, the Murderer is about to kill an evil King who is helpless and attempting to give up or yelling for help, the Paladin is there see's this but decides they are both evil and leaves the Murderer to kill the Evil King. Now according to your argument a Paladin is never repsonible for someone else's actions, so he has not violted his code. Where this is a clear case that the actions of another when paired with the Paladins inactions would cause him to violate his code and fall.

Edit: Also to your statement of nonsensical: it is not nonsensical he has free will and he slipped up, the murderer is the Paladins relative or someone he cares about so the Paladin choses to let the murderer go despite the fact that the murderer will kill again, holding to love of family over his vow. The Paladin is then responible for evil the Murderer does.

[Vhaidara]

I never had his paladin fall. In fact, if you read my original post, you'll see that I found this all very enjoyable from a RP perspective.

I was, however, curious about what penalties- if any- would result from this since I have never had a player use a paladin that way.

I wasn't saying you were, but since you were asking for mechanical consequences, I was letting you know how I would react if you did have him fall.

As it stands, you (http://www.iwu.edu/wellness/specialevents/images/cookies.jpeg) deserve (http://www.coldstonecreamery.com/assets/img/products/cookies/sandwiches-perfectduet.jpg) these (http://data1.whicdn.com/images/73100649/large.gif).

[Yogibear41]

Love does not necessarily equal good.

Love Concerns all even the Paladins Code!! :smallcool:

[Red Fel]

Also, may I sig the 2nd paragraph? Possibly with the purple bit edited.

With my profane blessings.

And OP, I'm glad you didn't impose any mechanical consequences. I think that, whether this ends in heartbreak or heartwarming, both you and your Paladin-player have done an exceptional job here.

[Ionbound]

I have refined my previous plot twist with the new information about the MacGuffin, as well as some additional thought.

Act 1: Evil Has Fallen

The evil-nega-kid thing is defeated by the Paladin and his friends, and, now that the huge source of negative energy is gone, the valley starts turning back to normal. That said, since they *probably* can't straight up destroy the negative energy plane just by killing this thing, the undead in the valley are still undead. Cue the ever so helpful vampire lords, who, now that they're free of the compulsion to do evil by having a massive source of Negative Energy right next to them, want to be cured, and in the meanwhile help the party kill off the rest of the undead in the valley. If your players don't freak out at this and kill 'n' raise them right then, this leads into act 2.

Act 2: No Cure For The Vampire Blues

After being really helpful for a while, and hopefully assuaging any doubts the party has about these two not being completely genuine about their intentions, the group heads back to the city, hoping to find a cleric powerful enough to cast Resurrection and save the sisters. That night, however, the fiancee heads up to the Paladin's room, and asks for one more drink, so that she doesn't feel tempted to go out and hunt for innocents before they can cure her. She maybe gets a little sensual here (up to GM and player choice), and "forgets" to stop drinking. So, either A. Paladin pushes her off, at which point she apologizes, and then comes back later that night to finish the job, or B. Paladin doesn't push her off, and gets drained completely. No matter if the paladin gets vamped or if he wakes up in scenario A before she can get that last point or so of Con drain, she should explain to him that she is a worshiper of Evening Glory (Libris Mortis p. 17), and that after she lost him once by becoming a vampire, she was distraught, and then finding him again when he offered his hand to her made her realize that the only way to ensure she'd never lose him again is to make him immortal with her. Where things go from here are up to the players.

Potential Problems:
This does rely on your players behaving in a certain way, which is never guaranteed, but the way you've characterized the party so far makes me feel like this has a pretty decent chance of success.

Your Paladin's player may not appreciate his character coming to close to such a massive change. If you do implement this in your campaign, talk with the Player OOC, and find out what he's okay with.

And as for the on-topic, OP, yeah, you did the right thing. A player should never be punished mechanically for RPing their character. The RP might have consequences (see above), but they shouldn't be punished.

[Cikomyr]

Yhea. Ultimately, I believe what happens, how it turns out, etc... depends heavily on what you want to do in the future with the Vampire Lady.

If she was just this one-shot plot device, have her being freed from the curse when the NegKid gets it.

If you want her to stick around, have her remain curse and the Paladin is trying to find a way to free her. You'll have something similar to "dating catwoman (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DatingCatwoman)".

[Raven777]

Love > Paladin Code. Always.

[weckar]

Love > Paladin Code > Hypocratic Oath > Family > Religion > Profit

[Theomniadept]

Keep in mind that he can always swear an oath to help her later.

Essentially for him to keep her he would need to kill and resurrect her, which would cost some money but it would rid her of the vampire problem.

[HaikenEdge]

Keep in mind that he can always swear an oath to help her later.

Essentially for him to keep her he would need to kill and resurrect her, which would cost some money but it would rid her of the vampire problem.

That'd only work if the vampire is willing; any resurrection requires a willing target, and if the vampire feels the paladin killing her was a sign he didn't truly love her, there may be a reason why she doesn't want to return.

[Cikomyr]

Like I said, since her turning Vampy has been done through dubious means rather than the traditional "an Elder Vampire turned her", there's no reason why the GM couldn't accept her turning back one Neggy Kid has been defeated. Unless he wants the next story to actually be about turning her back.

[Raven777]

Why exactly does she need to be turned back, anyway?

[Cikomyr]

Why exactly does she need to be turned back, anyway?

Vampirism is a curse
Plus, he loves her. Is that not reason enough?

[MonochromeTiger]

Vampirism is a curse
Plus, he loves her. Is that not reason enough?

I thought vampirism was classified as a disease and just CONSIDERED a curse ("the curse of undeath" and other whiny ways of talking about the differently living.) but yeah good aligned characters usually don't get friendly with undead, which often leads to the options being re-kill or resurrect.

[Cikomyr]

I thought vampirism was classified as a disease and just CONSIDERED a curse ("the curse of undeath" and other whiny ways of talking about the differently living.) but yeah good aligned characters usually don't get friendly with undead, which often leads to the options being re-kill or resurrect.

It's no disease in the D&D world. Maybe in the Bladeverse, but not D&D.

[MonochromeTiger]

It's no disease in the D&D world. Maybe in the Bladeverse, but not D&D.

ah, my bad I'm going off half remembered campaigns and doing a marathon of elder scrolls games with friends.

[Cikomyr]

ah, my bad I'm going off half remembered campaigns and doing a marathon of elder scrolls games with friends.

Right. It's also a disease in the Elder Scrolls game.

Actually, the disease CAUSES Vampirism. Once vampirism is upon you, you can't be cured anymore

[BrokenChord]

Depending on the circumstances it can be very evil and that was one example. And fine here is another example with said murderer, the Murderer is about to kill an evil King who is helpless and attempting to give up or yelling for help, the Paladin is there see's this but decides they are both evil and leaves the Murderer to kill the Evil King. Now according to your argument a Paladin is never repsonible for someone else's actions, so he has not violted his code. Where this is a clear case that the actions of another when paired with the Paladins inactions would cause him to violate his code and fall.

Edit: Also to your statement of nonsensical: it is not nonsensical he has free will and he slipped up, the murderer is the Paladins relative or someone he cares about so the Paladin choses to let the murderer go despite the fact that the murderer will kill again, holding to love of family over his vow. The Paladin is then responible for evil the Murderer does.

This is a false equivalence. Choosing not to act is still making the choice. I'll leave the question of whether or not Paladins should save Evil people from each other out of this for now, as it's irrelevant to the point I'm making. In the vampire example, he's making the logical assertion that she won't hurt anyone while he's gone, and regardless of any intellectual argument, no matter how stupid or naive his reason for believing her, if he does, he is not responsible for her actions which he can't do anything about. This is somewhat faulty logic; being informationally wrong is not the same as being morally wrong.

The Paladin in the room is making a direct decision to not protect a man who he is actively aware of asking for help. I'll leave the morality of this decision in the air.

[Raven777]

Vampirism is a curse
Plus, he loves her. Is that not reason enough?

Doesn't she, you know, get a say in this? Because... see every land, hear every song, read every book, watch every play. It is the living who are dying, and the undead who truly live. And that is awesome (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LivingForeverIsAwesome).

[Oko and Qailee]

Now, as much as I enjoyed that, mechanically, would there be any consequences? I believe paladins are supposed to "destroy all evil". A vampire is not only evil, but an undead, something paladins and good clerics usually target first.

How would you go about this? Stripping powers for this sound s tad unfair, but then there is that infamous paladin code.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

I would not punish the paladin at all. Sometimes other things are more important, sometimes it clear you can't do anything right away, etc.

When you're playing a Paladin think of Hinjo or O'Chul, not Miko. Miko would have attacked immediately, the other two have more than two brain cells.

Finally, the Paladin didn't commit any evil act, so no falling is necessary.

You said it was cool roleplay, punishing the player for it only deters future RP.

[Cikomyr]

Doesn't she, you know, get a say in this? Because... see every land, hear every song, read every book, watch every play. It is the living who are dying, and the undead who truly live. And that is awesome (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LivingForeverIsAwesome).

That's a good question. but it would depend on how much free will a Vampire has regarding its own condition.

My easy answer would be "no". She has no say in the matter. Becoming a Vampire is a curse, a curse that might brainwash you into thinking it's a blessing, but it's still a curse.

[Oko and Qailee]

That's a good question. but it would depend on how much free will a Vampire has regarding its own condition.

My easy answer would be "no". She has no say in the matter. Becoming a Vampire is a curse, a curse that might brainwash you into thinking it's a blessing, but it's still a curse.

It's very possible vampires don't even have a soul, considering they are undead.

[Raven777]

It's very possible vampires don't even have a soul, considering they are undead.

They do (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicJar.htm), as called out by Magic Jar. All sentient undead creatures have, or are, souls.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Depending on the circumstances it can be very evil and that was one example. And fine here is another example with said murderer, the Murderer is about to kill an evil King who is helpless and attempting to give up or yelling for help, the Paladin is there see's this but decides they are both evil and leaves the Murderer to kill the Evil King. Now according to your argument a Paladin is never repsonible for someone else's actions, so he has not violted his code. Where this is a clear case that the actions of another when paired with the Paladins inactions would cause him to violate his code and fall.

I still, strongly, disagree. The evil king is an illegitimate authority figure. His rule will have been rife with death-sentence worthy actions else there wouldn't be someone trying to kill him. This example is in a morally grey area at worst. The paladin wouldn't even fall for killing the king himself. Why would he fall for choosing not to stop someone else? Unless you're arguing something as contrived as an evil king that's done no evil?


Edit: Also to your statement of nonsensical: it is not nonsensical he has free will and he slipped up, the murderer is the Paladins relative or someone he cares about so the Paladin choses to let the murderer go despite the fact that the murderer will kill again, holding to love of family over his vow. The Paladin is then responible for evil the Murderer does.

That would fall under mitigating circumstances. You're arguing that an act of mercy is evil. No character can be held responsible for the actions of another unless he has absolute control over that character. To rule any other way makes alignment non-functional.

[Lady Serpentine]

That's a good question. but it would depend on how much free will a Vampire has regarding its own condition.

My easy answer would be "no". She has no say in the matter. Becoming a Vampire is a curse, a curse that might brainwash you into thinking it's a blessing, but it's still a curse.

It's a curse that... Lets you live forever, with the main drawbacks being that you need to find people to feed on who are willing, if you're still Good. And for that matter, she's a sorceress; she can probably make a non-sentient construct that is still alive and can be fed on, or use magic to restore her fiancee after feeding on him.

So for that, you say that the fact that she is a vampire means she cannot speak as to whether she wishes to remain one - in short, that regardless of her wishes, she is only right if she agrees with you, and nothing that she says can change that?

Because that's not Good, even Lawful Good. That's Lawful Evil. You're saying she has no right to her own body, because you feel that if she wants to stay a vampire, it's a sign she's had her mind twisted by the curse - to disagree with you is simply evidence of how badly it affects her.

By that same logic, the Paladin would be allowed to kill someone for having a tattoo because he felt that they were defiling their body and their saying that they weren't was a sure sign of how corrupted they were already! :smallyuk:


I still, strongly, disagree. The evil king is an illegitimate authority figure. His rule will have been rife with death-sentence worthy actions else there wouldn't be someone trying to kill him. This example is in a morally grey area at worst. The paladin wouldn't even fall for killing the king himself. Why would he fall for choosing not to stop someone else? Unless you're arguing something as contrived as an evil king that's done no evil?


Ahem. The fact that the king is evil does not, in fact, mean that he has done anything that merits killing him; he could be Evil due to acts that don't warrant that extreme a response.

Similarly, he is not necessarily an illegitimate ruler - if his Evil is, for instance, that he enjoys watching executions but he still tries (actually tries, I mean, to the best of his abilities) to make sure that those sentenced to death are actually guilty of crimes that warrant that, and otherwise his rule is as fair as could be expected, then as long he isn't a usurper, he is, in fact, a legitimate authority figure.

Unless you're saying that any evil act, no matter how minor, is a valid reason to kill someone for the Paladin? I'd make a point about people deserving due process of law to make sure they actually are guilty, but I'd like to see if that's the case first...

Also, stating that he must deserve to die or someone wouldn't be trying to kill him is a complete fallacy, and having seen some of your posts elsewhere, I'm surprised you'd present it.

To demonstrate that last point... Let's say you have a girl who splits up with her abusive partner, gets with someone else, and then her ex proceeds to kill them both out of jealousy. Does she really deserve to die for that? Yes, potentially, things could have worked out, and the abusive partner could have improved, but on the other hand, she wasn't under any obligation to stick around just in case, either.

For that matter, it still wouldn't be justified even if the girl dumped a perfectly nice partner for someone prettier; she may be a bitch for doing so, but she's not Evil due to it barring some kind of inordinately complicated set of events.

While, yes, no-one can be held directly responsible for someone else, they can be held responsible for what they do with regards to that person, and inaction is still a choice they make; in other words, I agree with Broken Chord.


This is a false equivalence. Choosing not to act is still making the choice. I'll leave the question of whether or not Paladins should save Evil people from each other out of this for now, as it's irrelevant to the point I'm making. In the vampire example, he's making the logical assertion that she won't hurt anyone while he's gone, and regardless of any intellectual argument, no matter how stupid or naive his reason for believing her, if he does, he is not responsible for her actions which he can't do anything about. This is somewhat faulty logic; being informationally wrong is not the same as being morally wrong.

The Paladin in the room is making a direct decision to not protect a man who he is actively aware of asking for help. I'll leave the morality of this decision in the air.