Paladin will fall when the question is asked.

[With a box]

Is there a question (or series of questions) that ensures that make the paladin falls due to lie regardless of whatever (s)he reacts?


Disclaimer: It is a Theoretical question that Someone can make something (like pun-pun)
I KNOW I SHELL NOT USE IT AT ACTUAL PLAY

[Captnq]

The problem is there are 9 answers to a yes or no question.

1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Yes or No
4. Yes and No.
5. Neither Yes or No.
6. Maybe (x) where X is one of the previous 5 answers.
7. I don't know.
8. Non sequitor
9. Silence.

So he can simply say, "Yes or No" and he will be answering your question as you requested.

[Pan151]

First of all, a paladin will not fall because he/she lied. Falling requires a gross violation of the code, an alignment change or a willingly commited evil act. A lie is neither of these things.

Second, you're really pushing the definition of the word "lie".

[Captnq]

It's like that old question: True or False: Have you stopped murdering little children?

The question assumes a truth that isn't true, that at some point you murdered little children. The correct answer to this question is: Neither Yes or No, because both answers are wrong.

The other examples are:

Is the sky black (at night)? Yes.
Is the sky black (during the day)? No.
Is the sky blue (It has blue sky but the setting sun makes part of it red)? Yes and no.
Are you going to go to bed at 9pm tonight (You don't know, but it will be one of two answers): Yes or no.
Are you going to bed at 9pm tonight (You are, but something might happen, so you lean toward yes)? Maybe yes.
Is A+B equal to C (You are bad at math)? I don't know
Did you kill Farmer Brown (You did)? I'm a fine upstanding man! (Non Sequitor. Does not actually answer the question)
Did you kill farmer brown (You did)? *silence* (You are taking the 5th)

[Slipperychicken]

the paladin : yes. (this is why it's incomplete, because he pal can simplely say 'no' to this question)


Or he, being a Paladin who knows his own Code of Conduct and that his promises carry weight, could say "Depends. What's the question?" or "I'll see what I can do".


First of all, a paladin will not fall because he/she lied. Falling requires a gross violation of the code, an alignment change or a willingly commited evil act. A lie is neither of these things.

Second, you're really pushing the definition of the word "lie".

Actually...


Code of Conduct (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm)
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.

[With a box]

what I wanted to get by this thread was a logical trap for make the paladin have to lie.

[Oddman80]

The above answers are true, and therefore this next bit maybe irrelevant. But if I didn't mention it, it would eat at me.
By answering the question "can you do that for me" he has already answered that "next question" with a yes or no, and therefore fulfilled his obligation. The second question, he would be under no obligation to answer.

[Flickerdart]

Actually...
The very first line about falling reads '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."

Answering a trick question is not a gross violation by any sane man's definition.

[Captnq]

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.

Ah, we can easily solve this problem.

I must punish those who threaten innocents.
He is trying to get me to fall.
This will be a threat to innocents if I become evil.
He is a threat to innocents.
I cut off his head.

I look at his head and address it thus, "My language is the language of actions. I think my answer is clear."

Then I walk away.

[Pan151]

Actually...

Read that again.

The code does indeed require that the paladin doesn't lie. However, as you can very clearly see, there is no punishment for breaking the code. A paladin falls from favor only for gross violations of their code.

[Captnq]

what I wanted to get by this thread was a logical trap for make the paladin have to lie.


Well, then what you need is a paladin who can't think well, because as gamers, we'll out think whatever you come up with.

[Batou1976]

Ah, we can easily solve this problem.

I must punish those who threaten innocents.
He is trying to get me to fall.
This will be a threat to innocents if I become evil.
He is a threat to innocents.
I cut off his head.

I look at his head and address it thus, "My language is the language of actions. I think my answer is clear."

Then I walk away.

I like this answer. :D


Anyhow...
The rules say a paladin falls if x, y, or z happens, but doesn't specify how exactly his power is withdrawn from him. I tend to assume his/her deity takes it back from them, which means their deity watches their behavior to ensure the paladin is upholding the trust placed in them. So, to me this question supposes a deity is paying just enough attention to the paladin to know he/she acted in such a way as to fall, but not enough attention to realize the violation was inadvertent or the paladin was tricked into the violation; that's an oddly specific amount of attention to devote to a worshipper as important as a paladin.

This, of course, says nothing about how being verbally trapped like this isn't willfully committing an evil act, either. :)

[Slipperychicken]

The very first line about falling reads '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."

Answering a trick question is not a gross violation by any sane man's definition.

I mean, I wouldn't fall the pally for it, since he didn't intend to break his word (which is kind of a critical component for a lie), rather doing his utmost to uphold it. Kind of like if he says "I'm going to beat those demons" and then gets killed by them. Failure isn't the same thing as lying.

[gorilla-turtle]

Any dungeon master who decides that an immature word play scenario counts as a gross violation of the code of conduct deserves to be hit over the head with their own books.

Why is making the Paladin fall as common as it is? If the dungeon master wants to go through steps to ensure a lose lose to the Paladinhood of the Paladin, they should have simply told the player not to play said class at all.

[Batou1976]

what I wanted to get by this thread was a logical trap for make the paladin have to lie.

And why, exactly, are you trying to trap the paladin into such a no-win situation?

[Phelix-Mu]

I'd prefer Doctor Who characters not be misquoted in a thread with such a spurious purpose.:smallwink:

Really, if we reduce the question to a Bluff check, where the lie is that the paladin can't be forced to do something and must be tricked, then it's a trick. Being tricked into doing something evil may result in the need for atonement or something, but it shouldn't constitute a fall to just answer a question wrong. It's the deceiver who is mainly being evil here. While a stupid paladin may be bad and need to atone, you can't be blamed for something you can't actually do anything about (like being stupid).

@OP: Congrats, this topic is going to be very, very popular. Paladins fall topics always are.

[Captnq]

I should be more detailed.

A logic trap requires that you accept certain conditions. Once those conditions are accepted, you present someone with a problem that cannot be solved within those conditions.

It's like a shell game. Where's the hidden Pea? The answer is, my pocket. And if anyone asks if it's in my pocket, I pay them. But people assume you have to pick one of the three shells.

You are assuming binary logic. Yes/No, True/False. But people don't think that way and it's very hard to make conditions where that's the case. A clear headed thinker will note you said "Answer YES OR NO" then simply say, "YES OR NO", or realize they already answered a question just by you asking them to play this game. The harder you try to cut off the alternative, the less likely the Paladin will ever play your game, because the more obvious it will be that you are trying something.

Plus, a paladin isn't a robot. He won't explode because you put him in a logic loop. He'll just narrow his eyes, detect for evil, then smite your ass.

[Captnq]

Here's the other side of it.

A paladin can justify some horrible actions with a little spurious logic. For example, My paladin who cut of this guys head, what if it was just some smart ass 9 year old? I just cut the head off a 9 year old kid. However, by the rules, I was REQUIRED to cut off that kids head. (Assuming I'm a paladin of Ultra-Law God who will strip my paladin-hood for falling for a trick question). Yes murdering this 9 year old could be justified for the GREATER GOOD TM.

That's the problem with D&D, trying to put subjective morality into an objective morality system doesn't work.

It's best just to have the paladin check his phylacity of faithfulness and pray, "Lord, what do I do?" Then when the answer comes back, "Smite his heathen Ash" The paladin does so without worry.

[With a box]

And why, exactly, are you trying to trap the paladin into such a no-win situation?

because i am a evil beguiler and I want the paladin get out of my way?

[Slipperychicken]

Why is making the Paladin fall as common as it is?

Lots of reasons, which can be summed up by players and GMs:

Trying to make the Paladin fall on purpose (i.e. the OP)
Not knowing the rules (i.e. "LOL demon possession = auto-fall!!!111").
Stretching the rules to fall Paladins.
Breaking the rules outright to fall Paladins.



Also because the designers wrote a horrible code of conduct for Paladins. Perhaps they realized this afterwards, since they didn't ever write such codes for Clerics, despite having clearly intended to do so*. It wouldn't have even been a huge problem to throw in some codes of conduct into the "divine" sourcebooks (i.e. Deities and Demigods, Complete Champion, Champions of Valor, Book of Exalted Deeds, Complete Divine, etc.) or even to have written some as examples for variant rules. I believe they actively decided against doing so after seeing how much of a debacle the Paladin code was.


*
Ex-Clerics
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. He cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until he atones (see the atonement spell description).

[Phelix-Mu]

because i am a evil beguiler and I want the paladin get out of my way?

Paladins are useful servants of their patron deity. Even if they lose powers for a time, most gods won't curbstomp a paladin over such a simplistic violation (even if this level of thing is considered a violation).

I rather think that, as a beguiler, if you want the paladin out of your character's way, OP, then kill him. That way you won't be surprised when a bunch of other paladins/clerics/celestials show up gunning for your beguiler.

[Blackhawk748]

And this thread once again proves to me that my decision to write my own paladin codes for each paladin i play is the right one. One of the first things i "fail to put in" is anything about lying. My LG paladin will lie if he needs to, hey sometimes you gotta disguise yourself as a Blackguard to get into the EVUL Liches lair, to then do the big reveal and smite his undead arse!

[Segev]

If you're a player, not the DM, and you're trying to work around an obstructive Paladin, your best bet is to construct the situation such that the Paladin cannot lawfully obstruct you. Where "lawfully" refers to "while upholding his code." There's everything from arranging it so that whatever you're doing is not actually as bad as it seems and so he is being a bully and a tyrant (and thus non-good) by obstructing you for his own selfish purposes to setting up the villainous distraction of having an innocent he needs to head off to save if he doesn't want to just watch them die.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Any dungeon master who decides that an immature word play scenario counts as a gross violation of the code of conduct deserves to be hit over the head with their own books.
Yeah, this one. Seriously, if a Paladin can fall by inadvertently or accidentally lying, there would be no Paladins in existence.

(Also, walking away silently resolves all these word traps.)

[Batou1976]

because i am a evil beguiler and I want the paladin get out of my way?

Ok; I wanted to be sure you weren't the DM trying to "get" the paladin. I've read too many stories in my gaming years of @$$hat DMs who go looking for any reason at all to take away a PC's paladinhood, generally because the DM himself dislikes paladins. :smallannoyed:

In this case, you're going to have to come up with something better than this to make a paladin fall. Falling is a fairly non-trivial event in a paladin's career, and it takes quite a bit to cause it to happen.
There's other ways to "get him out of your way" without going to all the trouble of making him fall. In any case, this would likely only be a temporary solution; he's either going to atone and come gunning for you... or he's just gonna come gunning for you. :smallamused:

This isn't a PC paladin, right?

[Hand_of_Vecna]

what I wanted to get by this thread was a logical trap for make the paladin have to lie.

If the Paladin Code is treated this inanely in your game world. Then not agreeing to things in absolute would be a day one lesson.

"I shall endeavor to."

"I may"

"I cannot promise that."

"If it is [insert diety]'s will."

"Are you implying I would try to answer your question in a misleading way?"

You're an evil beguiler, if you want a Paladin out of your way go make some kids jump downa well or something.

Edit: As silly as this is, it kinda makes me want to make a Paladin that takes honesty to an extreme and always speaks vaguely enough to avoid logic traps and making statements about the future, or even present and past that could make them tell a falsehood.

"Where is your friend Steve?"

"As I recall, Steve stated his intent to visit the village blacksmith."

"Will you save my daughter?"

"I mean to do my utmost."

"Are you male?"

"To the best of my knowledge."

[BWR]

Correct answer: You're a very silly person and I'm not going to talk with you any more.

Lying is not merely the same as being wrong, it is intentionally attempting to deceive someone else. The paladin is not doing anything of the sort if he chooses to answer the OP's questions with either 'yes' or 'no'. Merely stating counter-factuals is not enough. Otherwise a paladin would not be able to tell any sort of story or joke or relay information at all without the everpresent risk of failing. Imagine a paladin trying to enlighten someone with a parable: "Once there were these three guys who got magic beans-" BAM! Fallen paladin.
Or a paladin telling dirty limericks in a bar. BAM! Fallen paladin.
Or a paladin relays a message she had been asked tom but which turns out to include false information. BAM! Fallen paladin.

[Flickerdart]

If the Paladin Code is treated this inanely in your game world. Then not agreeing to things in absolute would be a day one lesson.

"I shall endeavor to."

"I may"

"I cannot promise that."

"If it is [insert diety]'s will."

"Are you implying I would try to answer your question in a misleading way?"

You're an evil beguiler, if you want a Paladin out of your way go make some kids jump downa well or something.
I would imagine that paladins would start answering questions like teenagers - in non-committal grunts and judgmental glares.

[Pan151]

If the Paladin Code is treated this inanely in your game world. Then not agreeing to things in absolute would be a day one lesson.

"I shall endeavor to."

"I may"

"I cannot promise that."

"If it is [insert diety]'s will."

"Are you implying I would try to answer your question in a misleading way?"

You're an evil beguiler, if you want a Paladin out of your way go make some kids jump downa well or something.

It doesn't even have to come to that, unfortunately. With a Paladin code treated that way, it's as simple as this:

"A paladin’s code requires that she [...] punish those who harm or threaten innocents. Incidentally, there are exactly 7592 cases of innocents being threatened or harmed as we speak, in this country alone. Your god expects you to punish all the appropriate people within the next 24 hours, or your paladin licence will be revoked. If you succeed, we can then start talking about extending your duties to a global range.

Also, no, your god does not cover your insurance policy. Don't expect to be paid your wages on time either"

[Psyren]

Asker: "I want you to answer the next question with yes or no in 10 seconds, will you do that for me?"
Paladin: (mentally consulting his Phylactery of Faithfulness. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness)) "Hey, should I go along with this moron's obviously shady upcoming trick question?"

[Gildedragon]

Is there a question (or series of questions) that ensures that make the paladin falls due to lie regardless of whatever (s)he reacts?

an incomplete example

the asker: I want you to answer the next question with yes or no in 10 second. will you do that for me?
the paladin : yes. (this is why it's incomplete, because he pal can simplely say 'no' to this question)
asker: Are you going to answer this question with the word that means no in your language? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hardest_Logic_Puzzle_Ever#Unanswerable_questio ns_and_exploding_god-heads) :smallcool:
paladin : :smallfurious:
if he says yes or no: he lied to second question. paladin falls.
if he avoid to answer : he lied to fist question. paladin falls.

actually he wouldn't... no more than a paladin would for say, acting in a play or reading a script.
They were asked to answer the question in a preset manner, and then they do.

Now if you were to ask "answer honestly saying only yes or no" then you have better grounds for this... but then the paladin would not fall for not answering because they cannot answer it honestly with just a yes or a no.

also "yes or no" is a valid answer

[Thrudd]

because i am a evil beguiler and I want the paladin get out of my way?

Sneak up on him while he's asleep and slit his throat. Maybe cast sleep or some other spell that will incapacitate him first, and give him a coup de gras. Now he's out of the way.
There's nothing you can do to force him to fall. You could encourage him by tempting him with some sort of reward in return for committing an evil act with you. Just every chance you get, offer him as much money as you can find or the best magic items or anything he would like if he will just help you murder somebody. Try to use some of that beguiling magic on him to trick him into thinking some innocent person is an evil monster that needs to be killed. That might make him lose powers temporarily and send him on an atonement quest.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

I would imagine that paladins would start answering questions like teenagers - in non-committal grunts and judgmental glares.

That would definetely be the best option if your Charisma and Wisdom weren't up to the task. On the other hand.

For some reason the current time feature didn't work when I embeded it. skip to 2:05 if you don't want superfluous Patrick Stewart and John de Lancie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuIR6yH1WlU#t=122

Also, anyone with a racial language could honestly answer no, though we should really stick to philosopy rather than semantics since you could have closed that loophole with a better wording.

[SiuiS]

Or he, being a Paladin who knows his own Code of Conduct and that his promises carry weight, could say "Depends. What's the question?" or "I'll see what I can do".

Actually...

Note: purposeful evil causes permanent fall. Lying does not.

One of my favorite old bits of D&D lore were the other holy swords. Not the +5 avenger, no, but the rest of them. They were all unique (as the avenger was supposed to be at one point, I think) and my favorite was a +3 holy sword that lie dormant. It was in the care of a paladin who fell because he broke the old structure against how much wealth he could carry. He left on a quest to redeem himself, and took only the horse in his barn, the clothes on his back, and the traveling gear on his horse. And a sack of coins. You know, for the road. And some rubies. Those were for emergencies, never know when you'll leave the kingdom and find minted gold useless. And an emerald, that was a gift. And these sapphires, they're just too pretty to leave in a vault. And this diamond was a gift, you see, and better to keep it than not.

The man travels the world doing good as a fighter and unable to regain his paladin hood via greed. Is very explicit that as soon as he learns his lesson he gets them all back though. That was cool.


what I wanted to get by this thread was a logical trap for make the paladin have to lie.

Why? What is the value of having a paladin temporarily lose their powers due to a technicality?

[Valluman]

You can't use a logic trap to make a paladin fall. The paladin isn't maliciously trying to lie, which is what is against his code. Him lying by accident or being tricked into lying isn't going to make him fall. I mean, you can make him accidentally murder a good person, and that may make him fall, but murder and lying are two different things.

If you're a beguiler, just kill him with magic or use your illusions to trick him into killing innocent people.

[Nilehus]

... You know, the Paladin would be a much, MUCH more fun class to play if every single DM/player on the planet didn't try to make them Fall as often as possible.

It's the equivalent of "Oop, an invisible enemy stole your spellbook and your spare in the dead of night! Sorry, your wizard is useless." Cheap, annoying, and drags down the story. If you want the Paladin out of your way, kill him. Technicalities tend not to be fun for the other players.

Yes, I know not every single person tries to make Paladins fall, but I've had bad experiences. :smallfrown:

[Gildedragon]

if you don't want superfluous Patrick Stewart and John de Lancie.
No such thing as superfluous Patrick Stewart OR John de Lancie
and especially no such thing as superfluous "post apocalyptic dystopian pseudo-feudal courtroom mob or bell-ringer"

[facelessminion]

what I wanted to get by this thread was a logical trap for make the paladin have to lie.

I think everyone saw what you wanted. But, seeing as how it was an awful thing to want, the thread moved elsewhere. :p

[Khedrac]

Something else to remember is that:

a lie is NOT the same thing as a falsehood.

A "lie" is generally taken to be when the speaker states something that they believe to be incorrect.

A "falsehood" is a statement that is incorrect.

If the speaker genuinely believe that their answer is correct, it is not a lie, no matter how inaccurate it is.

If they believe it to be false then it is a lie, even when it is actually true.

This means that when you ask trick questions and people fall for the logic trap, they are not lying, they are merely mistaken.

[PersonMan]

Is there a question (or series of questions) that ensures that make the paladin falls due to lie regardless of whatever (s)he reacts?

an incomplete example

the asker: I want you to answer the next question with yes or no in 10 second. will you do that for me?
the paladin : yes. (this is why it's incomplete, because he pal can simplely say 'no' to this question)
asker: Are you going to answer this question with the word that means no in your language? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hardest_Logic_Puzzle_Ever#Unanswerable_questio ns_and_exploding_god-heads) :smallcool:

Paladin: "Yes or no in 10 second" :smallcool:

I believe someone else mentioned this as one of the potential answers earlier.

[Zombimode]

if he avoid to answer : he lied to fist question. paladin falls.


accidentally lying

You know, I was about to rant on how not to abuse words and how the education system has failed again, etc.

But you know what? Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe "to lie" in the english language has actually a slightly different meaning then the german equivalent "lügen". Maybe in english an expression like "accidentally lying" actually makes sense.

What I do know, however, is that is wouldn't make sense in german. lying != saying something false, and more to the point: lying (in german) is always intentional.

[Serafina]

By the same inane logic that makes Paladins fall so easily, atoning for their "misdeeds" should be just as easy. After all, all you require is to be "truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds." Which according to the inane logic that makes it possible to fall due to a simple trick question makes atoning just as easy as saying "i'm sorry", albeit at the cost of a 5th-level spell.

[weckar]

Is there a question (or series of questions) that ensures that make the paladin falls due to lie regardless of whatever (s)he reacts?

an incomplete example

the asker: I want you to answer the next question with yes or no in 10 second. will you do that for me?
the paladin : yes. (this is why it's incomplete, because he pal can simplely say 'no' to this question)
asker: Are you going to answer this question with the word that means no in your language? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hardest_Logic_Puzzle_Ever#Unanswerable_questio ns_and_exploding_god-heads) :smallcool:
paladin : :smallfurious:
if he says yes or no: he lied to second question. paladin falls.
if he avoid to answer : he lied to fist question. paladin falls.
Correct answer: Noik (the language of reply was never specified, and it's not 'my' language, as most D&D characters know several)
Other good options: "I will not"

[With a box]

You know, I was about to rant on how not to abuse words and how the education system has failed again, etc.

But you know what? Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe "to lie" in the english language has actually a slightly different meaning then the german equivalent "lügen". Maybe in english an expression like "accidentally lying" actually makes sense.

What I do know, however, is that is wouldn't make sense in german. lying != saying something false, and more to the point: lying (in german) is always intentional.

I'm not native speaker , so you might be right

[Vorandril]

[As I looked through this thread I was glad that most people somewhat disregarded the intention of the OP's question. But the state that it's in still aggravates me somewhat. So here's a transcript of what conversation I had on Skype about it. Cleaned up to avoid some profanity on my part and save some people's anonymity.]
----------------------
Originally Posted by Batou1976 View Post
And why, exactly, are you trying to trap the paladin into such a no-win situation?

because i am a evil beguiler and I want the paladin get out of my way?

[7/5/2014 11:44:03 PM] Vorandril: Turns out it's one PC wanting to screw another. I'm ok with that as a concept, but if you're gonna say you're "evil" and not just have it be a "I'm on blue team and you're a red so die"

THEN BE ####ING EVIL!
[7/5/2014 11:45:13 PM] Vorandril: The RIDDLER isn't evil because he decided he didn't like batman's hat. He's evil because his logic puzzles involve life or death situations where you have to decide between 40 people getting incinerated or your younger sibling getting ripped in half by 2 semi trucks.
[7/5/2014 11:46:08 PM] Vorandril: An EVIL beguiler shouldn't have to ####ing word trap a paladin. They should have an amulet of undetectable alignment and use that Tin Can o' Justice like he's supposed to be-
[7/5/2014 11:46:21 PM] Vorandril: A GODS ####ED UNWITTING TOOL FOR YOUR OWN ENDS!
[7/5/2014 11:46:51 PM] Vorandril: *Flips desk, sits, huffs*

This is why I have to play the villains so much when in open rp. No one ####ing gets it right.
[7/5/2014 11:47:11 PM] Friend A: Plus, I'm sorry, but I really don't think this word trap would make him fall...really.
[7/5/2014 11:47:29 PM] Friend A: I don't think the 'no lie' policy is THAT strict
[7/5/2014 11:47:44 PM] Friend A: Logically
[7/5/2014 11:50:29 PM] Vorandril: No. Because he's not lieing. To lie you have to deceive. He's not deceiving. He's simply being forced to state a falsehood. Even if he answered with something other than yes or no after saying he would, that was not with any intention of deception or misleading the person.

"Please tell me there's no dragon sleeping through that door."

WELL YOU HAVE TO LIE AND FALL FROM SAYING THAT OR YOU DO AS THEY ASKED BECAUSE APPARENTLY LAWFUL GOOD MEANS LAWFUL ####ING-STUPID AND FALL BECAUSE YOU LED DIRECTLY TO THEM GETTING TO BE THE MAIN INGREDIENT IN KFC'S NEW EXTRA CRISPY BUCKET!
[7/5/2014 11:51:29 PM] Vorandril: I will stop being angry now.
----------------------

I would like to the OP to think how well they would react to that kind of behavior if it was used against their character instead. If the only situation available was to save an orphan, die, or rescue the paladin in question. And the 1st or 3rd options both involve doing a good thing. So the DM takes your sheet, erases your alignment, and makes you Lawful Good.

How would that make you feel? REALLY, how would that make you feel? If you are trying to make this other player not want to play with you you should just stop attempting to do so in an underhanded way and just tell them, "Hey, I don't like you. Go away."
That said, if I was your DM and got shot a link to this thread I'd probably just boot you from the group but I digress.

Buenas noches.

[weckar]

I thought the Paladin was an NPC?

[Vorandril]

I thought the Paladin was an NPC?

Never stated one way or another. But to be honest in tabletop there's no such thing as a true NPC. Someone's having to play them. And even if it is a character run by the DM, that's still quite a petty way to try and give your GM the finger.

Even if it's an evil party trying to get around the paladin; trying to loophole like this is not the way to go.

[2xMachina]

If the code of conduct requires absolutely no lying, I'm pretty sure Paladin 101, includes a class with a Fairy on how to speak the truth.

[Alex12]

If the code of conduct requires absolutely no lying, I'm pretty sure Paladin 101, includes a class with a Fairy on how to speak the truth.

Lesson 1: Don't give concrete answers to questions.

Also, the OP's situation isn't lying. It's being wrong. Paladins are allowed to be wrong.
Double also, if it were that easy to make Paladins fall, there'd be no Paladins. I highly doubt that the average Paladin's patron god is going to go "ooh, you lied to that evil guy. Lying is bad, so you fall" any more than they'd go "ooh, you killed that evil guy. Killing people is bad, so you fall."

[Grod_The_Giant]

You know, I was about to rant on how not to abuse words and how the education system has failed again, etc.

But you know what? Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe "to lie" in the english language has actually a slightly different meaning then the german equivalent "lügen". Maybe in english an expression like "accidentally lying" actually makes sense.

What I do know, however, is that is wouldn't make sense in german. lying != saying something false, and more to the point: lying (in german) is always intentional.
You're wrong. To the best of my knowledge, "lying" in English does not have any such connotation. "Accidentally lying" would mean, well, accidentally saying something untrue. Like saying "I'm sorry, the princess is dead" when she's actually still alive, buried in the rubble. Or if some jack*** asks you a question with that's impossible to answer correctly.

Also, would you mind not insulting your fellow posters by calling us illiterate idiots?

[Hand_of_Vecna]

No such thing as superfluous Patrick Stewart OR John de Lancie
and especially no such thing as superfluous "post apocalyptic dystopian pseudo-feudal courtroom mob or bell-ringer"

I agree and considered saying something to the effect. I was leaning towards "also kill yourself." Unfortunately you really can't just drop that bomb on a friendly forum, because there's a tiny chance someone might think I meant the OP for being a bit of a tool with his logic traap rather than completly tounge in cheek towards people that think any amount of Patrick Stewart and John de Lancie can be superfluous.


What I do know, however, is that is wouldn't make sense in german. lying != saying something false, and more to the point: lying (in german) is always intentional.

I wouldn't necesarily jump down someones throat for using it in conversation, but accidentily lying is an oxymoron (a contradictory word combination) in English. It is however an oxymoron appropriate to this conversaton, since the OP is basically trying to trick someone into making a false statement with word games and labeling them a liar (oathbreaker). It's equivelent to getting them to agree to go do something for you, then hitting them over the head and knocking them unconcious as soon as they turn to leave and labeling them in the same manner.


To the best of my knowledge, "lying" in English does not have any such connotation. "Accidentally lying" would mean, well, accidentally saying something untrue.

You're mistaken.

Definition of LIE

intransitive verb
1
: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

You are not however lying, both because of intent and because you added the clause "to the best of my knowledge".

Interestingly, while Merriam-Webster and dictionary.com both state intent in "lie" dictionary.com doesn't necesitate intent in "lying" and also doesn't use lie so it isn't referencin" a party unclear on the definition to the definition that would clear things up. On a related note, both reference "lie" in defining "liar". I've always considered dictionary.com an inferior source.

Oxford English, which I trust more, but takes longer to reference agrees with Mirriam-Webster and directly references "lie" in it's definition of both "lying" and "liar".

[paperarmor]

If all you want is the paladin out of your way why use Spells or bluff or even just walking away from him to do your evil things of evil. Hell, you could just major image an orphanage on fire to distract him.

[atemu1234]

what I wanted to get by this thread was a logical trap for make the paladin have to lie.

Depends on the level of DM stupidity; making a no-win scenario is difficult, especially when all that's being asked is a question which is, by its very nature, theoretical and thus cannot be a gross violation of alignment. Now, there are no-win scenarios, for example:

A paladin's order (to which he has sworn fealty) is determined to wipe out all evil races (Basically the Order of Miyazaki). Now, the paladin comes across a family, consisting of a Succubi, a Tiefling, and their newborn child. His order demands he kills the succubi and the tiefling, but what will happen to the half-fiend tiefling child? He cannot kill it without committing an evil act (killing an innocent newborn) nor can he leave it alive (violating his oaths of fealty). Also known as the "your DM is a jerk" scenario.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

A paladin's order (to which he has sworn fealty) is determined to wipe out all evil races (Basically the Order of Miyazaki). Now, the paladin comes across a family, consisting of a Succubi, a Tiefling, and their newborn child. His order demands he kills the succubi and the tiefling, but what will happen to the half-fiend tiefling child? He cannot kill it without committing an evil act (killing an innocent newborn) nor can he leave it alive (violating his oaths of fealty). Also known as the "your DM is a jerk" scenario.

I have to say, either genocide of [Evil] races is ok, or it isn't. If it's ok; killing their noncombatants including babies is fine because they aren't innocents. If it isn't ok; the order is [Evil] and the Paladin fell when they joined.

[atemu1234]

I have to say, either genocide of [Evil] races is ok, or it isn't. If it's ok; killing their noncombatants including babies is fine because they aren't innocents. If it isn't ok; the order is [Evil] and the Paladin fell when they joined.

Incorrect: As-is, the genocide of evil races is the path (albeit for some a warpath) of certain orders of paladins. Vows are notoriously hard to break when you're a paladin. Even if the order may forgive you (and indeed your DM, read jerk above) you will still fall for what happened.

[Flickerdart]

A half-fiend tiefling is not [Evil], so the paladin is not obligated to slay it (unintelligent creatures such as animals are all Neutral, and a newborn child is scarcely qualified as more intelligent than, say, a dog; without the [Evil] tag, the kid might grow up Neutral or Good normally). If he doesn't want to let it loose into the world, the paladin must take the creature into his care and raise it to be an upstanding and honourable citizen. Then it is no longer an evil creature.

There are always more choices than "murder" and "not murder."

Also, the paladin's power comes from a personal code, not an order. Nothing is stopping him from quitting the order, leaving the child alive, and going to do something less genocidal.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Incorrect: As-is, the genocide of evil races is the path (albeit for some a warpath) of certain orders of paladins. Vows are notoriously hard to break when you're a paladin. Even if the order may forgive you (and indeed your DM, read jerk above) you will still fall for what happened.

No, I'm sorry but either you or your hypothetical DM don't understand what genocide is. Either you're carrying out a war in a somewhat civilized fashion or you're killing them all. If you're required to kill "innocent evil babies" in the wilderness you'll also need to kill members of evil races that are good and neutral aligned upstanding citizens. Your whole order would have gone rogue long ago as one after another fell and then was arested or killed by guards because they all kept assaulting a merchant that happened to be the race they were bound to genocide.

[Segev]

I'd like to second somebody's suggestion of creating an illusion of an orphanage on fire to distract him.

If he seems to be catching wise to it, ask him flat-out: "Are you willing to take the chance that it is real and you FAILED to save those children?"

But it's noteworthy that, if you're so vile that you regularly are provoking the Paladin in this fashion, he's probably just going to execute you the moment he has proof you really did do something wrong. You may want to rethink how you handle your interactions with him. Handling a paladin as an evil PC is best done subtly. Point him at genuine evil...that's in your way. Do your own evil out of his sight.

[Phelix-Mu]

Mainly because I'm curious to know, which race of critter with the (evil) subtype actually has children/babies? There aren't that many examples of (evil) that aren't fiends, and few fiends are ever "born."

Anyway, part of the burden of being good is being responsible for your decisions. Part of being responsible is to make sure that you aren't making assumptions that are designed to expedite things or make life easier at the expense of being correct in what you do. Part of a lawful commitment to such good ideals is that your commitment should be strict and rigorous, within reason and according to the spirit of the law (and, whenever in-keeping with goodness, the letter).

With that in mind, even if Heironeous or whoever does endorse slaughtering all fiends, a judicious paladin would use detect evil whenever possible (and seek more effective divinations that are passively active), in order to make sure that mistakes that can't be taken back aren't made. There might be some reason that this fiend isn't evil; maybe it's not really a fiend, but a person under the effects of polymorph. Maybe the paladin has critically misjudged the situation in the heat of battle. Wouldn't be the first time, and while such transgressions are far from unforgivable, constantly having to atone is a hassle, better nipped in the bud.

[Kazudo]

Actually, in one of my games a paladin in the party was charged with something incredibly heinous that would have been against every one of his god's tenets. The evidence against him was incredibly strong until, in a hearing from the Lawful Evil warlock in the group (who was really doing it for his own destructive gains) stepped forward and proved that the paladin had not lost his god's favor, which either means that the deity itself is a false construct that doesn't exist or he couldn't have actually done the act.

Basically, the fact that a paladin DIDN'T fall in response to allegedly performing some pretty heinous things which would have made him fall was used to prove his innocence.

The funny bit is that the Warlock is the one who did them, and by proving the Paladin's innocence made it almost guaranteed that suspicion over the entire party would be alleviated.

[Vogonjeltz]

Here's the other side of it.

A paladin can justify some horrible actions with a little spurious logic. For example, My paladin who cut of this guys head, what if it was just some smart ass 9 year old? I just cut the head off a 9 year old kid. However, by the rules, I was REQUIRED to cut off that kids head. (Assuming I'm a paladin of Ultra-Law God who will strip my paladin-hood for falling for a trick question). Yes murdering this 9 year old could be justified for the GREATER GOOD TM.

That's the problem with D&D, trying to put subjective morality into an objective morality system doesn't work.

It's best just to have the paladin check his phylacity of faithfulness and pray, "Lord, what do I do?" Then when the answer comes back, "Smite his heathen Ash" The paladin does so without worry.

In D&D committing an evil act sullies any outcome as evil.

[Grod_The_Giant]

You're mistaken.
MW also defines a lying as "to create a false or misleading impression," which does not necessitate intent. Similarly, a lie can be "an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker" or "something that misleads or deceives." So no-- there are plenty of definitions of lie and lying that don't require intent. But dictionary definitions aside, there isn't a cultural connotation so powerful as to render my earlier post "an abuse of language and a sign of failed educational systems."

[RegalKain]

No, I'm sorry but either you or your hypothetical DM don't understand what genocide is. Either you're carrying out a war in a somewhat civilized fashion or you're killing them all. If you're required to kill "innocent evil babies" in the wilderness you'll also need to kill members of evil races that are good and neutral aligned upstanding citizens. Your whole order would have gone rogue long ago as one after another fell and then was arested or killed by guards because they all kept assaulting a merchant that happened to be the race they were bound to genocide.

Uhhh you're kind of wrong here. If the "whole order" goes "rogue" and commits genocide on an [Evil] race, then I'd imagine whatever deity they are following has given them the big thumb's up. You're also using a word incorrectly (At least in my opinion.) there is no such thing as an innocentEvil anything. Since being evil means you're no longer innocent the words are opposites really. So if the Paladins are killing evil babies they are fine, if they are killing innocent babies they aren't, this is where D&D is very, very muddling in it's behavior of the Paladin Code and alignments, since if a "baby" is born to two Pit Fiends, it's considered Evil as per (X is always Y) of the MM, therefore if the Paladin smites it in it's crib, he won't fall because it's evil. DMs may disagree but let's face it, I don't think anyone on these forums thinks 3.5 makes logical sense when RAW is followed to the letter.

Personally I alter the Paladin's code, and I've always done so since I started playing, most of the players I play with understand, accept and do the same, since we don't confuse Lawful Good with Lawful Stupid, as so many people enjoy doing, then again we also follow the Real Alignment Handbook, it's quite helpful. :)

[atemu1234]

Personally I alter the Paladin's code, and I've always done so since I started playing, most of the players I play with understand, accept and do the same, since we don't confuse Lawful Good with Lawful Stupid, as so many people enjoy doing, then again we also follow the Real Alignment Handbook, it's quite helpful. :)

No one agrees with you more than I that the ordered paladin is stupid; but in response to people saying they get their power from their god, not their order, the paladin is sworn to serve a legitimate ruler, so that includes being sworn to the leader of their order, which is basically swearing fealty to the order. Provided that the paladin has a standing order to kill all things from evil races (including things that are Usually Evil, not just subtype [evil]) and cannot kill that thing without it being an evil act, he is guaranteed to fall from whatever action he takes.

[Flickerdart]

Mainly because I'm curious to know, which race of critter with the (evil) subtype actually has children/babies? There aren't that many examples of (evil) that aren't fiends, and few fiends are ever "born."
I don't think there are any. Being [Evil] means that you're actually made out of planar evil, which most likely means you're a non-native Outsider of some fashion. You can get [Evil] through Wish as per Savage Species, but that's still not being born that way.


No one agrees with you more than I that the ordered paladin is stupid; but in response to people saying they get their power from their god, not their order, the paladin is sworn to serve a legitimate ruler, so that includes being sworn to the leader of their order, which is basically swearing fealty to the order. Provided that the paladin has a standing order to kill all things from evil races (including things that are Usually Evil, not just subtype [evil]) and cannot kill that thing without it being an evil act, he is guaranteed to fall from whatever action he takes.
If your liege commands you to commit a crime unworthy of the gods, then he is not a Good liege, and leaving him is not a gross violation of the code.

Paladins are Lawful, that means they should be good at working out rules. :smalltongue:

[RegalKain]

No one agrees with you more than I that the ordered paladin is stupid; but in response to people saying they get their power from their god, not their order, the paladin is sworn to serve a legitimate ruler, so that includes being sworn to the leader of their order, which is basically swearing fealty to the order. Provided that the paladin has a standing order to kill all things from evil races (including things that are Usually Evil, not just subtype [evil]) and cannot kill that thing without it being an evil act, he is guaranteed to fall from whatever action he takes.

The error with that line of thinking is that if the leader of the Order is the one handing out the command to kill all things evil, then the Order of Paladins will follow it and not fall (As if their Leader has not fallen yet they wouldn,t since the Leader is within line of the Deity as well.) The logic you are using is flawed, furthermore Paladin's can detect evil at will, this further brings up the issue of is a pit fiend baby "evil" as per Detect Evil or not, even if it was just brought into this world? If the answer is yes, then the Paladin won't fall for killing it, if the answer is No, then the Paladin slaughters everything around the baby that is, and takes the baby back to the Order's fortifications to ensure it is raised in such a place as to serve the greater good, however if once it hits age X it auto-evils (For some odd reason that D&D logics away by saying lawl magic.) then the Paladin (In my opinion) is within right to kill the baby when it's found if it's only path is evil and that cannot be altered in anyway.

This is mostly based on interpretation more then anything though mind you, as I believe that killing one "innocent" baby if it means saving 10,000 is an inherently GOOD act not an EVIL one, again your opinion may vary, neithier of us are right or wrong in the case of an opinion, which is why D&D 3.5's alignment system and more-so the Paladin CoC is so borked, one person's definition of "evil" may vary from another's and often does.

Edit: I'm using a pit-fiend "baby" as an example of something that's considered always evil more for purposes of determining what consists of an action worthy of Falling.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

there is no such thing as an innocentEvil anything. Since being evil means you're no longer innocent the words are opposites really. So if the Paladins are killing evil babies they are fine, if they are killing innocent babies they aren't, this is where D&D is very, very muddling in it's behavior of the Paladin Code and alignments, since if a "baby" is born to two Pit Fiends, it's considered Evil as per (X is always Y) of the MM, therefore if the Paladin smites it in it's crib, he won't fall because it's evil. DMs may disagree but let's face it, I don't think anyone on these forums thinks 3.5 makes logical sense when RAW is followed to the letter.

Note that Atemu said "evil races" which could mean generally evil things like orcs and Drow, but then used an example of a [Evil] creature and an evil creature making a baby that due to there not being a half tiefling template to apply to Succubi would be a tiefling of a half-fiend. Ether way this baby would be an "evil" race.

Genocide of "evil" races really can't be justified so I refined it to [Evil] races, creatures that mechanicaly have the evil subtype. As Flickerdart pointed out both "evil" races and [Evil] races can be good and can have innocent children/babies, but it's relatively easy to visualize a game world in which all [Evil] creatures ar irredeamably evil.

Evil innocent is a moronic oxymoron, "innocent [Evil]" is a statement of both moral standing and creature type like kindly Halfling or cruel Pitfiend.


there isn't a cultural connotation so powerful as to render my earlier post "an abuse of language and a sign of failed educational systems."

So, if you asked your spouse if there was milk in the fridge and they said yes and you then found she was incorrect you would call it lying without useing a blue text voice?

There really shouldn't be a definition of "lying" that doesn't reference "lie" because it just invites confusion. I'll also note that the example sentence for the second definition is "that lying son of a gun told me that the used car had never been in an accident".

[Flickerdart]

t it's relatively easy to visualize a game world in which all [Evil] creatures ar irredeadably evil.
In such a world, slaying an [Evil] child would not be killing an innocent, in the same way as slaying an undead who had not been ordered to do anything yet would be okay. In the eyes of your deity, they are guilty simply by existing.

When in doubt, remember life's greatest illusion.

[Gildedragon]

This thread is making me want to play a pit-fiend//cleric/prestige paladin... A onetime general in the blood war dissappointed by the inefficiency of the hells that at one point saw the heavens as a role model of proper functioning (cooperation being more orderly than backstabbing)

[Grod_The_Giant]

So, if you asked your spouse if there was milk in the fridge and they said yes and you then found she was incorrect you would call it lying without useing a blue text voice?
No, I wouldn't say that, but none of this turns "accidental lie" into some kind of abominable abuse of language. I don't really care about the exact connotations of the word; I was just really offended by Zombimode's post.

[Dimcair]

No, I wouldn't say that, but none of this turns "accidental lie" into some kind of abominable abuse of language. I don't really care about the exact connotations of the word; I was just really offended by Zombimode's post.

I think you misunderstood Zombimode. I think he stated that in the english language "accidental lying" makes sense, even though it is strange/strange to him. As other people pointed out, lying mostly goes together with intent.
Therefore accidentally doing something on purpose is a paradox.

Before a debate starts whether lying is mostly seen as stating something false on intent:


Bob: I hate murderers.
John: Yeah, I agree. Most people dislike murder.
Bob: How am I supposed to make a living when people keep murdering the merchandise from my store?
John: ...? :smallconfused: Please explain.
Bob: People keep walking into my store and taking stuff without paying for it. I don't know how to deal with all of these murderers.
John: You mean shoplifters?
Bob: I don't care what everyone else calls it. To me they're murderers. Everyone else should call them murderers too.

The purpose of language is communication. To make communication easier for all parties, we adhere to the commonly understood meaning of words to avoid confusion. Ignoring that common meaning, and expecting the rest of the world to adopt our personal interpretation instead, is both unreasonable and kind of silly.


Besides, I think every education system in which you have to PAY to go to university has failed. But that is just my completely subjective opinion.

[Captnq]

Being quite the rules lawyer, allow me to clairify some misunderstandings

There is deception, and there is lying.

We are all deceptive, but not everyone is a liar. For example:

Your girlfriend is a bloated sack of protoplasm the size of a wildebeast.
She asks you, "Does this dress make me look fat?"
You answer, "No."
Did you lie?

No. You were deceptive. Because the dress doesn't make her look fat. THE FAT makes her look fat.

Some people call this lying by omission. But in reality, it's Deception. We do it all the time.

Now there is Technically lying and Spiritually lying.
If you ever exaggerated for comedic effect. If you ever said, "It's heaver then Hell!" You are technically lying, but in reality you are telling the truth. "He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth" has a meaning beyond what it technically means. It is this double meaning, the layers of meaning that occur during conversations that make lying a touchy subject.

Now If you ask me, "How are the pizza bagels I made you?" And you answer, "I've never tasted anything like them before!" And I have a happy tone to my voice, I am telling a technical truth, even if the spirit of my statement is that your cooking sucks ass and I will try to pretend I like it so as to spare your feelings.

That's why paladins are required not to lie instead of always tell the truth. If you always tell the truth, then you really have to be a jerk. You tell people The food sucks, and that they look fat no matter what they wear.

Paladins can be deceptive without lying, and without being evil. Telling the truth can be evil. Actions of all sorts can be evil. Telling you something that's true that at the wrong time will send you into a rage and murder your wife is evil, even if I'm not lying.

So try and keep the two separate: Deception vs Lying.

It is far better

[Flickerdart]

Answering a trick question isn't even deception, though.

[Zanos]

... You know, the Paladin would be a much, MUCH more fun class to play if every single DM/player on the planet didn't try to make them Fall as often as possible.

It's the equivalent of "Oop, an invisible enemy stole your spellbook and your spare in the dead of night! Sorry, your wizard is useless." Cheap, annoying, and drags down the story. If you want the Paladin out of your way, kill him. Technicalities tend not to be fun for the other players.

Yes, I know not every single person tries to make Paladins fall, but I've had bad experiences. :smallfrown:
It would also be a lot more fun to play if it didn't have "Forces everyone else in the party to do what he says or he quits in a huff" as a class feature.

Paladins as written only work well in very specific party compositions.

[atemu1234]

It would also be a lot more fun to play if it didn't have "Forces everyone else in the party to do what he says or he quits in a huff" as a class feature.

Paladins as written only work well in very specific party compositions.

Or a good player composition, which would matter much more than you think.

[Andezzar]

It would also be a lot more fun to play if it didn't have "Forces everyone else in the party to do what he says or he quits in a huff" as a class feature.That's just the other side of the same coin.

@ OP: as an evil beguiler, if all you want is for the paladin to be gone, you just have to go to him and tell him: "I am an evil beguiler". Paladins also have this class feature:
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.So he has to leave.

Seriously though, if you are a player and have a problem with your character and the paladin character being in the group, talk to the DM (and the other player if the paladin is a PC) to work something out. A paladin and an evil beguiler simply won't work in the same party.Withdrawn, I forgot that the OP said it was a thought experiment.

In that context, saying something that is factually wrong cannot definitively be called lying, so even if lying is considered an evil act, you cannot definitively claim that a paladin who did not tell the factual truth has committed an evil act.

[Clistenes]

Any dungeon master who decides that an immature word play scenario counts as a gross violation of the code of conduct deserves to be hit over the head with their own books.

Why is making the Paladin fall as common as it is? If the dungeon master wants to go through steps to ensure a lose lose to the Paladinhood of the Paladin, they should have simply told the player not to play said class at all.

DMs who believe that the only purpose of paladin characters is to fall and atone are aggravating, because they think they are making a good roleplaying experience when the truth is that they are repeating the same story that a million other DMs before them. If you like to play paladins, the third time a DM tries to make it fall you feel really tired and want to roll a new character, maybe a different kind of holy warrior, but never a paladin again, and a DM that prevents you from enjoying the character you want to play is a crappy DM.

[atemu1234]

DMs who believe that the only purpose of paladin characters is to fall and atone are aggravating, because they think they are making a good roleplaying experience when the truth is that they are repeating the same story that a million other DMs before them. If you like play paladins, the third time a DM try to make it fall you feel really tired and want to roll a new character, maybe a different kind of holy warrior, but never a paladin again, and a DM that prevents you from enjoying the character you want to play is a crappy DM.

Y'know, I never saw the appeal of making the party paladin fall. I had it happen as backstory for some NPCs, but I did it once to a PC, and it turned out well. But doing it repeatedly so they can't radar for baddies is annoying to both the player and the DM. Whenever a PC needed to fool alignment detections, it's literally what, a level 2 spell? Prior to getting access to that, all you'd be smiting anyway is goblins besides.

My personal favorite character was a Paladin 5/Gray Guard 10. Byronic hero, very, very awesome.

[Andezzar]

DMs who believe that the only purpose of paladin characters is to fall and atone are aggravating, because they think they are making a good roleplaying experience when the truth is that they are repeating the same story that a million other DMs before them. If you like play paladins, the third time a DM try to make it fall you feel really tired and want to roll a new character, maybe a different kind of holy warrior, but never a paladin again, and a DM that prevents you from enjoying the character you want to play is a crappy DM.Wrongdoing, atonement and redemption can be a good roleplaying experience but I don't know why this must be accompanied by the loss of class features in the case of a paladin. That loss does in no way improve the story. Doing wrong and not seeing it as wrong should not hurt. The atonement part should be painful.

@atemu1234: I don't know what the term Byronic Hero means, but the Grey Guard PrC always seemed to me as a carte blanche for the paladin to commit whatever atrocities as long as he did it "for the greater good". While this is an interesting archetype as well, it does not fit at all with the archetype of the paladin. A paladin is not about doing the expedient thing but doing the right thing.

[Gildedragon]

Wrongdoing, atonement and redemption can be a good roleplaying experience but I don't know why this must be accompanied by the loss of class features in the case of a paladin. That loss does in no way improve the story. Doing wrong and not seeing it as wrong should not hurt. The atonement part should be painful.

It's a goad. A mechanical reason to atone.
Similar approach that brought on multiclassing penalties and familiar-induced XP loss

[Clistenes]

Y'know, I never saw the appeal of making the party paladin fall. I had it happen as backstory for some NPCs, but I did it once to a PC, and it turned out well. But doing it repeatedly so they can't radar for baddies is annoying to both the player and the DM. Whenever a PC needed to fool alignment detections, it's literally what, a level 2 spell? Prior to getting access to that, all you'd be smiting anyway is goblins besides.

My personal favorite character was a Paladin 5/Gray Guard 10. Byronic hero, very, very awesome.

I think many DM take a look at the party and try to weave them into the story, and they think "that chick the bard banged in the tavern was a princess in disguise, and the king wants to cut his balls...the wizard's mentor has gone evil and is an epic lich now...the Church of Pelor believes that the cleric is destined to greatness and they are going to test him...and the paladin? how could I get him to fall?"....Mostly because they think that falling and either atoning or going Blackguard is the only interesting thing a paladin can do and the only thing that can give them depth.

Or they outright hate paladins and want you to play something else...


Wrongdoing, atonement and redemption can be a good roleplaying experience but I don't know why this must be accompanied by the loss of class features in the case of a paladin. That loss does in no way improve the story. Doing wrong and not seeing it as wrong should not hurt. The atonement part should be painful.

Yes, the first time it can be a good, entertaining roleplaying experience, but as I said, there are some DMs who think that every paladin must fall at least once, and it's BORING. I can accept it if it's a relevant part of an interesting plot, like, for example, allying with Orcus to destroy Demogorgon and falling because of that, but I find it aggravating when they lay petty traps before you just to have the paladin fall.

[Nilehus]

Or a good player composition, which would matter much more than you think.

Exactly. A Paladin doesn't HAVE to have a stick shoved where the sun don't shine. Too many people play like it does, but it doesn't.

More Lien, less Miko, basically. I love O-Chul, but he's too perfect. Makes Paladins like him a bit boring to play as. :smallwink:

[Zanos]

That's just the other side of the same coin.
Not really. Not agreeing with a Paladin =/= actively trying to make him fall. The problem arises because there are a lot of situations that arise where the Paladin literally cannot compromise because of how the code works, and the death of compromise is the death of cooperation.

[atemu1234]

I think many DM take a look at the party and try to weave them into the story, and they think "that chick the bard banged in the tavern was a princess in disguise, and the king wants to cut his balls...the wizard's mentor has gone evil and is an epic lich now...the Church of Pelor believes that the cleric is destined to greatness and they are going to test him...and the paladin? how could I get him to fall?"....Mostly because they think that falling and either atoning or going Blackguard is the only interesting thing a paladin can do and the only thing that can give them depth.

Or they outright hate paladins and want you to play something else...

Now's the time for the story behind my paladin, I guess. Child of a noble family, he was raised from a young age to succeed the patriarch, until he decided to instead enter the order of paladins nearby, the Order of Freinacht. He quickly became among the best of the order's paladins (this lasted until level five-ish) but when he was raised in rank, he discovered a terrible secret: through a systematic series of wards such as undetectable alignment (and a few of the DM's homebrewed alignment-blocking wondrous items) the clerics and higher-level paladins were actually evil and served orcus (and the paladins of about level 8+ were blackguards). He left the order (although hardly amicably) and began fighting against it, bringing another group of paladins to help fight the corrupted order (he had been framed for murder to prevent anyone in his own order or even his own family from believing his words). He eventually succeeded, destroying Freinacht but refusing to join another order, preferring to wander and destroy corruption as a champion of justice rather than order (choosing lawful GOOD over LAWFUL good, as it were). But ~ level 15 (a fully leveled gray guard) he realized his own limits, and as his step brother (well, technically his father's bastard, but same sentiment) became the patriarch, he asked for funds to make a new order of paladins. That's kind of where the character ended, leading an order of paladins in the hopes of creating a better future.

[Nilehus]

Not really. Not agreeing with a Paladin =/= actively trying to make him fall. The problem arises because there are a lot of situations that arise where the Paladin literally cannot compromise because of how the code works, and the death of compromise is the death of cooperation.

That's the hang-up. Don't use the generic Code. Make one that actually fits your individual character or deity they worship.

Otherwise, you get people that try to make Paladins fall for not being omniscient. Not murdering innocents or those helpless to defend themselves, not stealing, not causing undue harm, etc., are all pretty much staples. As long as you don't try to gut a commoner for no reason, though, Paladins are not nearly as hard to work with as most people think*.

*Pending a DM that hates Paladins or someone that has no idea how to play a Paladin/goes for a Miko.

[Alex12]

My thinking regarding paladins that commit morally questionable acts when I'm the DM is "okay, now explain your reasoning for this decision in such a way that your god, as represented by me, the DM, finds it morally satisfactory"

I'll admit, I tend to be a generous DM. I'm not going to bust the paladin for killing someone in self-defense (preemptive self defense is a different matter), and if I feel that a player is having trouble understanding how I determine morality, I've got no problem giving them the Gift of Discernment feat for free as a non-Exalted feat.
I'm also of the opinion that lying to an evil individual is perfectly all right, and in fact encouraged, just as stabbing them in their stupid evil faces is encouraged.

And that there are instances where paladins can temporarily work with evil characters. After all, if you can't associate with them at all, you can't try and redeem them, not to mention the fact that there are some threats (see: Elder Evils) that you can put aside your differences to focus on the similarities like "both of us want the world intact, so let's not fight until after we ensure it stays that way." There's degrees of evil, and a paladin can only do so much. If he spreads himself too thin, he'll ultimately be able to do even less good, because something will kill him.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

It would also be a lot more fun to play if it didn't have "Forces everyone else in the party to do what he says or he quits in a huff" as a class feature.

Paladins as written only work well in very specific party compositions.

I've always felt that more Good aligned (and characters of other alignments occaisionaly) non-Paladin characters should be ready to make a moral stance and just not tolerate certain behaviors in their party.


The problem arises because there are a lot of situations that arise where the Paladin literally cannot compromise because of how the code works, and the death of compromise is the death of cooperation.

Are you possibly refusing to compromise by not choosing an evil option? Give me a scenario where you're trying to do something a Paladin won't go along with and . . .

1. You try compromise repeatedly.

2. Your "compromises" aren't comedic token compromises.

3. Several other Good party members would agree.

@Andezzar: I presume "Byronic Hero" refers to a character that resembles those in the stories of Lord Byron.

[atemu1234]

@atemu1234: I don't know what the term Byronic Hero means, but the Grey Guard PrC always seemed to me as a carte blanche for the paladin to commit whatever atrocities as long as he did it "for the greater good". While this is an interesting archetype as well, it does not fit at all with the archetype of the paladin. A paladin is not about doing the expedient thing but doing the right thing.

I saw it more as a chance to make a paladin "less shackled" by the order he belongs to. A gray guard who investigates paladin organizations has to have more freedom than one who serves those organizations. It also frees you from the endless routine of doing what's right, what makes you fall, and what's the best decision and makes you fall.

I find myself defending the prestige class more often than I thought I would, because I like to think I got it right. It isn't a freedom from the paladin, it's a freer version of roleplaying a paladin. A wide-eyed idealist can sometimes have a crisis of faith and move on, better from the experience, rather than simply becoming evil.

In short, it's not a paladin. It's a paladin who's had something that damaged his faith, and has decided to, instead of falling and becoming a blackguard, to make something of his power and use it for good rather than simply deny reality and pretend he can make it perfect simply through faith.

Paladins, while fun, are often one-dimensional when it comes to roleplaying. Gray guards are far more interesting to roleplay and can be much more three-dimensional in their goals, ideals, morals, and accurate portrayal of a man who was once pure and innocent in naivety who has to deal with the harsh realities or a realistic world.

Also, a byronic hero is a hero characterized as dark, brooding, often having some troubling experiences in his backstory, but very handsome, intelligent, and charismatic. My character was lucky with the rolls in that he became a kind of "jack-of-all-stats". He was one of my favorites.

[Segev]

In a setting I ran, there were two main orders of Paladin. One was of the (good) Elven god of the Sun, and the other of the (evil) Elven god of Night. The former are actually an order instituted by the good elven gods to lure away and protect those who are so upstanding that they might have been targeted to become members of the latter. It is mechanically and fluff-wise weaker, with less power, but is still a viable holy order to do good and righteous deeds.

The order of Ril, the god of Night, is a hard road to walk. Ril is a self-loathing deity who believes that goodness and virtue are lies and that nobody is actually as good as they think they are. They might be naive and thus honestly believe it, but they're wrong. It is his goal to prove this to his Paladins. He recruits them through his priestesses with promises that he will guide them to genuine wrongs that need righting, to the hardest and most desperate of causes and give them the power to help fix them, if they can but figure out how.

Each Paladin of Ril has a coven of priestesses who serve him, guide him, help him find situations where his help is needed and follow his orders to the letter and spirit to provide infrastructural support to his aims. Ril expects absolute paragon behavior from his Paladins, and they swear stringent and rigid oaths regarding their conduct and purity, including a vow of chastity. (Ril will not accept a non-virgin Paladin; the priestesses of the goddess of the Moon often help the recruitment of Paladins to the Sun god by rendering them ineligible for Ril's order.)

Ril does everything in his power to show his Paladins that their efforts are in vain due to the evils of others, to tempt them to break their oaths, to make them see that they are NOT as good and pure as they think they are. He even gives them, as their sacred steed, a black unicorn who is utterly devoted to (and cursed to be unabashedly in love with) the Paladin. A black unicorn who turns into a beautiful elven woman at night.

So there is at least one reason why I, as a DM, would be working to make a paladin fall. But it would be the player's choice to play a paladin of that type. Ril is an evil, spiteful, miserable god who hates nobility and wants to sully it, and he gives all the rope he can to those who think such things are worth upholding...enough rope that they can hang themselves.

[Andezzar]

@atemu1234: I get the idea of the gray guard, I just always wonder what's preferable about playing the less shackled but more zealous mailed fist of god as a paladin/gray guard instead of playing a cleric. Even in core you are not restricted to one alignment and nobody is trying to break your character mechanically. Crises of faith/conviction are just as likely depending on the DM. On top of that the cleric chassis is actually better at smiting the evildoers.

[atemu1234]

@atemu1234: I get the idea of the gray guard, I just always wonder what's preferable about playing the less shackled but more zealous mailed fist of god as a paladin/gray guard instead of playing a cleric. Even in core you are not restricted to one alignment and nobody is trying to break your character mechanically. Crises of faith/conviction are just as likely depending on the DM. On top of that the cleric chassis is actually better at smiting the evildoers.

Again, it's not about it fitting the character off of the bat. It's about character development. You don't have to be overzealous, you can be a character who has recognized the limitations of his divine oath on what he can do to stop evil, regardless of intentions. People want to play gray guards because they want developing characters, rather than a simple "he was a cleric but then he saw (other cleric x) do (action y) in his backstory and now he doesn't know what to believe".

[Graypairofsocks]

Mainly because I'm curious to know, which race of critter with the (evil) subtype actually has children/babies? There aren't that many examples of (evil) that aren't fiends, and few fiends are ever "born."

I will give some examples(not all inclusive):

Demons: Armanites (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/fc1_gallery/98439.jpg), Ekolids (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/fc1_gallery/98448.jpg)(they lay eggs, which hatch in a round and the grubs grow up in I think around 6 hours), I think Cambions as well.

Baatezu: Erinyes, Brachinas(basically an Erinyes variant), all male devils , any other female unique devils.

Yugoloths*: all of them(they are also hermaphrodites).

Others: Night Hags(in a way).

*In 2nd edition cannon at least, it may carry over to 3.5E as the there never was any elaboration(AFAIK) on the Yugoloth society in 3E.

[Pex]

Asker: "I want you to answer the next question with yes or no in 10 seconds, will you do that for me?"
Paladin: (mentally consulting his Phylactery of Faithfulness. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness)) "Hey, should I go along with this moron's obviously shady upcoming trick question?"

No need to ask his phylactery. He can just answer "Yes" and be done. After all, the next question was "Will you do that for me?".

:smallbiggrin:

[Phelix-Mu]

I will give some examples(not all inclusive):

Demons: Armanites (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/fc1_gallery/98439.jpg), Ekolids (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/fc1_gallery/98448.jpg)(they lay eggs, which hatch in a round and the grubs grow up in I think around 6 hours), I think Cambions as well.

Baatezu: Erinyes, Brachinas(basically an Erinyes variant), all male devils , any other female unique devils.

Yugoloths*: all of them(they are also hermaphrodites).

Others: Night Hags(in a way).

*In 2nd edition cannon at least, it may carry over to 3.5E as the there never was any elaboration(AFAIK) on the Yugoloth society in 3E.

But aren't many of these creatures that also come into existence otherwise? In short, they can reproduce, but don't rely on it, and would mainly do it as a way to spread evil? Cambions are the only ones that I see that actually have a "childhood" stage, in all likelihood. And as they probably grow up in close concert with their fiendish parent, it probably little resembles an actual childhood as the word is usually used.

I know that, somewhere, the game mentions that most outsiders are magically fertile, and only reproduce when it suits their purposes/desires, and thus rarely as a matter of survival. Not that that alters the usefulness of that list, mind you, but pretty much any outsider, regardless of form, could ostensibly sire children by virtue of magic or something, as polymorph is a thing.

[Batou1976]

No need to ask his phylactery. He can just answer "Yes" and be done. After all, the next question was "Will you do that for me?".

:smallbiggrin:

Technicalities FTW!!!!!! :smallbiggrin:

[atemu1234]

But aren't many of these creatures that also come into existence otherwise? In short, they can reproduce, but don't rely on it, and would mainly do it as a way to spread evil? Cambions are the only ones that I see that actually have a "childhood" stage, in all likelihood. And as they probably grow up in close concert with their fiendish parent, it probably little resembles an actual childhood as the word is usually used.

I know that, somewhere, the game mentions that most outsiders are magically fertile, and only reproduce when it suits their purposes/desires, and thus rarely as a matter of survival. Not that that alters the usefulness of that list, mind you, but pretty much any outsider, regardless of form, could ostensibly sire children by virtue of magic or something, as polymorph is a thing.

I'm pretty sure those fertility rules were only made in BoEF. Otherwise it's basically up to DM decision.

[aleucard]

I'm pretty sure those fertility rules were only made in BoEF. Otherwise it's basically up to DM decision.

Amusingly enough, there actually is some decent things in there for general use. Also, if these sorts of questions need to be asked, why not answer with a source material designed around these sorts of questions? Just because it invokes some of the more quote unquote interesting aspects of FATAL does not make it any less valid. They're the ones that are so bloody curious about the technicalities of it, scarring their brain in retaliation seems fair. :smallbiggrin:

[Alex12]

Amusingly enough, there actually is some decent things in there for general use. Also, if these sorts of questions need to be asked, why not answer with a source material designed around these sorts of questions? Just because it invokes some of the more quote unquote interesting aspects of FATAL does not make it any less valid. They're the ones that are so bloody curious about the technicalities of it, scarring their brain in retaliation seems fair. :smallbiggrin:

Personally, I figure if the situation comes up where those sorts of rules are relevant (say the party bard asks about contraceptive magic) it's actually less brain-scarring to refer to the relevant book than to try and make something up on the fly. I can't imagine a society with the degree of magical options that D&D magic offers that doesn't have magical contraception.
It's got some other useful things too, and my brain-scarring tolerance is, as far as I can tell, quite high. I find it occasionally amusing to open the FATAL rulebook to a random page and see how long it is from the top of the page until I find something indicating the author is a horrible game designer and/or person (not long, by the way). So take everything I say on the subject with a grain of salt the size of the Mount Everest.
That said, if you want to take one of the PrCs or something from BoEF, you better have a really good reason, because I'm not running that sort of game (Appearance as a stat? Feh. No, that's stupid.)

[atemu1234]

Amusingly enough, there actually is some decent things in there for general use. Also, if these sorts of questions need to be asked, why not answer with a source material designed around these sorts of questions? Just because it invokes some of the more quote unquote interesting aspects of FATAL does not make it any less valid. They're the ones that are so bloody curious about the technicalities of it, scarring their brain in retaliation seems fair. :smallbiggrin:

It's pointing it out because it's third party; not simply because it's BoEF. I hold nothing against the book save that it is third party.

[tomandtish]

Correct answer: You're a very silly person and I'm not going to talk with you any more.

Lying is not merely the same as being wrong, it is intentionally attempting to deceive someone else. The paladin is not doing anything of the sort if he chooses to answer the OP's questions with either 'yes' or 'no'. Merely stating counter-factuals is not enough. Otherwise a paladin would not be able to tell any sort of story or joke or relay information at all without the everpresent risk of failing. Imagine a paladin trying to enlighten someone with a parable: "Once there were these three guys who got magic beans-" BAM! Fallen paladin.
Or a paladin telling dirty limericks in a bar. BAM! Fallen paladin.
Or a paladin relays a message she had been asked tom but which turns out to include false information. BAM! Fallen paladin.

As plenty of others like BWR have said, most people would take lying to be an intentional thing. A person can be mistaken without lying. Otherwise:

"O'chul fell again".
"Why?"
"Got a question wrong on his math test and was dinged for lying. Said that M=ECsquared".
"Bummer".

Example A: Belkar tells Roy he's going to clean out the Tomb of Horrors, but once out of Sight heads for the Temple of Elemental Evil. When asked where Belkar is, Roy says Belkar's at the Tomb of Horrors. Not a lie. Roy is wrong (and Belkar appears to have lied to him), but Roy did not lie.

Example B: Belkar tells Roy he's going to clean out the Tomb of Horrors, but heads for the Temple of Elemental Evil. Roy sees Belkar go into the Temple. When asked where Belkar is, Roy says Belkar's at the Tomb of Horrors. This is a lie. Roy knows Belkar is elsewhere and gives a false answer.

Example C: Belkar tells Roy he's going to clean out the Tomb of Horrors, but heads for the Temple of Elemental Evil. Roy sees Belkar go into the Temple. When asked where Belkar is, Roy says Belkar said he was going to the Tomb of Horrors. Not a lie, but it does involve deception. Roy's answer is technically true (that's what Belkar said), but Roy knows that's not where he is at.

A and C do not involve actual lies. And incidentally, we know that C is something Rich agrees Paladins can do (5th panel (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0663.html)). After all, if Paladins couldn't deflect unpleasant questions occasionally ("You look as lovely as always"), then they could never function in polite society.


I've always felt that more Good aligned (and characters of other alignments occaisionaly) non-Paladin characters should be ready to make a moral stance and just not tolerate certain behaviors in their party.



Are you possibly refusing to compromise by not choosing an evil option? Give me a scenario where you're trying to do something a Paladin won't go along with and . . .

1. You try compromise repeatedly.

2. Your "compromises" aren't comedic token compromises.

3. Several other Good party members would agree.

@Andezzar: I presume "Byronic Hero" refers to a character that resembles those in the stories of Lord Byron.

This. Just This.

All too often when I see Paladin complaints, it comes down to "We can't do this because we have a paladin in the party". But when you look at what they want to do, often (not always but often), it is behavior that Good party members shouldn't be supporting either.

And if the party is all neutral and evil except the Paladin, then you have a player problem. Why is someone playing something so out of step with the tone of the rest of the party? Not to say that it can't work (with careful and skillful playing), but it probably won't.

[Graypairofsocks]

I know that, somewhere, the game mentions that most outsiders are magically fertile, and only reproduce when it suits their purposes/desires, and thus rarely as a matter of survival.

Note that one of the Ekolids main shtick is their incredibly fast reproduction rate(like uber-vermin), and they will lay eggs in any living creature (except ekolids) when given the chance.

[Segev]

On the other hand, if Paladins could fall for lying just based on being factually wrong, consider the research and investigation potential!

"We have our suspect in custody. Are you ready for your trial by combat?" "Um, what? I thought you were LG and didn't do that kind of thing!" "Oh, YOU aren't going to be fighting. Your defense attorney is a Dretch." "...what!?" "Prosecutor Paladin Firstlevelson?" "The defendant is guilty!" "Alright, release the defense attorney!"

Prosecutor Firstlevelson attempts to Smite Evil the dretch. If he succeeds, that means he still has his powers, so he didn't say something untrue! Defendant is guilty. If he fails, the dretch is put back in its cage, and the defendant is proven innocent by the fall of Prosecutor Firstlevelson's paladinhood. (Presumably, the prosecutor goes in for atonement to get it back.)


Could also be used to test for highly esoteric truths and scientific theories, with enough paladins!

[Gildedragon]

On the other hand, if Paladins could fall for lying just based on being factually wrong, consider the research and investigation potential!

"We have our suspect in custody. Are you ready for your trial by combat?" "Um, what? I thought you were LG and didn't do that kind of thing!" "Oh, YOU aren't going to be fighting. Your defense attorney is a Dretch." "...what!?" "Prosecutor Paladin Firstlevelson?" "The defendant is guilty!" "Alright, release the defense attorney!"

Prosecutor Firstlevelson attempts to Smite Evil the dretch. If he succeeds, that means he still has his powers, so he didn't say something untrue! Defendant is guilty. If he fails, the dretch is put back in its cage, and the defendant is proven innocent by the fall of Prosecutor Firstlevelson's paladinhood. (Presumably, the prosecutor goes in for atonement to get it back.)


Could also be used to test for highly esoteric truths and scientific theories, with enough paladins!

I had a player that tried to do something like this. A phylactery of faithfulness based system where no trial was needed, just the assumption that a paladin smithing someone innocent would cause them to fall. So augury was used to figure out if smithing the person would be bad...
I ended up ruling that smithing anyone sans evidence is a chaotic act and thus the phyl of faith would always say "bad stuff ahead"

[atemu1234]

As plenty of others like BWR have said, most people would take lying to be an intentional thing. A person can be mistaken without lying. Otherwise:

"O'chul fell again".
"Why?"
"Got a question wrong on his math test and was dinged for lying. Said that M=ECsquared".
"Bummer".

Example A: Belkar tells Roy he's going to clean out the Tomb of Horrors, but once out of Sight heads for the Temple of Elemental Evil. When asked where Belkar is, Roy says Belkar's at the Tomb of Horrors. Not a lie. Roy is wrong (and Belkar appears to have lied to him), but Roy did not lie.

Example B: Belkar tells Roy he's going to clean out the Tomb of Horrors, but heads for the Temple of Elemental Evil. Roy sees Belkar go into the Temple. When asked where Belkar is, Roy says Belkar's at the Tomb of Horrors. This is a lie. Roy knows Belkar is elsewhere and gives a false answer.

Example C: Belkar tells Roy he's going to clean out the Tomb of Horrors, but heads for the Temple of Elemental Evil. Roy sees Belkar go into the Temple. When asked where Belkar is, Roy says Belkar said he was going to the Tomb of Horrors. Not a lie, but it does involve deception. Roy's answer is technically true (that's what Belkar said), but Roy knows that's not where he is at.

A and C do not involve actual lies. And incidentally, we know that C is something Rich agrees Paladins can do (5th panel (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0663.html)). After all, if Paladins couldn't deflect unpleasant questions occasionally ("You look as lovely as always"), then they could never function in polite society.

This. Just This.

All too often when I see Paladin complaints, it comes down to "We can't do this because we have a paladin in the party". But when you look at what they want to do, often (not always but often), it is behavior that Good party members shouldn't be supporting either.

And if the party is all neutral and evil except the Paladin, then you have a player problem. Why is someone playing something so out of step with the tone of the rest of the party? Not to say that it can't work (with careful and skillful playing), but it probably won't.

Well, what I've noticed is that the LG non-paladins can compromise their beliefs. It may hurt, it may sting, they may not enjoy it, but they can do it and basically walk away (IE, you don't see a CN Ranger losing Favored Enemy because he chose to walk across a bridge rather than jump off it). Paladins, on the other hand, can't do anything without risking falling. Even if they accidentally commit an evil act, they can't do anything useful (more useful than an NPC warrior, that is) until they atone. And Bahamut help them if they willingly do anything evil, even if it is for the greater good.

Of course, I've always preferred tortured type heroes. Hence why my only paladin was a gray guard. Read my explanation above.

[Pan151]

Even if they accidentally commit an evil act, they can't do anything useful (more useful than an NPC warrior, that is) until they atone.

I would really appreciate if people at least bothered to read the actual entry for ex-paladins before talking about them falling from grace.

A paladin who accidentally commits an evil act does not fall. Falling requires one of 3 very specific things:

a) Intentional evil act.
b) Alignment shift.
c) Gross violation of the paladin's code.

[FidgetySquirrel]

All too often when I see Paladin complaints, it comes down to "We can't do this because we have a paladin in the party". But when you look at what they want to do, often (not always but often), it is behavior that Good party members shouldn't be supporting either.Agreed, and I try to subvert this as often as possible. Case in point, I was playing a CN who was in a redemption arc of sorts and headed for CG. The DM gave us some schmuck bait treasure that was worth a lot of gold for our level, but were high-power aligned weapons. We ended up with some accidental PvP when a good PC grabbed the good weapon, and the token evil teammate grabbed the evil one (pure coincidence, mind you). They proceeded to fail their saves and try to kill each other, and I had to incapacitate them.

Being neutral, I could hold the weapons w/o going crazy, and the murderhobos wanted to head to town and sell the items. I disagreed, stating that even though we really needed the cash, we can't just go and risk getting a bunch of innocent townsfolk killed just to make a quick buck. I promptly put the weapons back and told everyone to move along, and threatened an ass-whooping for anyone who got any funny ideas.

Funny enough, this ended up being the act that finally facilitated my alignment shift. Thankfully, it didn't happen until the items were no longer in my possession. As I already mentioned, this was a neutral character, but that didn't stop me from doing the right thing, even at the cost of material gain. People who think only paladins argue against doing wrong and generally acting like murderhobos have it wrong, IMO.

[atemu1234]

I would really appreciate if people at least bothered to read the actual entry for ex-paladins before talking about them falling from grace.

A paladin who accidentally commits an evil act does not fall. Falling requires one of 3 very specific things:

a) Intentional evil act.
b) Alignment shift.
c) Gross violation of the paladin's code.

As I was saying, anybody besides a paladin can compromise their morals (act for the greater good) as opposed to the paladin, who must try to save the bus wagon full of innocents rather than slay the Balor.

[Andezzar]

And BoED makes it even worse. The paladin cannot save the wagon full of innocents, without falling, if saving them means he has to let the Balor live.

[AMFV]

I would imagine that paladins would start answering questions like teenagers - in non-committal grunts and judgmental glares.

Aren't they supposed to? I thought that was in their code somewhere...

[Pan151]

As I was saying, anybody besides a paladin can compromise their morals (act for the greater good) as opposed to the paladin, who must try to save the bus wagon full of innocents rather than slay the Balor.

Your example is a bad one. This isn't even a choice, regardless of whether you're a good Paladin or just a regular good folk - saving people is a good act, abandoning innocents to their deaths just to kill somebody is being a murderhobo.


And BoED makes it even worse. The paladin cannot save the wagon full of innocents, without falling, if saving them means he has to let the Balor live.
Mind quoting what part of BoED says that?

[Andezzar]

Mind quoting what part of BoED says that?My bad, it actually was BoVD:
Destroying a fiend is always a good act. Allowing a fiend to exist, let alone summoning one or helping one, is clearly evil.

[AMFV]

My bad, it actually was BoVD:

But in that case the Paladin isn't allowing the fiend to exist, he just has other priorities. This is the same reason it isn't evil for a Paladin to have material possessions when others could use the monetary value they provide. A Paladin deciding to save people instead of rushing off to kill something is hardly evil. Now if there was a scenario where he could do both, then he should attempt that, but failing that he can always hunt the Balor down later, he can't save the people later.

[Pan151]

My bad, it actually was BoVD:

Allowing a fiend to exist presumes that you have the ability to destroy it and yet choose, by your own will, to let it live. In this specific example you are not choosing to spare the demon, as it is instead forced upon you due to the whole innocent hostage situation.

[Andezzar]

The problem is that as long as the paladin is not killing the Balor, he is allowing him to live. I know that this is not the intention of the rule, but making this an evil act, the rules cause the paladin to fall either way.


Allowing a fiend to exist presumes that you have the ability to destroy it and yet choose, by your own will, to let it live. In this specific example you are not choosing to spare the demon, as it is instead forced upon you due to the whole innocent hostage situation.The situation (save the innocents or kill the fiend) is forced on the paladin. The choice to do one or the other is the paladin's. And if the paladin chooses to save the innocents, he also makes the choice of letting the fiend live.

[squiggit]

The problem is that as long as the paladin is not killing the Balor, he is allowing him to live. I know that this is not the intention of the rule, but making this an evil act, the rules cause the paladin to fall either way.

That's still a really vindictive interpretation of the rule. Plus you don't even need that scenario to make your position preposterous because the moment you use that "rule" every paladin everywhere falls instantly.

[atemu1234]

Allowing a fiend to exist presumes that you have the ability to destroy it and yet choose, by your own will, to let it live. In this specific example you are not choosing to spare the demon, as it is instead forced upon you due to the whole innocent hostage situation.


Choices always exist; which is the right one is the question.

Joking aside, the fact remains the demon can kill more people than your choice would save, but you have the choice to save the innocents or slay the demon, and you are choosing to spare it in exchange for the benefit of being capable of saving the innocents. Same as if it offered you gold, albeit more altruistic in motive.

[weckar]

You don't choose to spare it. You resolve the definite death of innocents now in trade for the possible death of innocents later. I'd prevent the certainty.

[atemu1234]

You don't choose to spare it. You resolve the definite death of innocents now in trade for the possible death of innocents later. I'd prevent the certainty.

This argument is tangential. I'll put it this way: Two wagons of innocents. You can save one, or slay the Balor. Take your pick, my argument is the same either way.

[AMFV]

The problem is that as long as the paladin is not killing the Balor, he is allowing him to live. I know that this is not the intention of the rule, but making this an evil act, the rules cause the paladin to fall either way.

The situation (save the innocents or kill the fiend) is forced on the paladin. The choice to do one or the other is the paladin's. And if the paladin chooses to save the innocents, he also makes the choice of letting the fiend live.

It's not a question of morality but one of competency, the Paladin is unable to do both, so he puts off killing the Balor, allowing it to live (temporarily) because he can't do both things. Being not hypercompetent is not evil. For example if a level 1 Paladin encounters a Balor he does not have to try to kill it and die wastefully, and running away from that encounter is not evil, but rather prudent.

Just because allowing a fiend to live is evil does not mean that all scenarios that result in Fiend's continued existence are necessarily evil, that scenario is presented in a vacuum. Since the alternative is worse, and the Paladin can go after the fiend later, I say that he shouldn't fall for that, since he's not willingly performing an evil act, he's only putting off a later good act.

[Andezzar]

You don't choose to spare it. You resolve the definite death of innocents now in trade for the possible death of innocents later. I'd prevent the certainty.The point isn't the possible evil deeds of the fiend but its continued existence. That existence is caused by the choice. And that act is considered evil by BoVD. It is obvious that it was an intentional act and so the paladin falls.

IMHO paladin should not be a class/skill set but an outlook/personality.

[weckar]

It all depends on whether failure is at all possible for any of the permutations. Doing the most good. Neither those innocents, nor your god, will have any use for you if you fall in battle with the Balor.

EDIT: Honestly, by your reasoning no Paladin would ever get past lv1 because they are not actively traveling the underworld to slay the Fiends there, thus allowing them to exist.

[Pan151]

Joking aside, the fact remains the demon can kill more people than your choice would save, but you have the choice to save the innocents or slay the demon, and you are choosing to spare it in exchange for the benefit of being capable of saving the innocents. Same as if it offered you gold, albeit more altruistic in motive.

By that same logic, any random kid could grow up to do the worst kinds of evil. Should the paladin fall for not slaying every child he comes across?

The issue in hand is: save the hostage and let the demon go, or let them die and kill the demon. There are no ifs and buts and howevers - not in this example, at the very least. If you wanna provide a more fleshed out example with valid reasons as to why a paladin should consider sacrificing the innocents, then I'm all for it, but that has been done before in this site (and the thread went on for lots of pages, devolved into chaos and was locked without making much progress)

[Andezzar]

It's not a question of morality but one of competency, the Paladin is unable to do both, so he puts off killing the Balor, allowing it to live (temporarily) because he can't do both things. Being not hypercompetent is not evil. For example if a level 1 Paladin encounters a Balor he does not have to try to kill it and die wastefully, and running away from that encounter is not evil, but rather prudent. I agree. Unfortunately the book does not give any mitigating factors.


Just because allowing a fiend to live is evil does not mean that all scenarios that result in Fiend's continued existence are necessarily evil, that scenario is presented in a vacuum. Since the alternative is worse, and the Paladin can go after the fiend later, I say that he shouldn't fall for that, since he's not willingly performing an evil act, he's only putting off a later good act.Actually the rule exactly says that causing a fiend's continued existence is evil, regardless of circumstances. That this continued existence may be the lesser of two evils under certain circumstances, does not change the fact that it is an evil act. Unfortunately for the Paladin, there is no rule that good and evil acts cancel each other out. So the Paladin who saves the innocents does a good deed and an evil one, but the evil one causes him to fall.


By that same logic, any random kid could grow up to do the worst kinds of evil. Should the paladin fall for not slaying every child he comes across?Unless you are talking about adolescent fiends, no. Fiends are a distinct subset of evil creatures and have rules only applying to them.

[atemu1234]

It all depends on whether failure is at all possible for any of the permutations. Doing the most good. Neither those innocents, nor your god, will have any use for you if you fall in battle with the Balor.

EDIT: Honestly, by your reasoning no Paladin would ever get past lv1 because they are not actively traveling the underworld to slay the Fiends there, thus allowing them to exist.

My logic isn't supposed to be logic. It's showing that there are no-win scenarios, that either choice results in death or an evil being living to do it again. Let's look at it this way: all lives are equal.

A Balor can kill theoretically infinite numbers of people, and let's say there's one hundred innocent human babies in each wagon. Kill the Balor: 200 innocents die. Save one wagon: Balor escapes and 100 babies still die. Save the other: See the second choice. Either result is an evil act (innocents die and a literal personification of evil escapes or innocents just die in larger numbers) while it isn't your fault, either still violates your code of conduct. Is it reasonable? Hell no. Is it a likelihood? Yes. Hence the purpose of the atonement spell.

[Pan151]

My logic isn't supposed to be logic. It's showing that there are no-win scenarios, that either choice results in death or an evil being living to do it again. Let's look at it this way: all lives are equal.

A Balor can kill theoretically infinite numbers of people, and let's say there's one hundred innocent human babies in each wagon. Kill the Balor: 200 innocents die. Save one wagon: Balor escapes and 100 babies still die. Save the other: See the second choice. Either result is an evil act (innocents die and a literal personification of evil escapes or innocents just die in larger numbers) while it isn't your fault, either still violates your code of conduct. Is it reasonable? Hell no. Is it a likelihood? Yes. Hence the purpose of the atonement spell.

There is an infinite number of Balors killing one is meaningless. Your job is not to try to surpass infinity - it is to save as many as you can while still alive.

[atemu1234]

There is an infinite number of Balors killing one is meaningless. Your job is not to try to surpass infinity - it is to save as many as you can while still alive.

But killing it saves all that would be harmed by it in future; I could keep throwing in conditions here to the point of moving the goalposts, but this is a real problem faced by trying to be a perfect representation of law and good while being fallible and mortal: You're going to be forced into an evil act one way or another, which is a violation of the Paladin code.

[weckar]

As I said before: if you have no chance of slaying the Balor, you are not 'allowing' it to resist; you are powerless to prevent it.

[atemu1234]

As I said before: if you have no chance of slaying the Balor, you are not 'allowing' it to resist; you are powerless to prevent it.

And as I said before, I could give you other circumstances in which you cannot win. This one is becoming tangential to the thread, but my above comment points out the failings of a fallible mortal trying to be a pure judge of good and law.

[firebrandtoluc]

Slaying a Balor doesn't even kill it. It just sends it back to hell. Outsiders don't exist on the material plane. No encounter on the material plane with an outsider really has any effect on its existence.

[atemu1234]

Slaying a Balor doesn't even kill it. It just sends it back to hell. Outsiders don't exist on the material plane. No encounter on the material plane with an outsider really has any effect on its existence.

To quote OOTS: We don't really know, they keep changing it.

[Angelalex242]

Personally, I believe in 'acting in good faith.'

If the Paladin is doing something that is objectively good, he isn't falling for it. Saving the innocents is good, so he's fine. Killing a fiend is good, so he's fine. Further, a Paladin does not fall for chaotic actions unless he makes a habit of it. (I've written elsewhere about my Paladin who fell in love with a CG Elf. The relationship worked fine, and her spontaneity actually brought some joy to his otherwise stoic life.)

What he can't do is use evil means to do good.

"If you kill that baby, the village will not blow up."

You can't kill the baby. You can, however, smite the everlovin' **** out of whoever tried to put that choice before you.

[atemu1234]

Personally, I believe in 'acting in good faith.'

If the Paladin is doing something that is objectively good, he isn't falling for it. Saving the innocents is good, so he's fine. Killing a fiend is good, so he's fine. Further, a Paladin does not fall for chaotic actions unless he makes a habit of it. (I've written elsewhere about my Paladin who fell in love with a CG Elf. The relationship worked fine, and her spontaneity actually brought some joy to his otherwise stoic life.)

What he can't do is use evil means to do good.

"If you kill that baby, the village will not blow up."

You can't kill the baby. You can, however, smite the everlovin' **** out of whoever tried to put that choice before you.

Alright. Let's say, then, that there's an unspeakably evil foe. A being of pure evil, who can only be killed using a cursed blade. How cursed you ask? In order to be capable to kill anything with it, you must kill an innocent person (meaning usually a newborn infant of a nonevil race) and bathe the weapon in their blood. This villain is inevitably going to kill again. Go fix that one. You cannot do the good act (slay the villain, who I may as well add cannot be captured alive) without committing an evil act, which violates your alignment.

[weckar]

In such a scenario the mission would become to contain the evil, instead of slaying it.

[lord_khaine]

Alright. Let's say, then, that there's an unspeakably evil foe. A being of pure evil, who can only be killed using a cursed blade. How cursed you ask? In order to be capable to kill anything with it, you must kill an innocent person (meaning usually a newborn infant of a nonevil race) and bathe the weapon in their blood. This villain is inevitably going to kill again. Go fix that one. You cannot do the good act (slay the villain, who I may as well add cannot be captured alive) without committing an evil act, which violates your alignment.

And the Paladin then slays himself with the blade, picking it up as a ghost to complete his task before moving on to the afterlife.

Job done, villian slain and no evil commited.

[Nilehus]

Alright. Let's say, then, that there's an unspeakably evil foe. A being of pure evil, who can only be killed using a cursed blade. How cursed you ask? In order to be capable to kill anything with it, you must kill an innocent person (meaning usually a newborn infant of a nonevil race) and bathe the weapon in their blood. This villain is inevitably going to kill again. Go fix that one. You cannot do the good act (slay the villain, who I may as well add cannot be captured alive) without committing an evil act, which violates your alignment.

And any DM that puts a Paladin in that situation is just retreading that old, stupid plot device, "Make the Paladin fall because it's deep, amazing storytelling!" It's contrived and, quite frankly, it's idiotic. No DM worth half their weight in salt would make the Paladin fall for refusing to kill a baby.

[atemu1234]

And the Paladin then slays himself with the blade, picking it up as a ghost to complete his task before moving on to the afterlife.

Job done, villian slain and no evil commited.

Become a deathless, you mean. And how about this? It has to be a newborn infant. The blade consumes its soul. Do I need to keep moving the goalposts or do you get the idea?

[Pan151]

But killing it saves all that would be harmed by it in future; I could keep throwing in conditions here to the point of moving the goalposts, but this is a real problem faced by trying to be a perfect representation of law and good while being fallible and mortal: You're going to be forced into an evil act one way or another, which is a violation of the Paladin code.

Willingly (I'm getting tiring pointing this out again and again, aren't I? Well, it's getting tiring that people intentionally ignore it again and again) commiting an evil act and not being able to be a perfect representation of good and law are two very different things.

You can go on and on about how the paladin will inevitably be forced into choosing between the lesser of two (or more) evils, but you're missing the point - unless the paladin commits the act of his/her own will, with actual intent to do evil, he/she will not fall. Letting a demon live, in a vacuum, is an evil act, sure. Letting a demon live because you had innocent lives to save and you can't be everywhere at once is not an evil act, or at the very least not a willingly commited evil act.

You cannt punish a paladin for not being omnipotent...

[atemu1234]

You cannt punish a paladin for not being omnipotent...

Unfortunately, that is not a tenet of the Paladin code.

[Haluesen]

Willingly (I'm getting tiring pointing this out again and again, aren't I? Well, it's getting tiring that people intentionally ignore it again and again) commiting an evil act and not being able to be a perfect representation of good and law are two very different things.

You can go on and on about how the paladin will inevitably be forced into choosing between the lesser of two (or more) evils, but you're missing the point - unless the paladin commits the act of his/her own will, with actual intent to do evil, he/she will not fall. Letting a demon live, in a vacuum, is an evil act, sure. Letting a demon live because you had innocent lives to save and you can't be everywhere at once is not an evil act, or at the very least not a willingly commited evil act.

You cannt punish a paladin for not being omnipotent...

This is pretty much the most moderate way to consider the code of conduct in a game. Which is good, of course. But it really does often seem like the paladin code of conduct needs to be altered in any game one is used in, or eradicated entirely.


Unfortunately, that is not a tenet of the Paladin code.

I don't really get what you mean here. :smallconfused: It is unfortunate that paladin's cannot be punished for not being omnipotent? Or do you mean something else? I really am confused. Also I do get that being infallibly good is impossible for a human, but you are only using extreme examples. Kill a baby to stop a villan or fall? Then the paladin does not stop the villan, or was never a good choice for paladin in the first place. And this is also a scenario that can only be made by a DM wanting to punish a paladin player, so that is also bad DMing. Whoever would throw that kinda thing at someone doesn't deserve to be a DM.

[Pan151]

Unfortunately, that is not a tenet of the Paladin code.

Just like there isn't a tenet that requires the paladin to be omnipotent.


Become a deathless, you mean. And how about this? It has to be a newborn infant. The blade consumes its soul. Do I need to keep moving the goalposts or do you get the idea?

If by "moving the goalposts" means "constructing a scenario for the sole purpose of making a paladin fall, to the point where it makes no sense at all" then whatever.

BTW, here's a workaround to the dilemma you suggest:

a) The paladin gets a druid to kill him and cast reincarnate on him. Now he is newborn.
b) The paladin gets a wizard to cast polymorph any object on him. Now he is a newborn infant.
c) Now the paladin can sacrifice himself. Job done!

See? You can move the goalposts all you like, but until you start actively rule-0-ing the ever living crap out of everything but the exact scenario you want, there are always alternatives.

Not to mention that the paladin could just go ahead with the baby-sacrifice plan, and his god would most probably still accept his atonement.

[atemu1234]

I don't really get what you mean here. :smallconfused: It is unfortunate that paladin's cannot be punished for not being omnipotent? Or do you mean something else? I really am confused. Also I do get that being infallibly good is impossible for a human, but you are only using extreme examples. Kill a baby to stop a villan or fall? Then the paladin does not stop the villan, or was never a good choice for paladin in the first place. And this is also a scenario that can only be made by a DM wanting to punish a paladin player, so that is also bad DMing. Whoever would throw that kinda thing at someone doesn't deserve to be a DM.

I'm pointing out unwinnable scenarios for the sake of them being unwinnable. I'm not suggesting anyone use them (in fact, if my DM did it, I'd choke him with his own screen) but they exist, and if a DM did want to do it, they could. And yes, I meant it's unfortunate nothing says that they cannot be punished for not being omniscient. They do something evil, it's in violation of their code, which results in them falling. Is a lie a gross violation? No. Is killing an infant under any circumstances? Yes.

[Andezzar]

Willingly (I'm getting tiring pointing this out again and again, aren't I? Well, it's getting tiring that people intentionally ignore it again and again) commiting an evil act and not being able to be a perfect representation of good and law are two very different things.

You can go on and on about how the paladin will inevitably be forced into choosing between the lesser of two (or more) evils, but you're missing the point - unless the paladin commits the act of his/her own will, with actual intent to do evil, he/she will not fall. Letting a demon live, in a vacuum, is an evil act, sure. Letting a demon live because you had innocent lives to save and you can't be everywhere at once is not an evil act, or at the very least not a willingly commited evil act.To willfully commit an evil act an intent to do evil is unnecessary, only the intent to commit an act that is evil is required. Per the rules letting a fiend exist is evil. Thus anyone who intentionally lets the fiend exist, willfully commits an evil act. The paladin is intentionally not slaying the fiend, so he falls.

[Pan151]

This is pretty much the most moderate way to consider the code of conduct in a game. Which is good, of course. But it really does often seem like the paladin code of conduct needs to be altered in any game one is used in, or eradicated entirely.


Or, you know, approached in a case-by-case basis from the point of view of whether or not it makes sense?

Rules are rules, but rules by themselves are useless. There is always the need for them to be interpreted as to how they apply to each individual situation. If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be the need for a DM to exist in the first place, nor would there be any need for such things as courts, lawyers, judges and the lot in the real world.

There's no need to rewrite the paladin's code. A civil discussion between the DM and the paladin's player is all that is needed.


To willfully commit an evil act an intent to do evil is unnecessary, only the intent to commit an act that is evil is required. Per the rules letting a fiend exist is evil. Thus anyone who intentionally lets the fiend exist, willfully commits an evil act. The paladin is intentionally not slaying the fiend, so he falls.

Look, if you want to get into technicalities, I can do that too. Yes, intentionally letting a fiend live is evil, per the rules.

Now, provide me with the exact part of the rules that says that intentionally letting a fiend live in order to save an innocent is evil. While we're at it, can you also find me the part that details that intentionally letting a fiend live because you are not able to kill him is evil? How about intentionally letting a fiend live because he repented and is now a Paladin of Pelor? Or intentionally letting a fiend live because you chose to kill another fiend instead?

I'm expecting exact wordings, mind you.

[Phelix-Mu]

Evil as the price to prevent evil is not a price that any good character should be willing to pay. Period.

If, in the end, there is no other way (and that's a strong statement; part of being good is believing that being good is possible, that there is always a better way), then the good person could do it, but probably should seek atonement afterward, or risk becoming neutral.

Not that there is anything wrong with being neutral. In a world like D&D, neutral is actually a bastion of sanity among a bunch of not particularly consistent extremes. (Except for all those neutral nutjobs that go around forcing people to be neutral or die.):smallsmile:

[Haluesen]

I'm pointing out unwinnable scenarios for the sake of them being unwinnable. I'm not suggesting anyone use them (in fact, if my DM did it, I'd choke him with his own screen) but they exist, and if a DM did want to do it, they could. And yes, I meant it's unfortunate nothing says that they cannot be punished for not being omniscient. They do something evil, it's in violation of their code, which results in them falling. Is a lie a gross violation? No. Is killing an infant under any circumstances? Yes.

Ah I see then...it sounded like you were honestly endorsing such ideas in an attempt to challenge and push paladins. A problem of online communication, such confusions happen. And I did mean omniscient, no clue why I said omnipotent. :smallredface: Though in this case I am thankful for the correction. But that is a big reason that I think paladin codes should be altered to fit a group and a particular campaign, or just erased entirely and have the group work off common sense, not be so strict on the Paladin Rules. Would at least stop the "can a paladin fall if this happens?" questions.

And I majorly agree that if I had a DM that tried that on me, they'd have to run, fast. :smallannoyed:

[atemu1234]

Ah I see then...it sounded like you were honestly endorsing such ideas in an attempt to challenge and push paladins. A problem of online communication, such confusions happen. And I did mean omniscient, no clue why I said omnipotent. :smallredface: Though in this case I am thankful for the correction. But that is a big reason that I think paladin codes should be altered to fit a group and a particular campaign, or just erased entirely and have the group work off common sense, not be so strict on the Paladin Rules. Would at least stop the "can a paladin fall if this happens?" questions.

And I majorly agree that if I had a DM that tried that on me, they'd have to run, fast. :smallannoyed:

This is why my paladin became a gray guard. I personally think the DM should check things like that against the PC. Having paladins just fall all the time isn't fun. If they want to do it to see roleplaying, ask the player if they want to.

[Nilehus]

Not that there is anything wrong with being neutral. In a world like D&D, neutral is actually a bastion of sanity among a bunch of not particularly consistent extremes. (Except for all those neutral nutjobs that go around forcing people to be neutral or die.):smallsmile:

"What makes a good man go neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?"

Best representation of TN I've ever seen, personally. :smallwink:

[Flickerdart]

Alright. Let's say, then, that there's an unspeakably evil foe. A being of pure evil, who can only be killed using a cursed blade. How cursed you ask? In order to be capable to kill anything with it, you must kill an innocent person (meaning usually a newborn infant of a nonevil race) and bathe the weapon in their blood. This villain is inevitably going to kill again. Go fix that one. You cannot do the good act (slay the villain, who I may as well add cannot be captured alive) without committing an evil act, which violates your alignment.
That's basically what Imprisonment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/imprisonment.htm) and Binding (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/binding.htm) are for. The paladin taps a friendly wizard, and sets out to do things the right way.

[atemu1234]

That's basically what Imprisonment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/imprisonment.htm) and Binding (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/binding.htm) are for. The paladin taps a friendly wizard, and sets out to do things the right way.

Swordsage'd. I already said he cannot be captured alive.

[Flickerdart]

Swordsage'd. I already said he cannot be captured alive.
Cast veil of undeath on it first.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Well, what I've noticed is that the LG non-paladins can compromise their beliefs. It may hurt, it may sting, they may not enjoy it, but they can do it and basically walk away (IE, you don't see a CN Ranger losing Favored Enemy because he chose to walk across a bridge rather than jump off it). Paladins, on the other hand, can't do anything without risking falling. Even if they accidentally commit an evil act, they can't do anything useful (more useful than an NPC warrior, that is) until they atone. And Bahamut help them if they willingly do anything evil, even if it is for the greater good.

Of course, I've always preferred tortured type heroes. Hence why my only paladin was a gray guard. Read my explanation above.

You still haven't given an example of a time when a LG character with strong morals should bend, you've only stated that some LG characters can and sometimes do bend. Many people, especially heroes, have morals they will never bend with or without mechanical penalties. It makes me wonder if you may be creating an environment where people aren't comfortable taking a firm position against you in an in game debate without rules at their back.

Your counter example of a CN Ranger is laughable. Taking every possible opportunity to be Annoying Facebook Girl "LOL I'm so random" isn't a principle of CN and there's nothing in a Paladin's CoC stopping them from going for a swim, eating candy or joining in a pick-up soccer game on a whim? Obviously their sense of duty will stop them from doing these things during a time senstive mission, but peer pressure (OOC if not IC) should do the same to the most Chaotic of Chaotic Neutral characters.

[atemu1234]

You still haven't given an example of a time when a LG character with strong morals should bend, you've only stated that some LG characters can and sometimes do bend. It makes me wonder if you may be creating an environment where people aren't comfortable taking a firm position against you in an in game debate without rules at their back.

Your counter example of a CN Ranger is laughable. Taking every possible opportunity to be Annoying Facebook Girl "LOL I'm so random" isn't a principle of CN and there's nothing in a Paladin's CoC stopping them from going for a swim, eating candy or joining in a pick-up soccer game on a whim? Obviously their sense of duty will stop them from doing these things during a time senstive mission, but peer pressure (OOC if not IC) should do the same to the most Chaotic of Chaotic Neutral characters.

To answer your first question, for the greater good. And pick any example of violation of alignment, I just used the first one that sprang to mind.

[AMFV]

To answer your first question, for the greater good. And pick any example of violation of alignment, I just used the first one that sprang to mind.

Well a Paladin can always atone, I assume atonement wouldn't be that significant for something that wasn't really his fault, but that of circumstances. I view atonement similar to certain real world religious things (although this is not RAW, but my own personal interpretation) in that it's a clearing of conscience, which frees a Paladin to atone for things that might not be enough to cause him to fall but might weigh heavily on his conscience like the Balor-Cart hypothetical.

I as a follower of fairly strict precepts find it kind of bothersome that people envision that a person would never willingly agree to live in a lawful way. The "My Character had to become a Grey Guard" to me, and this is my opinion misses completely the essence of what it is to be a Paladin, it's to struggle and fall, and maybe sometimes need to clear one's conscience, or atone, but that striving is what's important to a Paladin.

[Haluesen]

Or, you know, approached in a case-by-case basis from the point of view of whether or not it makes sense?

Rules are rules, but rules by themselves are useless. There is always the need for them to be interpreted as to how they apply to each individual situation. If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be the need for a DM to exist in the first place, nor would there be any need for such things as courts, lawyers, judges and the lot in the real world.

There's no need to rewrite the paladin's code. A civil discussion between the DM and the paladin's player is all that is needed.

Oh I do agree with you, that is why I mentioned making up a new code. That could be collaborated on with a DM to make something that works for everyone. I do think that things need to be taken one case at a time but sometimes having a solid code that fits the paladin can be a good immersive sort of thing and also preempts some of those cases, saving everyone time.

So yes, a new code isn't needed but sometimes it can be better than what is had now and has it's merits over making every scene a case-by-case thing.


This is why my paladin became a gray guard. I personally think the DM should check things like that against the PC. Having paladins just fall all the time isn't fun. If they want to do it to see roleplaying, ask the player if they want to.

Exactly. Things like this collaborated on so everyone has fun is good. A DM letting someone make a paladin then deciding to make an impossible scenario to make that paladin fall either for the drama or because that DM hates paladin's is not fun at all, and very much a terrible DM thing.

Sort of off topic thing, but how do you feel gray guards play? I am thinking of some things in a game I am in that is at a bit of a stand-still, and that might be a fun path for him from a story perspective.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

As I was saying, anybody besides a paladin can compromise their morals (act for the greater good) as opposed to the paladin, who must try to save the bus wagon full of innocents rather than slay the Balor.

Balor/Cart scenario- The as written CoC endorses both actions, so the Paladin is fine regardless of what choice they make. If, they're going to be punished for either or no matter what choice they make a token effort should suffice. Throwing a dagger to attempt to jam the cart's wheel or one shot the Balor with a triple twenty as they turn to devote their full attention to the other task.

Evil sword of evil- The correct choice is to have faith that the evil sword prophecy is wrong. Before you moved the goalposts the self-sacrifice response was correct.

It may seem counterintuitive , but the correct Paladin response is often the hailmary/third path choice.


Do I need to keep moving the goalposts or do you get the idea?

All you're doing is crafting scenarios where most of my Good character's only advantage would be having greater competance than most Paladins and could more easily be two places at once. The only thing you've convinced me of is that you're capable of running a game in which Paladins and other capital G Good characters aren't welcome. This is a problem with Players and GM's not the Paladin class or even the alignment system.

[atemu1234]

Balor/Cart scenario- The as written CoC endorses both actions, so the Paladin is fine regardless of what choice they make. If, they're going to be punished for either or no matter what choice they make a token effort should suffice. Throwing a dagger to attempt to jam the cart's wheel or one shot the Balor with a triple twenty as they turn to devote their full attention to the other task.

Evil sword of evil- The correct choice is to have faith that the evil sword prophecy is wrong. Before you moved the goalposts the self-sacrifice response was correct.

It may seem counterintuitive , but the correct Paladin response is often the hailmary/third path choice.



All you're doing is crafting scenarios where most of my Good character's only advantage would be having greater competance than most Paladins and could more easily be two places at once. The only thing you've convinced me of is that you're capable of running a game in which Paladins and other capital G Good characters aren't welcome. This is a problem with Players and GM's not the Paladin class or even the alignment system.

I'd like to summarize what I'm doing, thanks. I was pointing out something that is correct (paladin's do something evil, lose powers. Anyone else just has to roleplay differently) until I got stuck with people arguing scenarios as opposed to the premise of said arguments. In this scenario, moving goalposts are to be expected.

[Angelalex242]

In a word like D&D, there is nothing that cannot be done unless Rule 0 says otherwise.

The Paladin has any number of ways out of the aforementioned scenario. There's no such thing as 'can't' in D&D unless you've got the worst DM ever. Even if the dude in question is an Evil God (and to be immune to being captured alive, he'd have to be...), there's ways around that kinda thing. Notably, calling up your own God, who has a better solution then you.

Seriously, anyone powerful enough to be immune to being captured alive is a god or ECL 60 or better, which amounts to the same thing, and such a being is worth a commune spell.

[FidgetySquirrel]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this whole balor/cart, paladins aren't gods and therefore must inevitably fall thing pretty much the perfect example of why RAI exists?

[atemu1234]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this whole balor/cart, paladins aren't gods and therefore must inevitably fall thing pretty much the perfect example of why RAI exists?

Yes, that's true. But what I've been arguing still applies. Any act considered evil is a violations of the paladin's code. And I do not endorse my examples, I simply point out their existence as examples of theoretically unsinkable scenarios.

[AMFV]

Yes, that's true. But what I've been arguing still applies. Any act considered evil is a violations of the paladin's code. And I do not endorse my examples, I simply point out their existence as examples of theoretically unsinkable scenarios.

The question then is one of legality. Which is naturally important for law. The Paladin is not by action allowing the Demon to continue existing, or causing the cart to stop. In fact the Paladin is in your scenario acting to prevent one of those. Standing by while both the Balor escapes and the villagers die is evil. But unless the Paladin summoned the Balor or provided him with an escape route, or put the villagers in the path of the cart, he is not committing an act, explicitly. In fact he is doing all he can do to resolve both scenarios, depending on how competent and quick witted he is.

The problem is that by the letter of the law (and that is the most important part) the Paladin is not committing an evil act. He's saving the villagers, now there could be nasty byproducts of that (the fiend lives or one of the villagers turns out to be unspeakably evil) but his action is good, just because not all the results are good does not make the act itself evil.

In fact, RAW in that scenario there is only one act that is evil (well technically two) standing by, allowing the Balor to escape (explicitly evil by the BoVD) and allowing the villagers to perish (explicitly evil by the BoED. Although the page reference escapes me). A Paladin cannot be held responsible for things he cannot control, he acts in that scenario to do a good act, which has an evil side product. Naturally this means that the Paladin must later deal with the sideproduct, either hunting down the fiend or making amends to the families of the villagers. But that doesn't in and of itself make the act which he is committing: Slaying a fiend, or Saving Villagers into an evil act.

[atemu1234]

The question then is one of legality. Which is naturally important for law. The Paladin is not by action allowing the Demon to continue existing, or causing the cart to stop. In fact the Paladin is in your scenario acting to prevent one of those. Standing by while both the Balor escapes and the villagers die is evil. But unless the Paladin summoned the Balor or provided him with an escape route, or put the villagers in the path of the cart, he is not committing an act, explicitly. In fact he is doing all he can do to resolve both scenarios, depending on how competent and quick witted he is.

The problem is that by the letter of the law (and that is the most important part) the Paladin is not committing an evil act. He's saving the villagers, now there could be nasty byproducts of that (the fiend lives or one of the villagers turns out to be unspeakably evil) but his action is good, just because not all the results are good does not make the act itself evil.

In fact, RAW in that scenario there is only one act that is evil (well technically two) standing by, allowing the Balor to escape (explicitly evil by the BoVD) and allowing the villagers to perish (explicitly evil by the BoED. Although the page reference escapes me). A Paladin cannot be held responsible for things he cannot control, he acts in that scenario to do a good act, which has an evil side product. Naturally this means that the Paladin must later deal with the sideproduct, either hunting down the fiend or making amends to the families of the villagers. But that doesn't in and of itself make the act which he is committing: Slaying a fiend, or Saving Villagers into an evil act.

Again, you've arguing a scenario as opposed to the premise of the scenario.

[Angelalex242]

Personally, I'd prefer the Paladin errs on the side of compassion...saving the villagers is more important then the Balor. You can always kill (or more likely, banish) the Balor later, but villagers need to be saved now.

[AMFV]

Again, you've arguing a scenario as opposed to the premise of the scenario.

So present me with a no-win scenario and I'll disprove it. I can do this all day, there is no no-win scenario for a Paladin. And certainly none that can't simply be atoned for. I've not seen a no-win scenario that was not so hopeless contrived as to be absurd. In fact KILL THE BALOR OR SAVE THE CART, is even hopelessly arbitrary and contrived.

In the scenario with two carts, nothing changes. He is saving one cart full of villagers, or killing a Balor. Those are good acts. Just because he can't stop all the evil acts doesn't mean that he falls. Now I can see (under again my non-RAW interpretation of atonement) the Paladin wanting to voluntarily atone for that, even though there was nothing he could do. But it still doesn't make his actions (moving decisively to save somebody) evil, unless he himself put them in jeopardy or intended to save the cart to allow the demon to escape. If a Paladin saves a child who later grows up to be a murderer is he responsible? Absolutely not, he can only do good as it happens.


Personally, I'd prefer the Paladin errs on the side of compassion...saving the villagers is more important then the Balor. You can always kill (or more likely, banish) the Balor later, but villagers need to be saved now.

I concur, as was my original statement, but a hardline Paladin could still argue that the Balor was the greater threat, and he could be right, again still not an evil action, because he did not cause the villagers to die or be in peril. I personally think that the villagers should be saved and then the Paladin should hunt down and gut the Balor later, I mean it's not like that's a Paladiny thing to do.

[FidgetySquirrel]

Yes, that's true. But what I've been arguing still applies. Any act considered evil is a violations of the paladin's code. And I do not endorse my examples, I simply point out their existence as examples of theoretically unsinkable scenarios.Odds are, by RAW anyway, the paladin would fall. I don't doubt that. Heck, one might argue that it deserves a spot in the dysfunctional handbook. It's worth noting, though, that if the paladin fell, and subsequently sought atonement, that it would likely be xp free, since the paladin fell while actively trying to do good. If the balor was allowed to escape to save the innocents, said paladin would likely even regain his/her powers during the ensuing combat.

Furthermore, I could point out that Pun-pun theoretically exists, but that doesn't mean that any sane DM allows it.

[AMFV]

Odds are, by RAW anyway, the paladin would fall. I don't doubt that. Heck, one might argue that it deserves a spot in the dysfunctional handbook. It's worth noting, though, that if the paladin fell, and subsequently sought atonement, that it would likely be xp free, since the paladin fell while actively trying to do good. If the balor was allowed to escape to save the innocents, said paladin would likely even regain his/her powers during the ensuing combat.

Furthermore, I could point out that Pun-pun theoretically exists, but that doesn't mean that any sane DM allows it.

Actually by RAW he would not, since his action is not releasing the demon, but saving the villagers. Just because the Demon uses this to escape does not mean that the Paladin acted to allow him to.

[FidgetySquirrel]

Actually by RAW he would not, since his action is not releasing the demon, but saving the villagers. Just because the Demon uses this to escape does not mean that the Paladin acted to allow him to.Still, a paladin strong enough to handle a balor 1-on-1... I think that's the greatest issue with the whole scenario. Such a character could easily kill murderhobo the balor, let the peasants die, then sell some crap to get them all true rezzed. It's messy and expensive, but an epic-level pally could deal with it. In that case, one, not me, mind you, could argue that the pally falls for 'letting the balor live to save a few million GP.'

Is that insane troll logic? Absolutely. Hence my previous comment, and the majority opinion on RAI existing.

[georgie_leech]

Again, you've arguing a scenario as opposed to the premise of the scenario.

I get your point, but personally it seems kind of self-evident that given any set of rules, it's possible to create a scenario that forces at least one rule to be broken. Good DM's won't make such scenarios without explicit consent, Bad DM's won't listen to arguments to the contrary if their goal is just making the Paladin Fall.

My favourite Paladin ethical dilemma is a room with 2 cages, a switch, a timer, and three complete strangers. One cage has two people, the other just has one. When the timer runs down, one of the cages will have some arbitrary effect that kills everyone in the cage that the switch indicates, which by default in this scenario is the one with two people. A Paladin walks into the room just as the timer reaches 00:01. He has just enough time to dive forward and flip the switch from the two-person cage to the one with a single prisoner. Past rooms have indicated that you can't get to the cages in time to free anyone, and smashing the switch only causes both cages to be arbitrarily effected. Should he flip the switch, effectively choosing to kill one person to save the other two? If he shouldn't, how many people in the other cage would be sufficient to make it the right choice? If no amount of people in the cage makes it the right choice, why does the refusal to kill an innocent outweigh the value of those other people killed?

Personally, I wouldn't make a Paladin Fall for any of these choices, unless it was laughing at their pain or something. I'd expect most to seek out atonement or otherwise feel bad about the lives they couldn't save, but I don't find punishing players with mechanical ineptitude is a reasonable cost for players that genuinely want to face such dilemmas.

[atemu1234]

Actually by RAW he would not, since his action is not releasing the demon, but saving the villagers. Just because the Demon uses this to escape does not mean that the Paladin acted to allow him to.

You already said it was contrived, and I never denied it. So how about we up the ante a little? The ballot is in a gem from a sanctify the wicked spell. Two carts. Smash the gem let him go (BoVD evil) and the cart (one of them, his choice) is freed. The other is ported directly to hell for demonic fun time. Go.

[AMFV]

Still, a paladin strong enough to handle a balor 1-on-1... I think that's the greatest issue with the whole scenario. Such a character could easily kill murderhobo the balor, let the peasants die, then sell some crap to get them all true rezzed. It's messy and expensive, but an epic-level pally could deal with it. In that case, one, not me, mind you, could argue that the pally falls for 'letting the balor live to save a few million GP.'

Is that insane troll logic? Absolutely. Hence my previous comment, and the majority opinion on RAI existing.

Well the million GP is still insane troll logic. Since the intention matters here, if the Paladin is saving the villagers because resurrection may not work (it doesn't in all settings) and isn't guaranteed (it isn't in all settings) then we can certainly make a case for the other direction, he also may be broke.

But in any case that is another potential solution to the "no-win" scenario, in which we are seeing lots and lots of ways to win said scenario. I still argue that it would be difficult to prove that the Paladin was acting out of Greed (particularly since the player would likely cite this as not being the case). I mean Paladins are human (or demi-human), they can make errors of judgement.

[AMFV]

You already said it was contrived, and I never denied it. So how about we up the ante a little? The ballot is in a gem from a sanctify the wicked spell. Two carts. Smash the gem let him go (BoVD evil) and the cart (one of them, his choice) is freed. The other is ported directly to hell for demonic fun time. Go.

Wait... what are the parameters? This scenario isn't workable because there are no valid parameters. The answer, is don't smash the gem, and save the carts through an alternative method. Get your friend to cast forbiddance (we're in high level play here since we're fighting Balors), then smash the gem and kill the Balor, since now the cart can't be teleported. Use your weirdstone to stop teleportation. Use nondetection and hide everybody in the cart then evacuate them while the mystery teleporter can't see (a la Speed). Get your friends to cast slide on everybody in the cart to pull them out of the cart to a safe zone. Hop on the cart smash the gem, then teleport the cart back out of hell (depending on your build).

Of course some of these scenarios involve friends and such, but we're in high level play, hirelings, magic items and the lot are all in play. So that's at least a few ways to beat your scenario, without even knowing any of the real meaty details, since the scenario appears to have no details just arbitrary stuff.

[FidgetySquirrel]

Well the million GP is still insane troll logic. Since the intention matters here, if the Paladin is saving the villagers because resurrection may not work (it doesn't in all settings) and isn't guaranteed (it isn't in all settings) then we can certainly make a case for the other direction, he also may be broke.

But in any case that is another potential solution to the "no-win" scenario, in which we are seeing lots and lots of ways to win said scenario. I still argue that it would be difficult to prove that the Paladin was acting out of Greed (particularly since the player would likely cite this as not being the case). I mean Paladins are human (or demi-human), they can make errors of judgement.True, but any DM proposing this scenario IS an insane troll, and will utilize insane troll logic whenever possible. I guess that's the point atemu's trying to make. This could happen, if you have a sadistic enough DM. As I already said, the paladin should not fall. In my group, this scenario would not occur, unless a player was into that sort of thing... or if my brother's PC kept quoting The Dark Knight. If it did SOMEHOW happen, with the previous caveats kept in mind, there would be no falling, so long as the pally tried to do the right thing in the moment.

I, however, am not a jerkass killer DM who gets off on torturing his players. Such a creature just might pull this kind of crap, and abuse the wording of the paladin's code mercilessly to justify it.

[atemu1234]

Wait... what are the parameters? This scenario isn't workable because there are no valid parameters. The answer, is don't smash the gem, and save the carts through an alternative method. Get your friend to cast forbiddance (we're in high level play here since we're fighting Balors), then smash the gem and kill the Balor, since now the cart can't be teleported. Use your weirdstone to stop teleportation. Use nondetection and hide everybody in the cart then evacuate them while the mystery teleporter can't see (a la Speed). Get your friends to cast slide on everybody in the cart to pull them out of the cart to a safe zone. Hop on the cart smash the gem, then teleport the cart back out of hell (depending on your build).

Of course some of these scenarios involve friends and such, but we're in high level play, hirelings, magic items and the lot are all in play. So that's at least a few ways to beat your scenario, without even knowing any of the real meaty details, since the scenario appears to have no details just arbitrary stuff.

Don't make me make this more contrived than it already is. Your friends are trapped in an automatic, adamantine cage on another plane. Happy?

[AMFV]

Don't make me make this more contrived than it already is. Your friends are trapped in an automatic, adamantine cage on another plane. Happy?

Then we'll use one of the options that I discussed that didn't involve them. Like the Weirdstone or defense against teleportation items I'd have at this point. I mean if I'm fighting Balors, I'm definitely going to have some sort of defense against teleportation. Hell we could do the evacuate people from the cart scenario using a smokestick as well (depending on how the scrying was happening).

The problem isn't just that the scenario is contrived, it's that it's contrived and there is literally no details to it. Why is the cart teleported to hell if I smash the rock. How is it being teleported. How is it being observed to insure that I don't tamper with it. Why can't I save the carts then smash it later. I mean it's trapped in there for a full year, so I have plenty of time to deal with it after I save the carts.

See even at your most contrived scenario, I came up with multiple solutions, knowing absolutely no details. Knowing the details I could come up with many more, or a more idealized solution. The problem is that the scenario as written makes no sense.


True, but any DM proposing this scenario IS an insane troll, and will utilize insane troll logic whenever possible. I guess that's the point atemu's trying to make. This could happen, if you have a sadistic enough DM. As I already said, the paladin should not fall. In my group, this scenario would not occur, unless a player was into that sort of thing... or if my brother's PC kept quoting The Dark Knight. If it did SOMEHOW happen, with the previous caveats kept in mind, there would be no falling, so long as the pally tried to do the right thing in the moment.

I, however, am not a jerkass killer DM who gets off on torturing his players. Such a creature just might pull this kind of crap, and abuse the wording of the paladin's code mercilessly to justify it.

There's still a way to win that scenario... Don't play with people who are irrational. I mean if they can't be rational then it wouldn't be fun for me to play with them. I mean if a DM is being irrational then obviously the Paladin will fall, but only if the DM resorts to something irrational, within the bounds of reason, I cannot conceive of a scenario in which falling is guaranteed.

Falling should result from fatigue, from the sacrifices wearing away at you, from seeing your enemies get ahead by taking short cuts, by losing. Not because of a "gotcha" moment, that takes everything that it is away from it.

[FidgetySquirrel]

There's still a way to win that scenario... Don't play with people who are irrational. I mean if they can't be rational then it wouldn't be fun for me to play with them. I mean if a DM is being irrational then obviously the Paladin will fall, but only if the DM resorts to something irrational, within the bounds of reason, I cannot conceive of a scenario in which falling is guaranteed.

Falling should result from fatigue, from the sacrifices wearing away at you, from seeing your enemies get ahead by taking short cuts, by losing. Not because of a "gotcha" moment, that takes everything that it is away from it.I wholeheartedly agree. That said, the only way to win against a DM like that is to throw your hands in the air and leave. Malicious rules interpretations are never a good way to go, as a player or DM.

[atemu1234]

Then we'll use one of the options that I discussed that didn't involve them. Like the Weirdstone or defense against teleportation items I'd have at this point. I mean if I'm fighting Balors, I'm definitely going to have some sort of defense against teleportation. Hell we could do the evacuate people from the cart scenario using a smokestick as well (depending on how the scrying was happening).

The problem isn't just that the scenario is contrived, it's that it's contrived and there is literally no details to it. Why is the cart teleported to hell if I smash the rock. How is it being teleported. How is it being observed to insure that I don't tamper with it. Why can't I save the carts then smash it later. I mean it's trapped in there for a full year, so I have plenty of time to deal with it after I save the carts.

See even at your most contrived scenario, I came up with multiple solutions, knowing absolutely no details. Knowing the details I could come up with many more, or a more idealized solution. The problem is that the scenario as written makes no sense.



There's still a way to win that scenario... Don't play with people who are irrational. I mean if they can't be rational then it wouldn't be fun for me to play with them. I mean if a DM is being irrational then obviously the Paladin will fall, but only if the DM resorts to something irrational, within the bounds of reason, I cannot conceive of a scenario in which falling is guaranteed.

Falling should result from fatigue, from the sacrifices wearing away at you, from seeing your enemies get ahead by taking short cuts, by losing. Not because of a "gotcha" moment, that takes everything that it is away from it.

At least when I move the goalposts I own up to it. You're assuming you have those items, that they haven't been taking, and whatever is enforcing the situation won't choose C: kill the innocents, free the balor and kill your friends when you try and break the rules.

[Gildedragon]

I mean if a DM is being irrational then obviously the Paladin will fall, but only if the DM resorts to something irrational, within the bounds of reason, I cannot conceive of a scenario in which falling is guaranteed.

Falling should result from fatigue, from the sacrifices wearing away at you, from seeing your enemies get ahead by taking short cuts, by losing. Not because of a "gotcha" moment, that takes everything that it is away from it.
Yeap.
...not advocating this but: to a troll DM, well, countertroll PCs. It is a very PvP view to take, but if one objects quite strongly to the DM forcing one's character to undergo unwinnable, detrimental, character altering scenarios, one is within one's right to refuse. "No, my paladin does not fall. With all possible actions being morally identical the paladin cannot fall."
Which again is needlessly adversarial, but then again, the DM started it.

[AMFV]

At least when I move the goalposts I own up to it. You're assuming you have those items, that they haven't been taking, and whatever is enforcing the situation won't choose C: kill the innocents, free the ballot and kill your friends when you try and break the rules.

So give me the details!!! You haven't moved the goalposts; they don't even exist. This isn't even a D&D thought experiment, I don't know the details, so I can't present you with an option, I presented you with several options. Who is watching? How are they watching? How are they going to enforce the rules? I mean if I'm soloing a Balor, odds are that I'm pretty well off and could very well survive. Furthermore if the scenario is only for my benefit, as you seem to be implying there is another method, kill myself, then there's no reason to sacrifice the innocents, and the Balor would be Sanctified.

Present me with information, I have none, I'm coming up with hypotheticals because there is no information. So I am naked, yes? That's where we're at? Fine then I'll hope and the cart and teleport them myself since I'm a Paladin into Suel Arcanamach into Sublime Chord... Unless for some reason you're banning that as well. Also as a naked Paladin there is no way that I could solo a Balor, making the entire scenario completely moot, also how are the carts being monitored and moved? How are they in peril? How much time do I have? Who is doing this? Can they be negotiated with? There are too many missing variables for me to be able to come up with anything that isn't vague.

[Angelalex242]

...There's always that.

"No, I don't fall. This situation is too contrived to be meaningful."

"Yes you do! I'm the DM and I said so!"

*packs up books, dice, and character sheet*

"You are only a DM so long as you have players. You just lost one. Have fun."

[atemu1234]

So give me the details!!! You haven't moved the goalposts; they don't even exist. This isn't even a D&D thought experiment, I don't know the details, so I can't present you with an option, I presented you with several options. Who is watching? How are they watching? How are they going to enforce the rules? I mean if I'm soloing a Balor, odds are that I'm pretty well off and could very well survive. Furthermore if the scenario is only for my benefit, as you seem to be implying there is another method, kill myself, then there's no reason to sacrifice the innocents, and the Balor would be Sanctified.

Present me with information, I have none, I'm coming up with hypotheticals because there is no information. So I am naked, yes? That's where we're at? Fine then I'll hope and the cart and teleport them myself since I'm a Paladin into Suel Arcanamach into Sublime Chord... Unless for some reason you're banning that as well. Also as a naked Paladin there is no way that I could solo a Balor, making the entire scenario completely moot, also how are the carts being monitored and moved? How are they in peril? How much time do I have? Who is doing this? Can they be negotiated with? There are too many missing variables for me to be able to come up with anything that isn't vague.

You only need to choose to smash the Crystal and free the balor and choose the innocents you want to save. Assume you've got to choose to free the balor to save any innocents. No weapons, no items, no magic. Just plain, sadistic damned choices.

[squiggit]

You're assuming you have those items.
Given that you've provided absolutely no parameters then yes, it's a logical assumption and it's not moving any goalposts.

[georgie_leech]

So give me the details!!! You haven't moved the goalposts; they don't even exist. This isn't even a D&D thought experiment, I don't know the details, so I can't present you with an option, I presented you with several options. Who is watching? How are they watching? How are they going to enforce the rules? I mean if I'm soloing a Balor, odds are that I'm pretty well off and could very well survive. Furthermore if the scenario is only for my benefit, as you seem to be implying there is another method, kill myself, then there's no reason to sacrifice the innocents, and the Balor would be Sanctified.

Present me with information, I have none, I'm coming up with hypotheticals because there is no information. So I am naked, yes? That's where we're at? Fine then I'll hope and the cart and teleport them myself since I'm a Paladin into Suel Arcanamach into Sublime Chord... Unless for some reason you're banning that as well. Also as a naked Paladin there is no way that I could solo a Balor, making the entire scenario completely moot, also how are the carts being monitored and moved? How are they in peril? How much time do I have? Who is doing this? Can they be negotiated with? There are too many missing variables for me to be able to come up with anything that isn't vague.




My favourite Paladin ethical dilemma is a room with 2 cages, a switch, a timer, and three complete strangers. One cage has two people, the other just has one. When the timer runs down, one of the cages will have some arbitrary effect that kills everyone in the cage that the switch indicates, which by default in this scenario is the one with two people. A Paladin walks into the room just as the timer reaches 00:01. He has just enough time to dive forward and flip the switch from the two-person cage to the one with a single prisoner. Past rooms have indicated that you can't get to the cages in time to free anyone, and smashing the switch only causes both cages to be arbitrarily effected. Should he flip the switch, effectively choosing to kill one person to save the other two? If he shouldn't, how many people in the other cage would be sufficient to make it the right choice? If no amount of people in the cage makes it the right choice, why does the refusal to kill an innocent outweigh the value of those other people killed?

Personally, I wouldn't make a Paladin Fall for any of these choices, unless it was laughing at their pain or something. I'd expect most to seek out atonement or otherwise feel bad about the lives they couldn't save, but I don't find punishing players with mechanical ineptitude is a reasonable cost for players that genuinely want to face such dilemmas.

I don't think he's arguing that his examples are what should happen, just that it's always possible to create no-win scenarios if the DM wants to make the Paladin fall, as oppose to exploring ethical dilemmas. No amount of clever thinking or proper code writing can stop a vengeful Bad DMtm

[AMFV]

You only need to choose to smash the Crystal and free the balor and choose the innocents you want to save. Assume you've got to choose to free the balor to save any innocents. No weapons, no items, no magic. Just plain, sadistic damned choices.

Well I'd free the Balor, then... I'd resurrect the innocents that got killed, then I'd hunt down the Balor and whoever was behind this game. If somebody points a gun at my head and tells me not to kill a fiend, that's hardly an evil act, it's a pragmatic one. If I had no intention of fixing it later it would be evil.

Furthermore there is literally no scenario where I have "no weapons, no items, and no magic" If there is no magic, via AMF, then how am I being observed? How will people be teleported if I break the rules. So basically I'm not a paladin, at all. I'm somebody that has no abilities from the get-go. Then there is literally nothing I could be expected to do in that scenario, and still I acted in an upright manner.

Lastly, my action was still "save the innocents", just because somebody used this to kill others, and to free a demon, doesn't make that act in and of itself evil, it's a byproduct. And furthermore one I will take care of.


I don't think he's arguing that his examples are what should happen, just that it's always possible to create no-win scenarios if the DM wants to make the Paladin fall, as oppose to exploring ethical dilemmas. No amount of clever thinking or proper code writing can stop a vengeful Bad DMtm

If you'll note in my previous post, I also presented the solution to that particular scenario.

[atemu1234]

Given that you've provided absolutely no parameters then yes, it's a logical assumption and it's not moving any goalposts.

In my parameters I've asserted you can't do anything but choose. Unless you can choose in a way neither releases the balor nor kills innocents, you fall under RAW. As was my point prior to utterly subverting this thread over a stupid argument. This isn't me DMing for you, this is me pointing out that there are kobayashi marus for paladins. Stop using my scenarios however ill-defined as strawmen and either argue my point or answer the thread question.

Want me to make this simpler? Come up with anything that will help you. You don't have it. Repeat until satisfied.

[georgie_leech]

If you'll note in my previous post, I also presented the solution to that particular scenario.

Leaving? In that case the DM has succeeded, there is now one less Paladin in the game. :smalltongue:

Personally, I think that codes shouldn't be written where it's possible to force someone to fail to uphold it and thus lose their powers. I think it's impossible to create such a code where the rules never come into conflict with each other. Ergo, I'm against mechanically enforced codes of conduct at all.

[AMFV]

In my parameters I've asserted you can't do anything but choose. Unless you can choose in a way neither releases the balor nor kills innocents, you fall under RAW. As was my point prior to utterly subverting this thread over a stupid argument. This isn't me DMing for you, this is me pointing out that there are kobayashi marus for paladins. Stop using my scenarios however ill-defined as strawmen and either argue my point or answer the thread question.

Want me to make this simpler? Come up with anything that will help you. You don't have it. Repeat until satisfied.

Nope, as I pointed out by the letter of the law, I don't. I didn't create the scenario, that was the action that was evil. I just tried to do the thing which was most good in the scenario. For example I tried to save the innocents, unarguably good, just because there are bad things that result from that decision doesn't make the action evil.

Furthermore, freeing a Balor to save innocents is at best a moral wash RAW, since it is an act that is both good (BoED) and evil (BoVD) which washes out to either being simultaneously good and evil, or neutral. Which shouldn't really result in somebody falling.

Furthermore I have been arguing your point, because it's absurd, you cannot present me with ONE, just ONE real IN-GAME scenario like this, you have to literally break the rules of the game in order to create the Kobyashi Maru scenario. You have broken WBL, encounter guidelines, magic rules, advancement rules, suggested party composition. If the DM is violating all of the guidelines of the game, why the hell would I play with him or her?

I'm arguing against your scenario because while it exists in your mind, you have to present an encounter in-game where that scenario could exist, meaning that's it's nothing. I could say "there's a scenario where you have to push a button and decide which 50% of humans survive" but it's bunk, because in real life there is no such scenario, just as in real D&D there is no scenario as you present it.


Leaving? In that case the DM has succeeded, there is now one less Paladin in the game. :smalltongue:

Personally, I think that codes shouldn't be written where it's possible to force someone to fail to uphold it and thus lose their powers. I think it's impossible to create such a code where the rules never come into conflict with each other. Ergo, I'm against mechanically enforced codes of conduct at all.

I'm very much for those codes, but I'm lawful philosophically in real life so it makes sense to me. As I point out, it is literally impossible to create a no-win scenario staying within the bounds of the rules of the game, or at least I've never seen one in practice. They're all in some hypothetical la-la land which exists somewhere outside the rules, and then presenting rules based solutions gets people upset, since they're under the impression that there's some magical fall button for Paladins.

[georgie_leech]

I'm very much for those codes, but I'm lawful philosophically in real life so it makes sense to me. As I point out, it is literally impossible to create a no-win scenario staying within the bounds of the rules of the game, or at least I've never seen one in practice. They're all in some hypothetical la-la land which exists somewhere outside the rules, and then presenting rules based solutions gets people upset, since they're under the impression that there's some magical fall button for Paladins.

Okay. The switch in my scenario is presented to you. You have all the knowledge of how the switch works and what happens if you try to smash it (i.e. everyone dies). The "cages" are a crystal of some sort that is utterly smooth but transparent. Breaking the crystal causes it to shatter for enough damage to kill the occupants. The entire room is under an AMF; the killing effect is the bottom of the cage opening into, let's say lava. There is no monitor to be reasoned with; the BBEG was just a sadistic bastard. I reserve the right to alter the scenario to account for possible solutionsThe justification is that there is an arbitrary number of rooms you go through with the new set up in each. Alternatively, you were presented with the new and improved scenario in the first place, as this is about whether it's possible, not whether I can succeed on my first try.

[squiggit]

Unless you can choose in a way neither releases the balor nor kills innocents, you fall under RAW.
Only if you take the stance that failure is an evil act. Which it isn't.

Really though you don't even need the items: You don't release the balor and you attempt to save the carts yourself. You presumably fail and.. that's the end of the scenario. Pretty damn simple.

Stop using my scenarios however ill-defined as strawmen and either argue my point or answer the thread question.
It's not helpful to accuse someone of "Strawmanning" you when they try to solve the scenario that you put forward in the first place.

[Pan151]

I think it's safe to say at this point, if the DM has too out of his way, through excessive amounts of Rule-0, to create a scenario that results in an automatic fall, then the problem is not the code, but the DM. The code was written to function in a normal world with normal situations, not in a world whose sole purpose is to be out to get you.

PS. atemu1234, the real issue is that you seem to have a very different idea as to the definition of "willingly commited evil action" than some of the rest of us. Until we can resolve that, trying to "move the goalposts", as you put it, is nothing more than an exercise in futility (well, technically, it's also an exercise in frustration)

[AMFV]

Okay. The switch in my scenario is presented to you. You have all the knowledge of how the switch works and what happens if you try to smash it (i.e. everyone dies). The "cages" are a crystal of some sort that is utterly smooth but transparent. Breaking the crystal causes it to shatter for enough damage to kill the occupants. The entire room is under an AMF; the killing effect is the bottom of the cage opening into, let's say lava. There is no monitor to be reasoned with; the BBEG was just a sadistic bastard. I reserve the right to alter the scenario to account for possible solutions; this is an exercise in Paladin Falling, not out preparing. The justification is that there is an arbitrary number of rooms you go through with the new set up in each.

Well there a few potential solutions to this problem. Obviously we have the resurrect the participants option. The refuse to participate option, since any action by me will cause innocents to die, I take no action, if that would result in some number of innocents dying, then I save as many as I can. I'm not murdering anybody (since that was already done) I'm saving as many as I can. Which is good as per BoED. Ergo no fall, no matter how many rooms you send me through I don't fall, I might get very depressed, and I don't think that's the sort of game I'd want to play in, but RAW the Paladin does not fall for saving as many people as he can.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

You only need to choose to smash the Crystal and free the balor and choose the innocents you want to save. Assume you've got to choose to free the balor to save any innocents. No weapons, no items, no magic. Just plain, sadistic damned choices.

I thought you were arguing for Paladins ruining games by not being willing to compromise, not that a Paladin can be put into SAWlike scenarios in which all hailmary third options are rendered impossible. Am I mistaken?

If not, I fail to see how gray heroes are "winning" at this point.


BTW, well crafted scenario Georgie. Without a specific Paladin in mind, I'd probably elect to have my character jump for the switch, but fail to hit it in time due to subconcious hesitation.

[georgie_leech]

Well there a few potential solutions to this problem. Obviously we have the resurrect the participants option.

Let's say you're level 1 then.


The refuse to participate option, since any action by me will cause innocents to die, I take no action, if that would result in some number of innocents dying, then I save as many as I can. I'm not murdering anybody (since that was already done) I'm saving as many as I can. Which is good as per BoED. Ergo no fall, no matter how many rooms you send me through I don't fall, I might get very depressed, and I don't think that's the sort of game I'd want to play in, but RAW the Paladin does not fall for saving as many people as he can.

He could save more though. He has two choices: Action or Inaction. The former saves more people, and either way he's deciding to let someone die. How is it helping those in need if he'd rather not sully his hands when he could save more people? After all, he could save them, but he doesn't. We can exaggerate the effect and say they crammed 100 people into the default cage.

Again, I'm not saying I'd make a Paladin fall for this. Just that in this situation there is a choice between the lesser of two evils. Someone is dying either way, and his choice affects how many he can save.

EDIT:



BTW, well crafted scenario Georgie. Without a specific Paladin in mind, I'd probably elect to have my character jump for the switch, but fail to hit it in time due to subconcious hesitation.

Thanks!:smallsmile: It's a variation of something I was introduced to to explain different kinds of ethical thinking, as there isn't a clearly "right" answer and has a couple variables to fiddle things around to illustrate how no ethical rule is perfect (If it's right to kill one to save 2, what about 2 to save 3? 999 to save a thousand? Does the act of saving one additional person give you the right to condemn so many others to death?)

[The Random NPC]

Well there a few potential solutions to this problem. Obviously we have the resurrect the participants option. The refuse to participate option, since any action by me will cause innocents to die, I take no action, if that would result in some number of innocents dying, then I save as many as I can. I'm not murdering anybody (since that was already done) I'm saving as many as I can. Which is good as per BoED. Ergo no fall, no matter how many rooms you send me through I don't fall, I might get very depressed, and I don't think that's the sort of game I'd want to play in, but RAW the Paladin does not fall for saving as many people as he can.

I see your "take no action" and raise you an "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Not that this has anything to do with the discussion at hand.

[AMFV]

Let's say you're level 1 then.



He could save more though. He has two choices: Action or Inaction. The former saves more people, and either way he's deciding to let someone die. How is it helping those in need if he'd rather not sully his hands when he could save more people? After all, he could save them, but he doesn't. We can exaggerate the effect and say they crammed 100 people into the default cage.

Again, I'm not saying I'd make a Paladin fall for this. Just that in this situation there is a choice between the lesser of two evils. Someone is dying either way, and his choice affects how many he can save.

Yes, it is very much a scenario that has no good outcome, but RAW it is not a scenario one could fall from. The Paladin has murdered nobody. He didn't put people in cages over lava, he isn't killing people, if he fails to act, all of them die, if he acts only half of them die. So by his actions he is saving half of them, again a good act (albeit a depressing one).

For example we'll say that I come on a caravan being attacked by bandits, there are dozens of wounded about, and I only have time to save a some of them, it's roughly the same scenario, just less contrived. I save the maximum number of people I can, that's good, not even the lesser of two evils, that's just plain good. This scenario is the equivalent of me coming on two dying people and only being able to save one of them, yes I could potentially have saved the other person, but through my actions somebody is saved. This isn't the lesser of two evils because the evil action was putting them there in the first place, they're already murdered the second they're in the death trap, so I'm saving some of them from that fate, as many as I can, which isn't the lesser of two evils, it's good, even if it's depressing.

Edit: I realize that in my initial response where I was rambling I missed a sentence. I meant to type that I would pull the lever saving as many as I could, provided of course, that me not pulling the lever would result in all of them dying rather than half. I see where there could be confusion there.

[georgie_leech]

Yes, it is very much a scenario that has no good outcome, but RAW it is not a scenario one could fall from. The Paladin has murdered nobody. He didn't put people in cages over lava, he isn't killing people, if he fails to act, all of them die, if he acts only half of them die. So by his actions he is saving half of them, again a good act (albeit a depressing one).

For example we'll say that I come on a caravan being attacked by bandits, there are dozens of wounded about, and I only have time to save a some of them, it's roughly the same scenario, just less contrived. I save the maximum number of people I can, that's good, not even the lesser of two evils, that's just plain good. This scenario is the equivalent of me coming on two dying people and only being able to save one of them, yes I could potentially have saved the other person, but through my actions somebody is saved. This isn't the lesser of two evils because the evil action was putting them there in the first place, they're already murdered the second they're in the death trap, so I'm saving some of them from that fate, as many as I can, which isn't the lesser of two evils, it's good, even if it's depressing.

Are you saving as many as you can? I was under the impression that you were not pushing the switch; 99 additional people die because of that choice.

EDIT: Argh, Ninja edit. In that case, what of the DM that argue that you chose to kill an innocent? After all, you pushed the button and in so doing caused him to die.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

I see your "take no action" and raise you an "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Fair enough, but with how contrived this scenario is "in world" we could be allowed a certain amount of in character abstract thought. Georgie pointed out we've already encountered rooms like this so we know the "rules" and obvious third options like smashing have failed and killed more people.

At this point one might consider that this is all being engineered just to mess with us personally. People may in fact be safe until we set events in motion by opening the next door. At somepoint the apparent lesser evils may become traps. The next scenario you decide with math, because there's no time for anything else may be five Rakasha's in one cage and a Princess destined to usher in a golden age alone in the other cage.

So ya, no participation could in fact be correct.

[Pan151]

EDIT: Argh, Ninja edit. In that case, what of the DM that argue that you chose to kill an innocent? After all, you pushed the button and in so doing caused him to die.

The DM can argue that his action was "Kill 1 person"

The player can argue that his action was "Save 99 people"

They can both argue till they go red, and no conclusion will ever be reached. You cannot agree if an action was good or evil unless you first decide what was the action. Which seems to be the main problem here.

[AMFV]

Are you saving as many as you can? I was under the impression that you were not pushing the switch; 99 additional people die because of that choice.

EDIT: Argh, Ninja edit. In that case, what of the DM that argue that you chose to kill an innocent? After all, you pushed the button and in so doing caused him to die.

Negative, I saved as many as I could, they were all going to die if I did nothing, so by acting I saved whatever number of them I did. This isn't a scenario where I'm sacrificing some lives to save others, this is a scenario where I'm only able to save so many, but I save as many as I can.

Now notably there are scenarios where you may have to choose who lives and who dies, and that's a serious moral strain. In my own personal view a Paladin would want to atone after that sort of thing, although that's not really RAW, it's my own personal feeling on it. But in any case if you saved as many as you were able, then you've acted in a good manner, in a poor scenario.

Again, this is the same as finding two wounded travelers and only having time to treat one, because without your interaction both would have died. The one that you didn't save doesn't become your responsibility because you weren't able to save him, although the guilt would probably still be there.


The DM can argue that his action was "Kill 1 person"

The player can argue that his action was "Save 99 people"

They can both argue till they go red, and no conclusion will ever be reached. You cannot agree if an action was good or evil unless you first decide what was the action. Which seems to be the main problem here.

Again he's not killing one person, he's saving as many as he can, since they are all going to die if he does nothing. So we'll say that pushing the button saves only one. And if doesn't push the button, all one hundred die, he doesn't gain that responsibility of killing them because he saved one, anymore than he'd be responsible in the wounded traveler scenario.

Edit: The way to determine what the action was is to examine what would have happened had the action not happened at all. In this case everybody would die, so the action is to save one. If nobody would die, then the action is to kill everybody else.

[Broken Crown]

Nope, as I pointed out by the letter of the law, I don't. I didn't create the scenario, that was the action that was evil. I just tried to do the thing which was most good in the scenario. For example I tried to save the innocents, unarguably good, just because there are bad things that result from that decision doesn't make the action evil.

I think this sums up the entire debate. The evil act was the creation of a scenario in which, no matter what the outcome, evil occurs. "Allowing an evil act" is not the same thing as "being unable to prevent an evil act." As long as the paladin prevents as much evil as he or she is able, given his or her knowledge and resources, then even if the scenario is contrived so that the amount of evil prevented is necessarily "none," it's not the paladin's fault. So the paladin has done no evil.

As AMFV suggested, the correct follow-up action for a paladin, subsequent to such a scenario, would be a voluntary (but by RAW, unnecessary) atonement, followed by the bringing to justice of whoever set up the scenario in the first place.

[Andezzar]

Again, I'm not saying I'd make a Paladin fall for this. Just that in this situation there is a choice between the lesser of two evils. Someone is dying either way, and his choice affects how many he can save.Yes, the way the paladin code is written, a paladin does not fall for choosing the greater of two evils, but for committing any evil. That is the brokenness of the code.
Also those that argue against the dilemma causing the paladin to fall, ignore the very definition of a dilemma. If either choice clearly is the better one (of a number of bad ones) there isn't really a dilemma. Everyone should take that better choice.


I see your "take no action" and raise you an "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."The paladin code never specifies that evil cannot be committed by inaction.

[Pan151]

Again he's not killing one person, he's saving as many as he can, since they are all going to die if he does nothing. So we'll say that pushing the button saves only one. And if doesn't push the button, all one hundred die, he doesn't gain that responsibility of killing them because he saved one, anymore than he'd be responsible in the wounded traveler scenario.

Edit: The way to determine what the action was is to examine what would have happened had the action not happened at all. In this case everybody would die, so the action is to save one. If nobody would die, then the action is to kill everybody else.

And I agree with you completely (well, except on the inaction part). The problem is that most of the discussion in this thread has stumbled upon the disagreement on this very point. I'm just pointing that out, before we get derailed again into "altering the scenario" and other such nonsense.

PS. I prefer a much simpler method: examining the intent behind the action (or inaction) . Did you do it with an evil intent? Evil action. Did you do it with a non-evil intent? Not an evil action. Easy as pie.


Yes, the way the paladin code is written, a paladin does not fall for choosing the greater of two evils, but for committing any evil. That is the brokenness of the code

Do I have to get annoying again? Do I really have to?

Willfully commiting any evil. W-I-L-L-F-U-L-L-Y. As in, with the explicit will to commit an evil action.

An evil act commited as a byproduct of an action with good will does not make the paladin fall.


I am starting to get convinced that you're intentionally ignoring this...

[AMFV]

Yes, the way the paladin code is written, a paladin does not fall for choosing the greater of two evils, but for committing any evil. That is the brokenness of the code.
Also those that argue against the dilemma causing the paladin to fall, ignore the very definition of a dilemma. If either choice clearly is the better one (of a number of bad ones) there isn't really a dilemma. Everyone should take that better choice.

The paladin code never specifies that evil cannot be committed by inaction.

And as I pointed out, there is no evil in the Paladin's actions... He's saving as many people as he can, literally there is no way that can be defined as anything other than good. It's a dilemma because he can't save everybody, because every time he goes to sleep he'll wonder, "what could I have done differently, could I have trained more, prepared better, could I have somehow saved them" it's a dilemma not because all the paths out of it are bad, but because there is no way to get everybody out.

The clear choice is saving people, and again the Paladin is not responsible for the death of people who would have died no matter what he did, if he's trying to save as many as he can. There is no competency standard on good, except for that which may be imposed by the Paladin himself.


And I agree with you completely (well, except on the inaction part). The problem is that most of the discussion in this thread has stumbled upon the disagreement on this very point. I'm just pointing that out, before we get derailed again into "altering the scenario" and other such nonsense.

PS. I prefer a much simpler method: examining the intent behind the action (or inaction) . Did you do it with an evil intent? Evil action. Did you do it with a non-evil intent? Not an evil action. Easy as pie.

Eh, intent bogs things down for other reasons, in my opinion. We aren't trying to figure out the intent, but rather explicitly what was done. The intent would factor into whether or not it was good certainly, but the intent does not change the action itself, only it's quality.

[Pan151]

Eh, intent bogs things down for other reasons, in my opinion. We aren't trying to figure out the intent, but rather explicitly what was done. The intent would factor into whether or not it was good certainly, but the intent does not change the action itself, only it's quality.

Intent is of the utmost importance. If you flipped the switch with the intention of saving a person, then the action reads "you saved a person". If you did it with the intent to kill a person, then the action reads "you killed a person". All else in either case are side-effects, not willfully commited actions.

[AMFV]

Intent is of the utmost importance. If you flipped the switch with the intention of saving a person, then the action reads "you saved a person". If you did it with the intent to kill a person, then the action reads "you killed a person". All else in either case are side-effects, not willfully commited actions.

That is patently false. It does change how the action should be judged. For example if I stab somebody in the face because I dislike their face, that's pretty bad. But if I accidentally stab somebody in the face while I'm trying to trim their beard, the action is completely unchanged. I've still stabbed somebody in the face. Now the two should be judged differently, one is me being a rather poor person, the other is an accident, but the action itself remains the same.

The same thing goes for the saving somebody. Say I come across you and somebody else wounded and dying, and I choose to save them because I remember how upset I got over this discussion, that makes my saving them a little less noble, but it doesn't change the action one iota, I've still saved them, just the reasons I chose to save them over you, affect the quality of the action, and how it should be judged. But the action itself is unchanged.

Edit: By your logic in the second scenario I would have killed you, which I didn't I just chose not to save you when I could only save a limited number of people for selfish reasons, which probably diminishes the act of saving the others, but probably not enough to even push it out of Good.

[Pan151]

That is patently false. It does change how the action should be judged. For example if I stab somebody in the face because I dislike their face, that's pretty bad. But if I accidentally stab somebody in the face while I'm trying to trim their beard, the action is completely unchanged. I've still stabbed somebody in the face. Now the two should be judged differently, one is me being a rather poor person, the other is an accident, but the action itself remains the same.

The same thing goes for the saving somebody. Say I come across you and somebody else wounded and dying, and I choose to save them because I remember how upset I got over this discussion, that makes my saving them a little less noble, but it doesn't change the action one iota, I've still saved them, just the reasons I chose to save them over you, affect the quality of the action, and how it should be judged. But the action itself is unchanged.

Stabbing someone in the face is pretty bad, regardless of the reason you did it. However, as a paladin, it would only make you fall from grace if you intentionally stabbed someone in the face, because you disliked their face - as opposed to trying to do something else and ending up stabbing them anyway, without actually wanting to do so.

That's what I'm trying to get across. Intent matters more than anything, at least so far as paladins falling from grace go.

[Andezzar]

And I agree with you completely (well, except on the inaction part). The problem is that most of the discussion in this thread has stumbled upon the disagreement on this very point. I'm just pointing that out, before we get derailed again into "altering the scenario" and other such nonsense.

PS. I prefer a much simpler method: examining the intent behind the action (or inaction) . Did you do it with an evil intent? Evil action. Did you do it with a non-evil intent? Not an evil action. Easy as pie.



Do I have to get annoying again? Do I really have to?

Willfully commiting any evil. W-I-L-L-F-U-L-L-Y. As in, with the explicit will to commit an evil action.

An evil act commited as a byproduct of an action with good will does not make the paladin fall.


I am starting to get convinced that you're intentionally ignoring this...I'm not ignoring this. I simply disagree that he has to have the intention to commit evil. Willfully commiting an evil act also includes willfully committing an act that happens to be evil. In a proper dilemma either choice will be an evil act intentionally committed by the paladin. I'm not saying any DM should use such a dilemma on a paladin but the theoretical existence of such dilemmas shows that the paladin code is broken as written.

Please quote where the rules say that intent removes the evil tag from an action otherwise classified as evil.


Stabbing someone in the face is pretty bad, regardless of the reason you did it. However, as a paladin, it would only make you fall from grace if you intentionally stabbed someone in the face, because you disliked their face - as opposed to trying to do something else and ending up stabbing them anyway, without actually wanting to do so. Those examples are besides the point. A valid comparison would be stabbing an innocent because you do not like his face and stabbing an innocent because you know he will later commit some evil deed. Of course in a real game situation you would have lots of other options but by the definitaion of a dilemma such other options do not exist. Either action is evil.

[AMFV]

Stabbing someone in the face is pretty bad, regardless of the reason you did it. However, as a paladin, it would only make you fall from grace if you intentionally stabbed someone in the face, because you disliked their face - as opposed to trying to do something else and ending up stabbing them anyway, without actually wanting to do so.

That's what I'm trying to get across. Intent matters more than anything, at least so far as paladins falling from grace go.

I think we are agreeing on the meat of the subject, and I do think that intent factors into the morality of an action. But for example saving somebody is under virtually all circumstances non-evil, and is not likely to cause you to fall. It doesn't matter if you choose who you save in a selfish way, because the action itself is good, so the best you'd get is a good act for evil reasons, which still does not an evil act make.

[Broken Crown]

I'm not ignoring this. I simply disagree that he has to have the intention to commit evil. Willfully commiting an evil act also includes willfully committing an act that happens to be evil. In a proper dilemma either choice will be an evil act intentionally committed by the paladin. I'm not saying any DM should use such a dilemma on a paladin but the theoretical existence of such dilemmas shows that the paladin code is broken as written.

Since none of the scenarios discussed so far (not even the incredibly contrived ones) result in the paladin being required to willfully commit an evil act, I'm not sure such a scenario exists, even theoretically:


The evil act was the creation of a scenario in which, no matter what the outcome, evil occurs. "Allowing an evil act" is not the same thing as "being unable to prevent an evil act." As long as the paladin prevents as much evil as he or she is able, given his or her knowledge and resources, then even if the scenario is contrived so that the amount of evil prevented is necessarily "none," it's not the paladin's fault. So the paladin has done no evil.

Therefore, the paladin code isn't nearly as broken as it's made out to be.

[Pan151]

I'm not ignoring this. I simply disagree that he has to have the intention to commit evil. Willfully commiting an evil act also includes willfully committing an act that happens to be evil. In a proper dilemma either choice will be an evil act intentionally committed by the paladin. I'm not saying any DM should use such a dilemma on a paladin but the theoretical existence of such dilemmas shows that the paladin code is broken as written.

Please quote where the rules say that intent removes the evil tag from an action otherwise classified as evil.

Please quote where the rules say that the exact act you are describing is evil.

The rules present some token cases which, in a vacuum, by themselves, are good/evil/lawful/chaotic/neutral. Unfortunately, things are rarely black and white, even in DnD. Yes, killing someone good is evil, period. Saving someone good is good, period. However, there is nowhere a rule about which actions are and which aren't good/evil in a situation like the one you described.

Does the saving of 99 outweigh the killing of 1?
Does it not?
Does it even qualify as killing in the first place?
Does it even qualify as saving in the first place?
What if they're not all good?
What would inaction be?
What, what, what...

There is no rule that will tell you the answer to these questions. If there is, I dare you, find me the exact quotes that answer these exact questions, for this exact situation.

You can't.

And this is why sometimes you just have to improvise. You have to, by yourself, find a way to judge whether or not a complex action is good or evil, using the rules about the in-vacuum actions as the mere guidlines they are. One way is to find the intent behind the action. Another, equally valid (though not necessarily one I agree with) option is the one AMFV proposed, to judge an action by its net outcome as opposed to inaction. What is not a valid option is taking a rule about commiting an act in a vacuum and blindly applying it, as is, in a situation with a dozen different variables.

And no, your theoretical dilemma proves nothing. Theoretical dilemmas exist in any and every code of conduct/way of life/whatever. We could do the same with Wu-Jen's taboos, and it would probably be much easier. The fact that we went through so many pages and still you are the only one argueing in favor of it being an auto-fall clearly shows that the paladins code is only broken if the DM wants it to be broken. If the DM and the player come to a common understanding about when and if and why the code applies to a specific action, then automatic falls will not be a thing.

As a sidenote, if you want to see what a broken code (and with little room for interpretation) actually is, go look at the code for Vow of Poverty. VoP does not allow you to use a wand of cure wounds to save a dying ally. And if you break your vow, you don't get any chance for atonement either.

Anyway, that's all I have to say on the matter.

[facelessminion]

Let's say you're level 1 then.

If you are level one in this thought experiment, and the GM refuses to allow any chances to resurrect these innocents or find a third option, there is only one real good-aligned option available to you:

Leave the table, because your GM is an ass.

Even if you stay at the table, you aren't going to fall if you attempt a rescue of some sort or the other. Paladins don't fall for being unable to save people, they fall for refusing to try. Any paladin whose deity would strike them down for being unable to save people at level one just needs to find a new deity.

[Zombimode]

Is then Paladin code written for handling extremely outlandish and contrived situations? No. It should be then of no surprise if following the code in such a situation can produce weird results.
That doesn't mean the code is useless or that it needs to be rewritten. (Also, from all the situations presented in this thread only the cage dilemma strikes me as a "hard" dilemma)

[Angelalex242]

With the flip a switch scenario, the correct action is actually doing nothing.

If the Paladin does nothing, all evil deeds remain on the person who put the scenario there in the first place.

When he gets involved, however, he's essentially playing god with people's lives. So the most correct action, given the switch, is 'don't touch it.'

In Carts vs. Balor, the most correct option is to save one of the carts. The preservation of life comes before destroying evil.

In all cases, the argument could be avoided by owning a phylactery of faithfulness and meditating on 'what does it want me to do?' 1000 gp to be immune to a Jackass DM is always a good investment.

[Batou1976]

I've been RPing for a long time now, and going to RP-related forums for roughly half that time, so I've seen the "Paladin CoC is borked/ no it isn't" debate play out a number of times.

I see how one can say it is, based on something like the cart/balor scenario causing a paladin to fall no matter what... but this is based on a strict enaction of RAW with no discernment or judgment involved, and applied to what could be called a "corner case".

But, no set of rules can be written to cover every possible corner case, because an endless number of them are possible. No matter how contrived a Kobayashi Maru (KM) one devises, and no matter what solution another comes up with to "win" the KM, an even more ridiculous and contrived scenario can be posited, as was demonstrated by all the goalpost-moving. Or, put another way, "if you build an idiot-proof device, someone will just make a better idiot". :smallbiggrin:

The point of the cart/balor wasn't to see how far out we can move the goalpost, and whether anyone can still manage to put the ball through them. The point was, to me- At it is presented, does this situation cause the paladin to fall no matter what, or doesn't it?

EDIT: Atemu, I think I get what the premise of your KM situation is, but in case I'm wrong, would you mind saying what exactly it is?

Problem is, the answer to that depends upon whether one considers the BoVD line about "letting a fiend live is an evil act" an operative, enforceable rule or not. I'm not at home now so I don't have my BoVD in front of me, but that line seems to be the writer giving his opinion about what qualifies as an evil act, in a section of the book which is merely giving guidance on adjudicating what is evil, rather than providing actual game rules. Are you going to let a WotC author give you an ironclad dictum on what is evil, and not use your own discernment at all? I'm not. :smallconfused:

So, if one hews to a legalistic, no-thought-involved enactment of the rules, sure, the paladin CoC is borked. It failed to account for every possible eventuality in a universe of infinite possibilities.

However, the rules were not written or intended to be followed absolutely, the way a computer executes program code. They were meant to be interpreted and used by thinking people who exercise judgment in applying the rules, including the CoC, to the game situation and adjudicating what comes out of it. Taken this way, no it isn't borked. It doesn't account for every corner case that can happen, nor even try to, because it can't and doesn't have to. It was meant to be used in conjunction with a functioning human brain.

Also, refer to my waaaay earlier post about deities paying attention to their followers, and not using the CoC they put on their paladins as a legalistic "gotcha!" machine.

[AMFV]

But, no set of rules can be written to cover every possible corner case, because an endless number of them are possible. No matter how contrived a Kobayashi Maru (KM) one devises, and no matter what solution another comes up with to "win" the KM, an even more ridiculous and contrived scenario can be posited, as was demonstrated by all the goalpost-moving. Or, put another way, "if you build an idiot-proof device, someone will just make a better idiot". :smallbiggrin:

There is no "better idiot" in this scenario. I have seen several of these debates play out. I have NEVER seen a scenario written out and statted out where there is no chance to avoid falling. Not once, even in the goalpost moving scenario reduced to it's lowest elements, there is no default falling option.



The point of the cart/balor wasn't to see how far out we can move the goalpost, and whether anyone can still manage to put the ball through them. The point was, to me- At it is presented, does this situation cause the paladin to fall no matter what, or doesn't it?

To which the answer is no. There is no situation where one can force the Paladin to become a murderer, it's the same as helping somebody when you can't save everybody.




So, if one hews to a legalistic, no-thought-involved enactment of the rules, sure, the paladin CoC is borked. It failed to account for every possible eventuality in a universe of infinite possibilities.


I have yet to see proof that it is. It should be legalistic, it's a Lawful code... Again I have yet to see a "gotcha" scenario that actually works even on a conceptual level. I've never seen one, basically for them to work like that there needs to be no other option, and in this case as we've pointed out even with no other option the Paladin should still try to save as many lives as he can, avoiding falling that way.

So again, not borked, because there is no automatic failing, because you can't reduce the actions that way. The only scenarios that involve automatic falling are those that are produced by giving the Paladin responsibility for things outside of his control, like putting the people into the cages. And if your Paladin is loading people into death traps without any attempt to stop the machine, then he's probably not a Paladin.

[Segev]

I must concur: all of these contrived scenarios simply give the paladin the choice of which good he wishes to actively commit. With the possible exception of the switch-and-cages, because there you can point to a difference between choosing who will die and choosing to try something (no matter how futile) to save everybody.

I'm not going to posit, here, a no-win scenario. But I do find this to be an interesting question: Take the cages scenario, but go with the assumption that, with NO action, both cages' contents die. So now the paladin can choose to save one cage or the other (but not both). Obviously, saving people is good, and I agree that powerlessness to save both is not commission of an evil act. However, let's say that one cage contains somebody he knows, and the other contains a complete stranger. Does his choice, based on his own personal like or dislike for the person he knows, become evil for having valued one life over another?

Split it into two scenarios: 1) The cage with the person he knows has his wife or son (the other is still a stranger); 2) the cage with the person he knows is his rival for a great honor (the other is still a stranger). In both cases, the person he knows is not quite so noble as to be the sort the Paladin could honestly tell himself, "they would have wanted to die to save the other person."

Is it more evil, now, to choose to save his wife or son than to choose to save the stranger? Is it more evil, now, to choose to save the stranger than his rival?

[Andezzar]

I think we are agreeing on the meat of the subject, and I do think that intent factors into the morality of an action. But for example saving somebody is under virtually all circumstances non-evil, and is not likely to cause you to fall. It doesn't matter if you choose who you save in a selfish way, because the action itself is good, so the best you'd get is a good act for evil reasons, which still does not an evil act make.Don't let the Paladins of Tyranny/Slaughter hear that. This makes following their code even more ridiculous and almost all forms of scheming impossible.


Does the saving of 99 outweigh the killing of 1? Yes, but that does not make killing the one non-evil.


There is no rule that will tell you the answer to these questions. If there is, I dare you, find me the exact quotes that answer these exact questions, for this exact situation.BoVD explaines that many acts generally viewed as evil may not always be, but allowing a fiend to exist is not one of them.


As a sidenote, if you want to see what a broken code (and with little room for interpretation) actually is, go look at the code for Vow of Poverty. VoP does not allow you to use a wand of cure wounds to save a dying ally. And if you break your vow, you don't get any chance for atonement either.I did not claim that other rules aren't broken as well. Still I'm not aware of a rule saying that not committing a single good deed (healing with the wand) removes the exalted status from the VoP character.

Anyway, that's all I have to say on the matter.[/QUOTE]You are not seeing that one action can be both good (saving the cart full of innocents) and evil (letting the fiend live) at the same time.


With the flip a switch scenario, the correct action is actually doing nothing.

If the Paladin does nothing, all evil deeds remain on the person who put the scenario there in the first place.

When he gets involved, however, he's essentially playing god with people's lives. So the most correct action, given the switch, is 'don't touch it.'
Exactly, but this does not fit with the idea most people have of paladins. More evidence for the broken CoC rule.


Also, refer to my waaaay earlier post about deities paying attention to their followers, and not using the CoC they put on their paladins as a legalistic "gotcha!" machine.Well the deities of paladins might watch out for their followers, but evil deities and fiends are very likely to construct such scenarios to turn paladins.

[Shining Wrath]

what I wanted to get by this thread was a logical trap for make the paladin have to lie.

It's not a lie if the answer is forced to be irrational. That is, if the underlying premises of the question do not comport to observed reality as understood by the Paladin, his answer cannot be a lie, as lying implies intending to deceive as to the truth, and he does not intend to deceive you - you have already deceived yourself by believing false premises.

So if you ask him "What is the most evil deed ever committed by Heironeous?" any answer he gives, including "Prepare to die, blasphemer!" is an honest one. And so on.

Logical traps are almost always semantic in nature and thus do not imply an intent to deceive the questioner.

[Angelalex242]

The Book of Exalted Deeds usually gives explicit directions on how to solve no win scenarios. It's the best such book written to date on the subject.

And I would again point out the cure to a jackass DM is A:Phylactery of Faithfulness or B:Quit the game.

[Batou1976]

There is no "better idiot" in this scenario. I have seen several of these debates play out. I have NEVER seen a scenario written out and statted out where there is no chance to avoid falling. Not once, even in the goalpost moving scenario reduced to it's lowest elements, there is no default falling option.

While I agree there is no default/autofall option in the rules, as I understand the cart/balor scenario:

1. By the CoC, a paladin falls if he willingly commits an evil act
2. Failing to (try to) save innocents, when it is in his power to do so, is an evil act.
3. Allowing a fiend to live is an evil act (and I've already been over why I think whether that's even a rule is debatable)
4. The paladin can only save the cartload of peasants or slay/banish the Balor, not both

And so the question was- has the paladin willingly committed an evil act by doing one and not the other, despite the fact he cannot do both? It's not about whether he can come up with an improbable/contrived solution to an improbable/contrived situation at all.

My point was- no, the paladin has not, because ignoring the Balor when there were peasants to rescue doesn't constitute an evil act if the DM actually uses judgment and evaluates the situation according to the totality of the circumstances and its outcome rather than going with a legalistic "Welp, the rules say not killing a fiend is an evil act and they don't specify any mitigating factors, so I guess I'm not allowed to decide on my own if there are any even though I'm the DM. Sorry, Charlie; you deliberately didn't fight the Balor, so you fall. Them's the rules."

If the DM does decide to be an @$$hat about the rules like that, then it doesn't matter what clever/inventive solution you think you've come up with; if he decides it's a no-win scenario and your paladin's gonna fall, he's gonna fall.

I don't recall for certain, and I'm not going to go back and read all the posts with all the "goalpost moving" and whatnot, but I don't think there was any proposed solution to the cart/Balor dilemma wherein the paladin saved the peasants AND slew the Balor.

So, I agree there's no situation wherein a paladin will fall without fail, but only assuming the DM is being fair and reasonable and actually using discernment.



I have yet to see proof that it is. It should be legalistic, it's a Lawful code...

That's not what "legalistic" means. It means "strict adherence to the letter of the law/rules with no regard for the spirit in which they were intended". So, no, the paladin's CoC should not be legalistic, or interpreted legalistically, otherwise there can be "no win" situations in which the paladin falls no matter what, due to the inability of a law code/rulebook to account for all possible scenarios. It is because of this any system of laws or rules must be enacted and enforced with allowance for humans to use their judgment.

As an aside, this is why the "zero tolerance" policies so popular in our education system these days are such a bad idea.



So again, not borked, because there is no automatic failing, because you can't reduce the actions that way.

I think we can agree one can't reduce the actions that way... or at least, shouldn't, but debates like these happen because there are (too many) @$$hat DMs out there who say "yes, you can", and do so.


Also- I'm at home now and got out my BoVD. The 'letting a fiend exist/live' "rule" is on p8, under "Consorting With Fiends". This passage is in a larger overall section discussing evil acts, in a chapter on "the Nature of Evil". After the "Evil Acts" heading (p7), it does say "What follows is more than a list that defines evil as opposed to good." So, the section is guidance on what is evil. To say any of it is a hard-and-fast rule that forbids any exercise of judgment in applying other rules in other books is, IMO, stupid as hell. None of it is really even a rule at all.

[Batou1976]

Well the deities of paladins might watch out for their followers, but evil deities and fiends are very likely to construct such scenarios to turn paladins.

Indeed they might. Aren't we glad the evil deities and fiends aren't the ones who get to decide if the paladin falls when that happens? :smallbiggrin:

[Angelalex242]

The problem comes when the DM is a Lower Planer being and/or evil deity.

[FidgetySquirrel]

The problem comes when the DM is a Lower Planer being and/or evil deity.I'll do you one better. My first DM was not some run-of-the-mill evil deity, he was THE evil OVERdeity!

[georgie_leech]

With the flip a switch scenario, the correct action is actually doing nothing.

If the Paladin does nothing, all evil deeds remain on the person who put the scenario there in the first place.

When he gets involved, however, he's essentially playing god with people's lives. So the most correct action, given the switch, is 'don't touch it.'

In Carts vs. Balor, the most correct option is to save one of the carts. The preservation of life comes before destroying evil.



This seems a tad inconsistent. If the preservation of life is more important than destroying/removing evil, why is it better to avoid staining your hands when you could save more? It's a valid position to take, but it doesn't match the one you give in the next line.

[RogueDM]

I think the only conceivable way to "make" a paladin fall, and only in some interpretations of the code, would be to convince the paladin that someone is evil who isn't. Perhaps with a false alignment spell of some kind. But even then I'm not sure if accidentally smiting a CG Half-Orc when you thought he was CE counts as evil. It may require a lot of apologies and a fruit basket to his widow, but not evil... So no, if we require the Paladin to explicitly commit an evil act the only way to fall him without his consent is to, hmm. Does only say "willingly" and not "explicitly" and he would be willingly killing a good person, he just didn't know it which isn't acknowledged in the code. Would require the Paladin to act based solely on his Detect Evil and no other evidence, but that wouldn't be a first.

Oh, extort a good person to try murdering the paladin. The paladin might kill the guy out of self defense... nope, the paladin is innocent here and the extorted guy is threatening him.

[AMFV]

I think the only conceivable way to "make" a paladin fall, and only in some interpretations of the code, would be to convince the paladin that someone is evil who isn't. Perhaps with a false alignment spell of some kind. But even then I'm not sure if accidentally smiting a CG Half-Orc when you thought he was CE counts as evil. It may require a lot of apologies and a fruit basket to his widow, but not evil... So no, if we require the Paladin to explicitly commit an evil act the only way to fall him without his consent is to, hmm. Does only say "willingly" and not "explicitly" and he would be willingly killing a good person, he just didn't know it which isn't acknowledged in the code. Would require the Paladin to act based solely on his Detect Evil and no other evidence, but that wouldn't be a first.

Oh, extort a good person to try murdering the paladin. The paladin might kill the guy out of self defense... nope, the paladin is innocent here and the extorted guy is threatening him.

The issue is that deception means that what the Paladin is attempting is killing somebody who's evil, just because he screws up, doesn't make the act evil. The act which most explicitly resulted in the death of a good person is the set-up. This is the fundamental problem with these sorts of scenarios if you set the Paladin up, so that he is doing something good but it winds up evil, it's not really his fault, anymore than a child he saves growing up to be evil.


While I agree there is no default/autofall option in the rules, as I understand the cart/balor scenario:

1. By the CoC, a paladin falls if he willingly commits an evil act
2. Failing to (try to) save innocents, when it is in his power to do so, is an evil act.
3. Allowing a fiend to live is an evil act (and I've already been over why I think whether that's even a rule is debatable)
4. The paladin can only save the cartload of peasants or slay/banish the Balor, not both

And so the question was- has the paladin willingly committed an evil act by doing one and not the other, despite the fact he cannot do both? It's not about whether he can come up with an improbable/contrived solution to an improbable/contrived situation at all.

Which is why when we narrowed down the scenario I pointed out that neither act winds up being evil. Failing to stop a Balor isn't evil, failing to save somebody isn't evil. Failing to try would be, but the Paladin has to make a judgement call about which goal he can attain. For example as I pointed out he could save the cart and then pursue the Balor later. That's not evil in the slightest. The evil person in the scenario is whoever put the cart in danger and whoever challenged the Balor.



My point was- no, the paladin has not, because ignoring the Balor when there were peasants to rescue doesn't constitute an evil act if the DM actually uses judgment and evaluates the situation according to the totality of the circumstances and its outcome rather than going with a legalistic "Welp, the rules say not killing a fiend is an evil act and they don't specify any mitigating factors, so I guess I'm not allowed to decide on my own if there are any even though I'm the DM. Sorry, Charlie; you deliberately didn't fight the Balor, so you fall. Them's the rules."


As has been pointed out, that isn't exactly correct even by the rules. Otherwise Paladins would not be able to exist since they would have to be continuously trying to kill fiends. Even letter of the law, it's questionable as to whether the Paladin is even ALLOWING the fiend to live, since the fiend is never explicitly as his mercy.



If the DM does decide to be an @$$hat about the rules like that, then it doesn't matter what clever/inventive solution you think you've come up with; if he decides it's a no-win scenario and your paladin's gonna fall, he's gonna fall.

I don't recall for certain, and I'm not going to go back and read all the posts with all the "goalpost moving" and whatnot, but I don't think there was any proposed solution to the cart/Balor dilemma wherein the paladin saved the peasants AND slew the Balor.

So, I agree there's no situation wherein a paladin will fall without fail, but only assuming the DM is being fair and reasonable and actually using discernment.


There was more than one.



That's not what "legalistic" means. It means "strict adherence to the letter of the law/rules with no regard for the spirit in which they were intended". So, no, the paladin's CoC should not be legalistic, or interpreted legalistically, otherwise there can be "no win" situations in which the paladin falls no matter what, due to the inability of a law code/rulebook to account for all possible scenarios. It is because of this any system of laws or rules must be enacted and enforced with allowance for humans to use their judgment.

As an aside, this is why the "zero tolerance" policies so popular in our education system these days are such a bad idea.


And that is what being a Paladin is about, the letter of the law matters, because they are lawful. As has been pointed out there really are no true "no-win" scenarios without rules violations on the part of the DM, and if the DM is breaking the rules anyways, then he can do anything.





Also- I'm at home now and got out my BoVD. The 'letting a fiend exist/live' "rule" is on p8, under "Consorting With Fiends". This passage is in a larger overall section discussing evil acts, in a chapter on "the Nature of Evil". After the "Evil Acts" heading (p7), it does say "What follows is more than a list that defines evil as opposed to good." So, the section is guidance on what is evil. To say any of it is a hard-and-fast rule that forbids any exercise of judgment in applying other rules in other books is, IMO, stupid as hell. None of it is really even a rule at all.

I stand corrected, I've always ignored that one in my games, and for what it's worth I generally rewrite the CoC to fit each religion better. Since it doesn't make sense that they'd all value the same things. But what's important is that even RAW there is no "no-win" scenario as far as that goes without significant DM cheating


This seems a tad inconsistent. If the preservation of life is more important than destroying/removing evil, why is it better to avoid staining your hands when you could save more? It's a valid position to take, but it doesn't match the one you give in the next line.

I'd be interested to see what Paladin Orders would value the wait and see approach, certainly a Paladin of Rao might. At some point I want to play an all-Paladin game and examine the way different religious orders respond to moral dilemma, since I think that could be loads of fun.

[aleucard]

This debate's been had basically since the day the internet and this version of the Paladin CoC have coexisted. Yes, a DM can contrive a situation where a Paladin falls no matter what his/her/its choice. HOWEVER, in order for them to do so, they not only have to employ astoundingly contrived scenarios for that (and making those consistent with any campaign that's not intended to be viewed as a cartoon is almost prohibitively difficult), but they also have to employ what equates to Troll Logic as the Code is concerned, as demonstrated by the Balor/Peasant Cart scenario. Any DM that engineers such a situation without the player's explicit consent (DM asks the player if they're alright with being made to fall (if permanent, SAY SO), respect the decision) deserves the hospital bill they're going to get for having their DMG removed from their digestive system, assuming that the player doesn't just punch the jacka$$.

Can a scenario where a Paladin falls be interesting? Hell yes. Does that justify borking a character arbitrarily, and one that has enough problems already keeping pace in a party without being reduced to a Warrior? No, and if you think otherwise you don't deserve to be a DM. Paladins who actually do things that should cause a fall by any logic but Troll Logic should still fall, though.

[AMFV]

This debate's been had basically since the day the internet and this version of the Paladin CoC have coexisted. Yes, a DM can contrive a situation where a Paladin falls no matter what his/her/its choice. HOWEVER, in order for them to do so, they not only have to employ astoundingly contrived scenarios for that (and making those consistent with any campaign that's not intended to be viewed as a cartoon is almost prohibitively difficult), but they also have to employ what equates to Troll Logic as the Code is concerned, as demonstrated by the Balor/Peasant Cart scenario. Any DM that engineers such a situation without the player's explicit consent (DM asks the player if they're alright with being made to fall (if permanent, SAY SO), respect the decision) deserves the hospital bill they're going to get for having their DMG removed from their digestive system, assuming that the player doesn't just punch the jacka$$.

Can a scenario where a Paladin falls be interesting? Hell yes. Does that justify borking a character arbitrarily, and one that has enough problems already keeping pace in a party without being reduced to a Warrior? No, and if you think otherwise you don't deserve to be a DM. Paladins who actually do things that should cause a fall by any logic but Troll Logic should still fall, though.

I don't think it's possible to create a scenario where the Paladin falls (without merit) without breaking the rules as written. I've not seen any that weren't significantly stretched in that regard.

[Pan151]

BoVD explaines that many acts generally viewed as evil may not always be, but allowing a fiend to exist is not one of them.

"Allowing a fiend to exist" is a different action that the one we're talking about. We are talking about "allowing a fiend to exist in order to save innocents". Different actions, different rules.



You are not seeing that one action can be both good (saving the cart full of innocents) and evil (letting the fiend live) at the same time.

Well, if the act is both good and evil, then that simplifies things - the code specifies falling due to only "evil" acts, not "evil and good" acts.

Again, different actions, different rules.

[Angelalex242]

The Paladin should still act 'in good faith' however.

As Order of the Stick said in 490, if you're TRYING to be Lawful Good, the heavenly planes generally appreciate you aren't perfect and are doing the best you can. You don't have to ask yourself 'what would my God do?' cause you aren't a god. You don't have to ask 'what would a Solar do?' cause you aren't a Solar.

You need only ask 'what is the greatest good I can do with the options available. Good DMs may have a different opinion then you on what the greatest good you can do is, and if you've been acting in good faith, they can simply say 'I'd prefer to see you save the cart then smite the Balor, but I can understand your point of view.'

I mean, 2 carts and a Balor: What would Superman do?

Uppercut the Balor into outer space, and then save both carts with ease, because Superman can do that. Your Paladin, however, isn't quite so awesome.

[Gildedragon]

Though things get messy if the valor is a paladin too (as Eludecia, the succubus, is)
Is a human paladin compelled to kill Balin the Righteous Balor Paladin of Freedom?

For a nasty DM such a creature makes the paladin fall: kill it and you have killed an agent of good -> fall
Let it live and you have suffered a fiend to exist -> fall

[Angelalex242]

...consult your phylactery of faithfulness. When the GM...or even WOTC itself...starts throwing completely wacko things at you, just ask your god for advice and do what you're told.

[Gildedragon]

Nasty DM response: the situation causes the phylactery to divide by zero... It fails to work for 1d6 hours

[Andezzar]

"Allowing a fiend to exist" is a different action that the one we're talking about. We are talking about "allowing a fiend to exist in order to save innocents". Different actions, different rules.The latter however is a subset of the former, and thus the rule applies. As I said before BoVD unfortunately does not mention any circumstances or goals when allowing a fiend to exist is not evil.


Well, if the act is both good and evil, then that simplifies things - the code specifies falling due to only "evil" acts, not "evil and good" acts.An act that is both good and evil is in both groups, in evil acts and in good acts. The rule does not say that a paladin only falls if a commits an evil act that is not also good. Alternately you could separate the situation into two acts. One good (saving the innocents) and one evil (intentionally refraining from killing the balor)

@Eludecia: Yup, by RAW she would have to kill herself.

[Gildedragon]

This might be why no god takes her. They're afraid of having to take a stance on her build or answering to her phylactery. Also why she exists in a quantum superposition of paladin and blackguard. She is both and neither until a higher power (DM) observes

[Pan151]

The latter however is a subset of the former, and thus the rule applies. As I said before BoVD unfortunately does not mention any circumstances or goals when allowing a fiend to exist is not evil.

May I have the specific quote that reads, word by word, "Letting a fiend live in order to save innocents is a subset of letting a fiend exist, and as such is evil"?

And absence of mention is just that - absence of mention. I'm expecting hard rules here, not subjective interpretations of semi-related rulings.


An act that is both good and evil is in both groups, in evil acts and in good acts. The rule does not say that a paladin only falls if a commits an evil act that is not also good. Alternately you could separate the situation into two acts. One good (saving the innocents) and one evil (intentionally refraining from killing the balor)

Again, absence of mention is absence of mention.


Look, Andrezzar, you, as the DM, can strech the rules regarding the Paladin code as much as you want. I, as the Paladin player, can strech them equally to the opposite direction. If your only arguement against this is "I'm the DM, so I'm more equal than you" then I'm terribly unimpressed...

[Andezzar]

This might be why no god takes her. They're afraid of having to take a stance on her build or answering to her phylactery. Also why she exists in a quantum superposition of paladin and blackguard. She is both and neither until a higher power (DM) observesI'm pretty sure her entry says that her alignment is lawful good. So she cannot be a blackguard.

[Angelalex242]

Ah, but she's also a [chaotic] [evil] subtype being, so she technically qualifies for all evil classes even while being good.

So she's the only being in existence capable of detecting evil and good, smiting evil and good...and smiting herself with both of them.

That's why she should really poof in a puff of logic (and in my games, fiends do not get redeemed.)

[Andezzar]

May I have the specific quote that reads, word by word, "Letting a fiend live in order to save innocents is a subset of letting a fiend exist, and as such is evil"?If you do not agree on that we cannot have a discussion. That is like saying "I can drive a car to get me to work" were not a subset of "I can drive a car"


And absence of mention is just that - absence of mention. I'm expecting hard rules here, not subjective interpretations of semi-related rulings.It is a general rule that stands until a more specific rule says otherwise. So you have to show that letting a fiend live in order to save the innocents is not evil.


Ah, but she's also a [chaotic] [evil] subtype being, so she technically qualifies for all evil classes even while being good.At least for the Blackguard that is not true, I'm not willing to check every alignment restricted PrC.

Alignment

Any evil.The [Evil] Subtype does not give an alignment, even though it often corresponds to the creature's alignment.


So she's the only being in existence capable of detecting evil and good, smiting evil and good...and smiting herself with both of them. For smiting she can even be affected by Smite Chaos and Smite Law, the former due to her subtypes, the latter due to her alignment.


That's why she should really poof in a puff of logic (and in my games, fiends do not get redeemed.)If fiends were irredeemable then yes. If that does not happen the CoC makes her go poof.

[Gildedragon]

Ah, but she's also a [chaotic] [evil] subtype being, so she technically qualifies for all evil classes even while being good.
Aaaand her article has her statted out as a blackguard as well.


So she's the only being in existence capable of detecting evil and good, smiting evil and good...and smiting herself with both of them.

That's why she should really poof in a puff of logic (and in my games, fiends do not get redeemed.)

Only -officially statted out- being. Also she pings and is smite able on al four axes.
In a campaign setting where she is allowed (or where celestial a can fall) there are bound to be others.
I personally take her existence to mean individuals are self determining. Makes a less tidy cosmology but fallen celestials and risen fiends tickle my feather. As to how I resolve it: alignment supersedes subtypes

[Andezzar]

Aaaand her article has her statted out as a blackguard as well.But with CE alignment. So no problem there.

[Broken Crown]

As I said before BoVD unfortunately does not mention any circumstances or goals when allowing a fiend to exist is not evil.

"Allowing a fiend to exist" is not the same as "being unable to prevent a fiend from existing." If it were, there would be no paladins, as all paladins at 1st level would instantly fall due to being unable to destroy all fiends.

The paladin in the Balor/Cart scenario is not allowing a fiend to exist; he is unable to destroy a fiend because he's busy saving innocents and is limited by the action economy to not being able to do everything at once. So he is not committing an evil act.

(He should, of course, make every attempt to deal with the balor as soon as he isn't busy with more pressing matters.)

[Pan151]

If you do not agree on that we cannot have a discussion. That is like saying "I can drive a car to get me to work" were not a subset of "I can drive a car"


"I can drive a car to get me to work" is a subset of "I can drive a car".

"I can get to work by driving a car" however is a subset of "I can get to work".



It is a general rule that stands until a more specific rule says otherwise. So you have to show that letting a fiend live in order to save the innocents is not evil.

Saving innocents is a good act. That is also a general rule that stands until a more specific rule says otherwise. So you have to show that saving innocents by letting a fiend live is not good.

PS. In case you didn't realise, you're arguing that the action the paladin commited is "Let a fiend live" (and as a side-effect save innocents) , while what he actually did was "Save innocents" (and as a side effect let a fiend live). That is the difference between willful action and non-willful side-effects of said action.

[Angelalex242]

It doesn't help the super strict code of conduct is on a Tier 5 class. For all the headaches, you'd think Paladins were as strong as optimized clerics. And perhaps they should be, if the Code of Conduct is supposed to MEAN Something...other then turning a Tier 5 class into a Tier 6 when violated.

[Shining Wrath]

I must weigh in on "letting a fiend live" being an evil act.

Lots of fiends live on other planes. By strict RAW of BoVD (IMNHO, one of the more borked rulebooks), any Paladin capable of doing so must travel to one of those planes and start slaying until slain himself.

Because he knows the fiends are there, doing fiendish stuff, and by not going there and opening the smite can, he's letting them live. Therefore, by BoVD, any living Paladin capable of traveling to the lower planes falls immediately if he doesn't.

Quibble the second is on the meaning of "to let". Suppose the Paladin is L1 and there are 256 Balor traveling together to a picnic. Is he "letting" them do anything since he is utterly incapable of so much as slowing them down or scratching them? That is, "let" normally means that your decision matters. I can make a purely semantic option that if you say the Paladin MUST save the cart full of peasants then the Paladin is not choosing to let the Balor live, because the situation does not truly allow free will.

EDIT: Do NOT look in the picnic baskets the Balor are carrying. Seriously. Just ... don't.

[Vogonjeltz]

BoVD explaines that many acts generally viewed as evil may not always be, but allowing a fiend to exist is not one of them.

This is 3.0 material that has been overruled by the 3.5 material in Book of Exalted Deeds where it's declared that attempting to redeem fiends is a good act.

So allowing a fiend to live just because might be considered evil, but doing so because one believes they can be redeemed (and tries) is good.


Alright. Let's say, then, that there's an unspeakably evil foe. A being of pure evil, who can only be killed using a cursed blade. How cursed you ask? In order to be capable to kill anything with it, you must kill an innocent person (meaning usually a newborn infant of a nonevil race) and bathe the weapon in their blood. This villain is inevitably going to kill again. Go fix that one. You cannot do the good act (slay the villain, who I may as well add cannot be captured alive) without committing an evil act, which violates your alignment.

Let's not say that. That's not consistent with the logic of D&D. Evil is always more vulnerable to Good than it is other Evil, and vice versa, and everything up to and including deities can be theoretically slain or contained (Deities of up to rank 5 can be imprisoned, by a mere mortal no less).

Besides which, in D&D the means do not justify the ends. So the use of evil means is simply off the table for the Paladin.


and allowing the villagers to perish (explicitly evil by the BoED. Although the page reference escapes me).

Is this referencing the rockslide example? That is an evil act only because the Paladin is aware that fleeing up the hill might dislodge the rocks, threatening the safety of the innocent villagers. When the Paladin flees that way in good faith, but the rocks happen to dislodge killing the villagers, it's not an evil act.

Inaction is not action, though in this case it would be a gross violation of the Paladin code, section 2c (help those in need) and, potentially depending on circumstances, 2d (punish those who harm or threaten innocents) if he doesn't then try to do something about that.

Order of operations for prioritization of Code of Conduct issues seems very circumstantial. If Innocents are presently in peril, that would presumably take precedence over all other current considerations, though attempting to save them would not preclude continuing to operate under sections 2a (respecting legitimate authority) and 2b (acting with honor).

There are effectively two parts to the code: Things you can not do, and things you should do. Where-ever things you can not do intersects with things you should do...the paladin shouldn't be doing those things.

Paladins are effectively tasked to do two things: Help those in need, Punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
There are no demands from the Code of Conduct that the Paladin otherwise intercede.

Because the Paladin is only required to actually do something in those two instances, I think it will help to narrowly define how they're affected by the rest of the code.

Helping those in need:
Limited to helping those who aren't using the help for evil or chaotic ends.
Help may not involve evil acts (dovetails nicely with not providing help to those who themselves will use it for evil ends)
Help must be provided while respecting legitimate authority (dovetails with no chaotic ends nicely)
Help must be provided in an honorable fashion (no lying, no cheating, no use of poison, etc...)

Punishing those who harm or threaten innocents:
Punishment may not involve evil acts
Punishment must be respectful of legitimate authority
Punishment must be done honorably (no lying, no cheating, no use of poison, etc...)

Help and Punishment are not themselves narrowly defined, they carry a significant amount of latitude so long as whatever is done doesn't violate the other aspects of the code, but for the most part the gamut of possible actions are allowed.

There are no scenarios in which a Paladin has no choice but to fall.


*scenario questions added.


Okay. The switch in my scenario is presented to you. You have all the knowledge of how the switch works and what happens if you try to smash it (i.e. everyone dies). The "cages" are a crystal of some sort that is utterly smooth but transparent. Breaking the crystal causes it to shatter for enough damage to kill the occupants. The entire room is under an AMF; the killing effect is the bottom of the cage opening into, let's say lava. There is no monitor to be reasoned with; the BBEG was just a sadistic bastard. I reserve the right to alter the scenario to account for possible solutionsThe justification is that there is an arbitrary number of rooms you go through with the new set up in each. Alternatively, you were presented with the new and improved scenario in the first place, as this is about whether it's possible, not whether I can succeed on my first try.

Questions:
1) How does the player have any of this knowledge?
2) How can the player be certain any of the knowledge is accurate? (Other than after events have already proceeded and it's a moot point?)
3) If the cage is a totally solid crystal, how did the prisoner get into the cage? Also cage implies there are bars (and thus handholds that the occupants can grip while we figure out a solution). If there aren't bars, it's a box.
4) How does the player know there's an antimagic field covering the room?

[georgie_leech]

Questions:
1) How does the player have any of this knowledge?
2) How can the player be certain any of the knowledge is accurate? (Other than after events have already proceeded and it's a moot point?)
3) If the cage is a totally solid crystal, how did the prisoner get into the cage? Also cage implies there are bars (and thus handholds that the occupants can grip while we figure out a solution). If there aren't bars, it's a box.
4) How does the player know there's an antimagic field covering the room?

1) Let's go with Past Experience.
2) It could be an elaborate trick, but you're fairly sure it isn't based on previous rooms.
3) You don't know, and if you prefer you can call it a box. I used quotes around "cage" for a reason, since it's being used to denote a holding area of some size. Perhaps some effect was used to grow the crystals around the prisoners. Is this particularly relevant to your choice?
4) You can't detect evil; presumably a character would be aware if they can't use Su abilities.

[beforemath]

One day I realized that all Paladin gods are just evil dieties intent on luring pure souls into service and corrupting them into Blackguards. It all started making much more sense.

[Vogonjeltz]

1) Let's go with Past Experience.
2) It could be an elaborate trick, but you're fairly sure it isn't based on previous rooms.
3) You don't know, and if you prefer you can call it a box. I used quotes around "cage" for a reason, since it's being used to denote a holding area of some size. Perhaps some effect was used to grow the crystals around the prisoners. Is this particularly relevant to your choice?
4) You can't detect evil; presumably a character would be aware if they can't use Su abilities.

1) past experience from what? This is a thoroughly unique scenario, I've never even heard of this peculiar material you're describing. If the box really opened almost instantly before (1 second is no time at all), unless they've seen many iterations it's entirely implausible to believe there's anything at all the player can do here, and certainly no way to claim Intent.

If there's an identifiable trigger, then as long as the paladin doesn't deliberately trigger it, he's in the clear.

2) What's the source of the antimagic field then? It's an emanation, so it has to be coming from someone or something. Why can't the players deal try that?

3) it's relevant to not thinking this is merely a trick. If there's no time to ask the person inside questions, then there's certainly no time to make a proper decision.

4) detecting evil takes time, which according to the original scenario, the prisoner doesn't actually have (not that the players can know this until it's too late.)

My reading is that without the ability to actually effect a change (cause the prisoner to die) there's no potential for evil here.

[atemu1234]

Ok, I'm going to finish an argument I started. My point was that the DM can come up with a situation that would always result in the paladin falling, even though it is unfair. The Rules-As-Written support this. Common sense does not. The situations I give were literally what sprang to mind when it was one in the morning.

My point still stands, and the rules-as-written agree with it. However, any DM acting with any responsibility for the role of DM would not do what I have put forth here.

[Batou1976]

As has been pointed out, that isn't exactly correct even by the rules. Otherwise Paladins would not be able to exist since they would have to be continuously trying to kill fiends.

And even then they couldn't exist, I think, because with the legalistic interpretation of the CoC one would have to be using to say the paladin falls in the cart/Balor situation, taken to its (il)logical end has every paladin falling the instant they become a paladin, and falling again the instant they regain it after atoning, because somewhere, an evil act is happening which the paladin was capable of preventing (had he been there), AND there's fiends existing somewhere which the paladin isn't trying to slay in that instant.

But that's not what a code of conduct is; their purpose is to guide your decision-making when you actually have a decision to make.

If the RAW CoC is borked because it supposedly doesn't address things like the cart/Balor dilemma, adjudicating it in a manner which allows paladins auto-falling to be possible is even more borked.


Even letter of the law, it's questionable as to whether the Paladin is even ALLOWING the fiend to live, since the fiend is never explicitly as his mercy.

I certainly don't think so, either, but there's some people who apparently do. :smallannoyed:


There was more than one.

Seems like you'd have to be crazy prepared, then. Many of the ones I do remember, where the Balor still got away, seemed to require one to be prepared specifically for that scenario.

I've never known a DM to tell his players in advance "such-and-such specific situation is going to happen in the next adventure, so be coming up with a way to defeat it". Throw such a situation at them with no forewarning whatsoever, and yeah, you're an @$$hat.


And that is what being a Paladin is about, the letter of the law matters, because they are lawful. As has been pointed out there really are no true "no-win" scenarios without rules violations on the part of the DM, and if the DM is breaking the rules anyways, then he can do anything.

Of course the letter of the law matters, but only insofar as following it accomplishes the purpose and spirit in which the law was intended, if you're lawful good. To say the letter must be followed absolutely, no matter what harm may come of it, is more of a lawful neutral view, perhaps even lawful evil.

And so I just had an epiphany- it could even be said the interpretation which says a paladin falls no matter what in the cart/Balor scenario is a lawful evil construction of the paladin CoC. It certainly is within the LE alignment to insist on such legalistic constructions of rules and law codes, especially if it works to their advantage.



I stand corrected, I've always ignored that one in my games, and for what it's worth I generally rewrite the CoC to fit each religion better. Since it doesn't make sense that they'd all value the same things. But what's important is that even RAW there is no "no-win" scenario as far as that goes without significant DM cheating

And/or DM sophistry. :smallamused:

It certainly stands to reason a paladin of Pelor would have a somewhat different CoC from one of Heironeous, or St Cuthbert, or Torm, or Paladine, or.... :smallwink:

One gripe I've see made before about the CoC and differentiating it by deity has been "but the PHB doesn't say anything about doing that!" To which I say- it shouldn't have to. We're role playing, right? Do you really need a book to tell you how to roleplay?

The biggest problem I see with all the arguments about "the Coc is borked", "alignment is borked*" ("zis ees cursed, zat ees cursed..."), etc... is that they seem to think each rule of the game, each tenet of the CoC, are operating in a vacuum, independent of all others, so that if there's a rule which says "if Player does X, Y happens" the rule gets triggered whenever X happens no matter what. Their complaints seem to me to be saying "we want the rules to have all the answers without having to think about it!"

Folks, that's the way computers operate. No, BoVD doesn't say "letting a fiend live is an evil act unless..." because it shouldn't have to. We're not computers; we're thinking, reasoning humans, and we're capable of looking at law codes, game rules, and so on holistically, and using our judgment to determine how the code in question applies to the situation at hand. This is why tabletop RPGs are better than WoW or EQ and their ilk.


*I personally have never had a problem with alignment, or thought it was broken... but perhaps that's because I don't see morality as being relative. :smallconfused:

[tomandtish]

Regarding the whole "try and kill the fiend versus save the children" argument:


Even with the most black-and-white, objective approach to good and evil, gray areas will always exist.

also


So, does the objective definition of evil imply that intent plays no part in determining what is good and what isn’t? Only to a degree.

(page 6 for both)

This is a prime example of the gray. He can only do one of two good acts and has picked one. At no point is his intent to support evil. Being blunt, I wouldn't be playing in a game where the Paladin's taking a hit in this situation.