A paladin fall question

[Dr TPK]

Happened in our previous session:
The PCs were sailing and they wanted to go further south. The crew flatly refused because they were certain that it was the edge of the world and they would die. The PCs knew that this wasn't true, so the party paladin tried diplomacy. He failed miserably (natural 1 and not that great modifiers).

Then the party sorcerer (neutral) intimidated the crew. He said that they would die anyway if they didn't do as he said. The intimidation check was a huge success and the crew obeyed. The paladin said that going south was the only smart thing to do in that situation, he didn't believe that his friend was really going to kill the crew and he knew that there was no edge of the world in south. The crew was absolutely terrified: die by the sorcerer's magic or by falling off of the edge of the world! They chose to take their chances with the edge of the world while hoping that the ship's officers (NPCs) would find a way to resolve the situation. However, they had zero ideas and were scared out of their minds. The PCs didn't do anything to comfort the crew. The crew was just forced to carry on while crying and praying silently.

Edit: Forgot the question! Should the paladin fall?

Edit2: The reason why they were travelling was to meet a powerful gold dragon. They don't have any specific reason to meet her, they just want to meet and that's it. Maybe they will ask how to save the world someday etc.

[Crake]

Definitely not, the sorcerer's actions strike me as chaotic at worst, sure he threatened to kill them, but had absolutely no intention of doing so, and they both knew it, but it was for a good purpose, and they knew that the crew's superstitions were wrong, so he didn't put them in any danger (beyond the ones inherent with seafaring). The paladin has to do something evil to fall. Paladins can actually very easily perform chaotic acts, as long as they don't do it on a sufficiently constant basis to change their alignment away from LG, but a single evil act will cause a paladin to fall. That said, the actions of the sorcerer do not condemn the paladin, he is not required to uphold all his party members to the same standards as he does himself, and as long as the sorcerer doesn't perform enough evil to actually change his alignment, then the paladin is fine, though any halfway decent paladin would actively work to prevent that from happening if he saw his comrade heading down that path.

[Firest Kathon]

I am of the opinion the paladin would not even fall if they intimidated the crew themself. A paladin has to be lawful and good, but they do not have to be nice.

[darksolitaire]

As a rule of thumb, if you have to ask if the paladin should fall, the answer is probably no. Another thing to note is that paladin's shouldn't fall from actions of others.

[Sagetim]

Did the necromancer animate the dead or cast an evil spell? Because those would be the most concrete examples of 'yes' that I can think of. The example you've related to me would get a 'no, the paladin doesn't fall' in my book. The paladin tried to talk them into it, and it isn't his job to baby a bunch of sailors. The Sorcerer didn't do anything overtly evil either. He didn't charm the crew to make them sail them down south, he didn't drop a bunch of dominate persons, and he didn't resort to killing the crew an animating them as undead to force them to obey his commands. They basically yelled at the crew to stop being stupid and do what they were paid to do.

If you hired some guys to build a house, and they stopped partway through because they believed that digging more than 10 feet into the ground would release demons, while you knew that was bull****, you wouldn't be in the wrong for yelling at them to stop being stupid and do what they have already been paid to do. As far as I can see, that's basically what the pc's were doing here: Demanding that they get the service that they paid for.

[Mystral]

Edit: Forgot the question! Should the paladin fall?

Of course the paladin should fall when he sails over the edge of the world, just like the rest of the ship's passengers.

[Ashtagon]

Good is not necessarily nice. No fall here.

Paladins fall; everyone dies. Game over man, gane over.

[ShaneMRoth]

If it were up to me, the paladin wouldn't fall.

[Sacrieur]

Well he tried diplomacy.

Keep in mind intimidate only works for 1d6 * 10 minutes. After that their attitude changes to unfriendly. If intimidated again they would become hostile (and thus violent, attacking the sorcerer).

[Dr TPK]

Keep in mind intimidate only works for 1d6 * 10 minutes. After that their attitude changes to unfriendly. If intimidated again they would become hostile (and thus violent, attacking the sorcerer).


The effect lasts as long as the target remains in your presence, and for 1d6×10 minutes afterward.

I'm afraid you still have some work to do until you can become the new Curmudgeon.

[Inevitability]

If intimidated again they would become hostile (and thus violent, attacking the sorcerer).

Hostile ≠ violent. Not every person who is mistreated or attacked will respond through violence. If that were the case, there would be little reason for anyone to play an enchanter, healer, or buffer. After all, they are hostile towards those orcs the party is fighting; so they can't do anything but blindly strike them, right?

[Metahuman1]

Unfortunately, yes. He's now adventuring with someone, willingly, who's clearly not honest. He can't do that per the paladin Code.

It's stupid, but we knew that already.

[BWR]

It greatly depends on the paladin in question, his/her faith and vows. I'm not inclined to think that this act in and of itself would cause a paladin to fall but it is certainly a no-no for the paladin, since honesty is a major edict. Making a habit out of it would turn the paladin chaotic enough to lose the paladin class in very little time, img. "For the greater good" is not something paladins accept. You want a somewhat morally flexible hero, play another class.
Lying or by allowing others to lie and get away with it is Bad. There is discretion and politeness and a polite white lie that everyone knows is wrong; this is well beyond that.

[Crake]

Unfortunately, yes. He's now adventuring with someone, willingly, who's clearly not honest. He can't do that per the paladin Code.

It's stupid, but we knew that already.

the paladin's code only requires that the party not be evil, nothing requiring that his party members be perfectly honest. Hell, nothing other than acting with honor, and that's a personal code. The only bit that might clash is the bit about "punish those who harm or threaten innocents". So yeah, maybe a word with the sorc, and some atonement (probably after the boat ride, since that would otherwise be counter productive).

[Keltest]

Unfortunately, yes. He's now adventuring with someone, willingly, who's clearly not honest. He can't do that per the paladin Code.

It's stupid, but we knew that already.

Its only against the code if the sorcerer is repeatedly offending his moral code. If the paladin is actually offended by the very idea of lying, he is going to have significantly more issues than whether or not he retains his powers.

Also, its not like he can just leave anyway.

[Chronos]

The sorcerer's action was chaotic, as he was making a threat that he didn't intend to carry out. This has absolutely zero relevance for the sorcerer, as sorcerers do not have a code of conduct.

If the paladin had made the intimidate check, it would be a violation of his code of conduct, which prohibits (among other things) chaotic acts. This probably has consequences, but a single violation of the code of conduct also does not cause a paladin to fall, unless it's egregious, or if it's an evil act (which this wasn't). One can debate, of course, just what acts count as egregious, but it's irrelevant, since the paladin didn't even commit the act in question.

The paladin is associating with the person who took this act, but that's even more irrelevant, since the paladin's only limit on association is to not associate with creatures he knows to be evil. The sorcerer's act was, as already noted, chaotic but not evil, and even if it were evil, a single act does not make an alignment. There is certainly no requirement in the paladin's code to associate only with others who also follow the entire code.

There is no interpretation of the paladin's code that does not put this at least two steps away from any mechanical consequence to the paladin.

[Dr TPK]

I understand what some posters here are saying, but I fail to understand this:


Code of Conduct

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

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


a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code.

Even though the paladin will not fail, he must cease associating with the sorcerer if he keeps threatening the crew.

[Keltest]

The sorcerer's action was chaotic, as he was making a threat that he didn't intend to carry out. This has absolutely zero relevance for the sorcerer, as sorcerers do not have a code of conduct.

If the paladin had made the intimidate check, it would be a violation of his code of conduct, which prohibits (among other things) chaotic acts. This probably has consequences, but a single violation of the code of conduct also does not cause a paladin to fall, unless it's egregious, or if it's an evil act (which this wasn't). One can debate, of course, just what acts count as egregious, but it's irrelevant, since the paladin didn't even commit the act in question.

The paladin is associating with the person who took this act, but that's even more irrelevant, since the paladin's only limit on association is to not associate with creatures he knows to be evil. The sorcerer's act was, as already noted, chaotic but not evil, and even if it were evil, a single act does not make an alignment. There is certainly no requirement in the paladin's code to associate only with others who also follow the entire code.

There is no interpretation of the paladin's code that does not put this at least two steps away from any mechanical consequence to the paladin.

Paladins are perfectly capable of committing chaotic acts, its evil acts that cause an instant fall. On the law-chaos axis, only a full alignment shift to non-lawful will cause them to lose their powers.


I understand what some posters here are saying, but I fail to understand this:





Even though the paladin will not fail, he must cease associating with the sorcerer if he keeps threatening the crew.

Pretty much. The paladin's party cannot make a habit of threatening people in front of the paladin, though if it happens occasionally under dire circumstances the paladin is able to get over it because it doesn't happen very often.

[Sacrieur]

I'm afraid you still have some work to do until you can become the new Curmudgeon.

:p

So the sorcerer is around every member of the crew for entire length of time? I guess.

---

This isn't really relevant, however, because it's not what the OP asked.

---


Unfortunately, yes. He's now adventuring with someone, willingly, who's clearly not honest. He can't do that per the paladin Code.

It's stupid, but we knew that already.


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.

The sorcerer, at worst, did something that was neutral. It wasn't dishonest to threaten the crew to sail.

[Sliver]

If you make the paladin fall, think about what you are teaching your group. You are basically telling them that, yes, the paladin has to police the other characters, and he is punished for failing to do so. Are you sure you want to establish such roles in your game?

No, the paladin shouldn't fall for another's semi-offense. He isn't a very good paladin though, because it doesn't sound like the service was essential, so there isn't a 'greater good' clause. The party probably had some agreement and they wanted to modify it, and the crew refused. So they used force (force of personality is still force) to get their way. Not honorable, but unless it is something that happens repeatedly, I'd simply inform the player on your worries regarding his future as a paladin.

[Andreaz]

This dude (http://www.goblinscomic.org/05142008/) is a paladin (http://www.goblinscomic.org/05152008/). One of the most benevolent, kind-hearted paladins you'll ever see. He became a paladin explicitly because he doesn't want to ever see his loved ones die because of petty squabbles and irrational conflicts over again.
Guess who didn't fall that day (http://www.goblinscomic.org/10122009/)?

[Sliver]

This dude (http://www.goblinscomic.org/05142008/) is a paladin (http://www.goblinscomic.org/05152008/). One of the most benevolent, kind-hearted paladins you'll ever see. He became a paladin explicitly because he doesn't want to ever see his loved ones die because of petty squabbles and irrational conflicts over again.
Guess who didn't fall that day (http://www.goblinscomic.org/10122009/)?

While it's a nice example of Good isn't Nice, it isn't quite the case here. There was little to no Good behind their wish.


The reason why they were travelling was to meet a powerful gold dragon. They don't have any specific reason to meet her, they just want to meet and that's it. Maybe they will ask how to save the world someday etc.

The last part doesn't make a strong case, as it doesn't sound like the world is currently in danger.

[Geddy2112]

As a rule of thumb, if you have to ask if the paladin should fall, the answer is probably no. Another thing to note is that paladin's shouldn't fall from actions of others.

I wholeheartedly second this. If a paladin is going to fall, it is going to be obvious. If you have to ask, its not fallworthy.


Good is not necessarily nice.

This. Some of the meanest most jerkfaced people are LG. Some of the nicest people you will ever meet are CE. Lawful good is not lawful nice; a paladin might have to be tough and allow for some tough actions for the good of the crew, in respects for both order and their lives.

[A Tad Insane]

A paladin can't associate with anyone who CONSISTENTLY offends their moral code. So long as the sorcerer doesn't threaten people regularly, they can still party together

[jiriku]

A paladin must:

act with honor
punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code.




The code requires that the paladin act with honor; it places no requirements on the paladin's companions. In fact, it is assumed that the paladin's companions will fail to live up to the code, since they are not paladins themselves and some of them are not even lawful good. Part of the purpose of a paladin is to inspire others to demand more of themselves and become better persons. To do this, the paladin must associate with these other people so that they can observe his words and deeds.
As you stated, the paladin believes the sorcerer is bluffing. Thus in his estimation, the sorcerer is lying, not threatening an innocent. The paladin is not obligated to punish someone for lying.
It's helpful to draw a distinguish between offending the moral code and simply failing to follow it. The sorcerer fails to live by the code; he does not consistently offend it. Consistent offense would be something like the sorcerer being a total slimebag: arrogant, dishonest, cruel, and openly contemptuous of the paladin's values. In other words, the paladin is not allowed to associate with villains. Dark-hearted or morally dubious heroes are A-OK -- those are exactly the sort of people who need a paladin in their lives to show them a better way. From a paladin's perspective, morally grey PCs are not opponents -- they are redemption opportunities.


It's important to remember that the paladin is not intended to be the party policeman, forcing the code of conduct down everyone's throat regardless of their wishes. That's the kind of behavior that gives a paladin a reputation as an obnoxious idiot with a stick up his butt, and you don't save souls by making people hate you. Rather, the paladin serves as a living example of the best way to act, serving as a role model for those who voluntarily adopt his code of conduct. A paladin should inspire moral behavior, not demand it.

[ShaneMRoth]

I understand what some posters here are saying, but I fail to understand this:





Even though the paladin will not fail, he must cease associating with the sorcerer if he keeps threatening the crew.

The sorcerer was willing to allow Diplomacy to work and only used Intimidate as a fall back measure. That demonstrated a willingness to defer to the Paladin's judgment. That is evidence in support of a desire not to offend the Paladin's code.

Are you requiring the Paladin to only associate with adventurers who hold themselves to his code of conduct?

If so, you will be rendering the Paladin virtually unplayable as a class.

If this is your decision, then so be it, but you need to own that decision.

If you are constantly looking for reasons for the Paladin to fall, you will find one in nearly every session.

If you have to look for reasons for the Paladin to fall, then he probably shouldn't fall.

It seems to me that there needs to be a difference between "offends a paladin's code" and "doesn't adhere to a paladin's code" and that difference needs to be substantial.

It is my understanding that this is not hypothetical. This involves you making a decision. So DM adjudication enters into this. (I say this because many forum members will seize up like a rusty bike chain at the very mention of DM adjudication.)

[LoyalPaladin]

As a rule of thumb, if you have to ask if the paladin should fall, the answer is probably no. Another thing to note is that paladin's shouldn't fall from actions of others.
Yeah, I'd say this is true in 99.9% of all cases.


Of course the paladin should fall when he sails over the edge of the world, just like the rest of the ship's passengers.
You knew better.


Good is not necessarily nice. No fall here.
http://www.paperspencils.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Paladins.jpg

[Deadline]

I understand what some posters here are saying, but I fail to understand this:

Even though the paladin will not fail, he must cease associating with the sorcerer if he keeps threatening the crew.

Only if three things are true:

1. The sorcerer acted without honor (not sure how the actions taken were dishonorable? I mean maybe if he was making them sail to their deaths I could see it, but the ignorance of the crew doesn't somehow make what the sorcerer did a bad thing.).
2. The sorcerer was threatening innocents (not sure the crew could count as innocents, or that this was really a big deal at all. Maybe I missed something important in your OP?).
3. You just want to see the Paladin fall.

Could you clarify why you think the Paladin should fall?

[Dr TPK]

Could you clarify why you think the Paladin should fall?

But I don't want to see him fall.

[Draconium]

But I don't want to see him fall.

So, he didn't fall. That seems to be the general agreement here. I think so too - while the sorcerer's act was chaotic, it wasn't evil, and he didn't mean to carry out his threat. Therefore, the paladin shouldn't have any trouble associating with him, code-wise. Although, if I was the paladin's player, I'd have him politely request that the sorcerer not do that again unless absolutely necessary, mainly for roleplay reasons, but also so a question like this doesn't come up again.

[Kish]

While it's a nice example of Good isn't Nice, it isn't quite the case here. There was little to no Good behind their wish.
Yes, this.

I am disturbed that almost everyone in this thread seems to be posting in "is it a technical violation of the rules to shove around some meaningless scenery?" mode, and not, you know, "Is it proper behavior for a CHAMPION OF GOOD to nod and smile at terrorizing PEOPLE to satisfy random whims?" mode. If you want to play a game where NPCs merit no consideration unless the plot focuses on them, go ahead, but the first step is to eliminate the paladin code entirely: Establish up-front that everyone is going to be expected to be what would be Chaotic Evil (with a geas not to act against the group) in a game where moral considerations actually mattered, and no one can Fall.

[Deadline]

Yes, this.

I am disturbed that almost everyone in this thread seems to be posting in "is it a technical violation of the rules to shove around some meaningless scenery?" mode, and not, you know, "Is it proper behavior for a CHAMPION OF GOOD to nod and smile at terrorizing PEOPLE to satisfy random whims?" mode. If you want to play a game where NPCs merit no consideration unless the plot focuses on them, go ahead, but the first step is to eliminate the paladin code entirely: Establish up-front that everyone is going to be expected to be what would be Chaotic Evil (with a geas not to act against the group) in a game where moral considerations actually mattered, and no one can Fall.

This seems like a remarkable dose of hyperbole. Did you actually mean every word of this, or were you exaggerating some things for effect?

I ask, because it's made pretty clear in the various books that d&d Good is in not necessarily nice (and, at least to me, morally repugnant in some cases).

[Dr TPK]

Yes, this.

I am disturbed that almost everyone in this thread seems to be posting in "is it a technical violation of the rules to shove around some meaningless scenery?" mode, and not, you know, "Is it proper behavior for a CHAMPION OF GOOD to nod and smile at terrorizing PEOPLE to satisfy random whims?" mode. If you want to play a game where NPCs merit no consideration unless the plot focuses on them, go ahead, but the first step is to eliminate the paladin code entirely: Establish up-front that everyone is going to be expected to be what would be Chaotic Evil (with a geas not to act against the group) in a game where moral considerations actually mattered, and no one can Fall.

You make a strong point of this. Defending the well-being of people doesn't mean that you are the authority on what is their well-being and what is good for them. People have the right to decline to sail, without threats on their lives. Failing to meet the dragon would have no consequences.


I ask, because it's made pretty clear in the various books that d&d Good is in not necessarily nice (and, at least to me, morally repugnant in some cases).

And there are also various that D&D good is nice.

[OldTrees1]

Tip for handling Paladins better than WotC:

Differentiate in your head between Paladins that are good at being Paladins and Paladins that mess up occasionally: Paladins strive to be the first kind but don't fall if they end up being merely the second kind. Sure there is some shame involved in messing up and Paladins will probably be their harshest critic since it is the Paladin that is trying to hold themselves to a higher standard. However mechanical falling would not happen from the occasional mistake. Save mechnical falling for a severe case of the divine staging an intervention (or the worse case of the divine giving up on the character). Think about why the gods had Miko fall, sure it was about the action but more it was meant to snap her out of the downward path she was walking.

[Segev]

The question wasn't, "Did the paladin do everything right, and nothing wrong?" but, "Should the paladin fall?"

The answer to that second question, the one that was asked, is "no," for the reasons listed in this thread.

The answer to that first question is also "no," because he probably should have done more to comfort the sailors after the fact. Perhaps offering to ride - if he could get a means to do so over the water (my own Paladin PC has horseshoes of the zephyr on his steed) - to scout ahead and make sure that, if the world does end, he can give them warning before they go too far. Probably chiding the sorcerer about making such threats. But he doesn't have to be a jerk to the party by undermining their efforts when they're not really doing anything too terribly evil. Terrorizing these people should make him uncomfortable, but if they feel strongly enough about meeting this gold dragon, he can find justifications for it (including "it's good for them to learn their fear is groundless"). It's not a path he should take regularly, but he's not required to be perfect. Merely never willingly commit evil. And he hasn't. Is he wrong? Perhaps. But "wrong" is not the same as "evil." Certainly not to the "willful act" stage. (I'd argue his actions here were neutral when he could have been better, which is why it looks negative.)

[hamishspence]

2. The sorcerer was threatening innocents (not sure the crew could count as innocents, or that this was really a big deal at all. Maybe I missed something important in your OP?).


Then the party sorcerer (neutral) intimidated the crew. He said that they would die anyway if they didn't do as he said. The intimidation check was a huge success and the crew obeyed. The paladin said that going south was the only smart thing to do in that situation, he didn't believe that his friend was really going to kill the crew and he knew that there was no edge of the world in south. The crew was absolutely terrified: die by the sorcerer's magic or by falling off of the edge of the world! They chose to take their chances with the edge of the world while hoping that the ship's officers (NPCs) would find a way to resolve the situation. However, they had zero ideas and were scared out of their minds. The PCs didn't do anything to comfort the crew. The crew was just forced to carry on while crying and praying silently.

"Innocents until proven guilty" springs to mind.

"Bullying-cowing innocents" is Evil (BoVD) and "Do what I say or I will kill you" sounds to me like bullying - even if the threat is hollow - they don't know that.

That said, the Paladin's tolerance of an Evil act isn't the same as committing it themselves - and might not cause a fall unless they do it a lot.

[Dr TPK]

I find it interesting that forcing someone to do things against their will in the face of death threats is not evil as long as you know that the guy making the threats is an ok guy. It seems that I learn new things every day.

[Draconium]

"Innocents until proven guilty" springs to mind.

"Bullying-cowing innocents" is Evil (BoVD) and "Do what I say or I will kill you" sounds to me like bullying - even if the threat is hollow - they don't know that.

While that is a good point, this exact situation, which used it for a good (or at least quasi-good) goal does sort of throw the whole thing into a morally gray area.

The sorcerer was probably thinking along the lines of "the ends justify the means", which can be used for a good or evil justification. (Not that I'm saying it's good or evil in of itself.) Alignment is a lot more complicated than D&D really makes it out to be.

If the sorcerer did this again, and the paladin knew of it, then they might have to cut their ties with the sorcerer. However, if it doesn't happen again, and the sorcerer's acts end up falling more on the good side of morality from now on, then this may be forgiven - may be being the key phrase.

Also, like I said before, if the paladin talks to the sorcerer about it, and is polite enough in their request, they may be able to avoid situations like this in the future. Plus, who knows, the paladin may end up being a positive influence on the sorcerer, and they won't feel the need or urge to do this in the future.

[hamishspence]

The "ends" aren't that Good though:


The reason why they were travelling was to meet a powerful gold dragon. They don't have any specific reason to meet her, they just want to meet and that's it. Maybe they will ask how to save the world someday etc.

If they were already on a "time-critical mission with lots of lives at stake" it might be different - but they're not.

[Renen]

Well, what should the paladin have done? He can go yell at the sorcerer, and tell him not to do this again. But its not like he had to go and immediately behead the sorcerer because he made some empty threats. Just because some people were threatened but not put into any real danger, doesnt mean the paladin should have done some great gesture to stop the sorcerer. Heck he isnt even associating with evil, because this one act doesnt make the sorcerer evil.

[Draconium]

True enough. In fact, if they had a more specific goal, we would probably be able to overlook it entirely. As it stands, it's an evil act, that was preformed so that they could accomplish a vaguely good goal. Hence why the question was asked.

Of course, the sorcerer has only committed the one evil act, and as far as we know, they aren't actually evil. Hence why the paladin should start guiding (but not forcing) him back to the good path. Don'tcha think?

[Renen]

The DM should suggest to the player something like "Your paladin training tells you that you shouls really start getting your friend on the path of enlightenment".
But the paladin definitely shouldn't fall for this.
Even if the sorcerer went crazy and murdered all NPC's, the paladin wont auto-fall unless he goes to the sorcerer and pats him on the back saying "good job". Heck, he doesnt even have to attack him, just denounce their friendship and teammateship.

[hamishspence]

Of course, the sorcerer has only committed the one evil act, and as far as we know, they aren't actually evil. Hence why the paladin should start guiding (but not forcing) him back to the good path. Don'tcha think?

Or, as BoED puts it:


Good characters in parties that also include neutral characters carry a heavy burden of responsibility. They should serve as examples of the good life, demonstrating the virtue and the rewards of following the righteous path. They must steer their neutral companions away from evil deeds, and ought to encourage them toward goodness, as gently or as bluntly as the individual case requires. Good characters can be guilty by association with neutral characters who commit evil deeds, and simply turning a blind eye to the questionable acts of their companions is not an acceptable option.

[Draconium]

Or, as BoED puts it:

Yep. That's more or less how I see it. I never told the paladin to just turn a blind eye, remember?

[Deadline]

I find it interesting that forcing someone to do things against their will in the face of death threats is not evil as long as you know that the guy making the threats is an ok guy. It seems that I learn new things every day.

Man, you'll love the Sanctify the Wicked spell then! Not only is it Good, it's EXALTED! And it's even more extreme than forcing someone to do something against their will with empty death threats! It's forcing someone to do something against their will with a PERMANENT MAGICAL LOBOTOMY.

Seriously, why does everyone want to punish Paladins so badly? They'd be plenty balanced ok (albeit underpowered) if you removed the Paladin's code entirely.

And no one likes the sanctimonious Paladin who not only acts high and mighty, but demands that everyone else has to as well. Why would anyone actually want to force someone to play like that?

No two people have the same opinion on what will cause a Paladin to fall. The easiest solution I've seen was to give the Paladin a Phylactery of Faithfulness so that he could consult his deity to find out if a given action would be problematic. That way the Paladin's player doesn't have to choose between being a mind reader or playing a sub-par fighter.

[hamishspence]

A more interesting question might be - how do the ships' officers feel about this? Are they and the crew employees of a PC captain, or did the PCs hire the ship to "take them south" without specifying how far - and then take it over suddenly after their request to travel outside of the contracted trip was denied?

The officers might actually think of it as a hijacking or a mutiny - and react accordingly.

[Dr TPK]

A more interesting question might be - how do the ships' officers feel about this? Are they and the crew employees of a PC captain, or did the PCs hire the ship to "take them south" without specifying how far - and then take it over suddenly after their request to travel outside of the contracted trip was denied?

The officers might actually think of it as a hijacking or a mutiny - and react accordingly.

The ship's captain got greedy, took the money, lied to the crew about the destination, played a lot of tricks with the navigation (which didn't go unnoticed by the first mate and others) and then the whole truth came out when the PCs blurted out the truth one day. The tricked crew wanted to kill the captain (for an attempted mass murder by sailing off of the end of the world, not the nicest way to go) and turn the ship around. The players imprisoned the captain, leaving the ship without a competent captain, and didn't let the crew turn the ship around and go back home, since the sorcerer has made it clear that they would die anyway. And, like I said, the crew waits a solution from the first mate and the quartermaster, but they have pooped their pants just like everyone else and they have no idea what to do - expect to obey.

[Sliver]

My problem with the phrase "turn a blind eye" is that implies that the paladin has some sort of authority over the other characters. The same goes with punishing the paladin for associating with the other characters. You are basically telling the player that he must keep his teammates in line, telling other characters how they should behave, and in essence telling other players how their characters should be played. If the other players are fine with that, or if that sort of drama is part of the game, then sure. But most players aren't.

Enforcing the code simply invites too much trouble. Either the group is already good enough that there is no threat, making the code purely an RP deal, or there is at least one member with questionable morals. Than you are stuck with cases such as "stop this or I...", where the threat is that the paladin either falls, uses force to get the offending party to behave, or leaves the party. Which of these options sounds fun to you?

Paladins should lead by example, not police others to do as they say. The Code should be a personal tool that they strive to adhere to, where only blatant disregard for it should be a cause to falling.

The sorcerer threatened the sailors for a petty cause? Have the paladin calm them, offer them compensation, explain to the sorcerer that the detour isn't necessary, that they could have let it slide. The first question should never be 'does it make him fall?' but 'is it within his character's code?' And that question is not for you to answer, but to ask. By pointing it out, the player can reach a far more satisfying answer regarding his character than you could come up with yourself.

[Keltest]

The ship's captain got greedy, took the money, lied to the crew about the destination, played a lot of tricks with the navigation (which didn't go unnoticed by the first mate and others) and then the whole truth came out when the PCs blurted out the truth one day. The tricked crew wanted to kill the captain (for an attempted mass murder by sailing off of the end of the world, not the nicest way to go) and turn the ship around. The players imprisoned the captain, leaving the ship without a competent captain, and didn't let the crew turn the ship around and go back home, since the sorcerer has made it clear that they would die anyway. And, like I said, the crew waits a solution from the first mate and the quartermaster, but they have pooped their pants just like everyone else and they have no idea what to do - expect to obey.

So the captain lied to the PCs and tricked them into a crew mutiny.

[hamishspence]

He lied to the crew. Not necessarily the PCs - not if the "tricks of navigation" were entirely aimed at keeping the crew quiet.


My problem with the phrase "turn a blind eye" is that implies that the paladin has some sort of authority over the other characters.

Not really. If a cop ignores another cop (of the same rank) taking bribes - that's "turning a blind eye".

[Keltest]

He lied to the crew. Not necessarily the PCs - not if the "tricks of navigation" were entirely aimed at keeping the crew quiet.



Not really. If a cop ignores another cop (of the same rank) taking bribes - that's "turning a blind eye".

The sorcerer, however, is not obligated to act according to the Paladin's moral code, and the paladin is not compelled to force the sorcerer to never break the normal standards of cordial behavior they abide by.

The paladin does not have a specific prescribed reaction in this case other than general disapproval.

[Dr TPK]

He lied to the crew. Not necessarily the PCs - not if the "tricks of navigation" were entirely aimed at keeping the crew quiet.


Yes, you understood everything correctly. The crew was just meant to stay oblivious of the truth, which is not that easy days on end at sea.

[hamishspence]

The paladin does not have a specific prescribed reaction in this case other than general disapproval.

And "punishment" according to what degree the action qualifies as "threatening innocents".

[ShaneMRoth]

I'm not convinced that using Intimidate is an inherently Evil act.

It does seem like Jerkass (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Jerkass) behavior.

Seriously, is this Paladin not helping out the crew?

Curing scurvy?

Anything?

Unless there is a detail left out of the OP, I'm not seeing any gross violation of his Code or anything that is offensive to his moral code.

[hamishspence]

I'm not convinced that using Intimidate is an inherently Evil act.


Depends on the victim, and their reaction to it.


The crew was absolutely terrified: die by the sorcerer's magic or by falling off of the edge of the world! They chose to take their chances with the edge of the world while hoping that the ship's officers (NPCs) would find a way to resolve the situation. However, they had zero ideas and were scared out of their minds. The PCs didn't do anything to comfort the crew. The crew was just forced to carry on while crying and praying silently.

Sounds rather like "Cowing Innocents" and "Bringing Despair"

[ShaneMRoth]

...
The tricked crew wanted to kill the captain (for an attempted mass murder by sailing off of the end of the world, not the nicest way to go) and turn the ship around. The players imprisoned the captain, leaving the ship without a competent captain, and didn't let the crew turn the ship around and go back home, since the sorcerer has made it clear that they would die anyway.
...

The Captain of the ship constitutes Legitimate Authority, by ancient custom if not by formal maritime law.

(Yes, he abused that authority, but his authority remains in tact.)

The actions of the PCs, including the sorcerer, constitute the prevention of mutiny.

By that virtue, these actions are consistent with the "respect legitimate authority" portion of the Code.

The sorcerer's actions prevented a murder, and the crew were more likely than not to die at sea if the mutiny succeeded, so the sorcerer's actions may have prevented any number of avoidable deaths.

The sorcerer's actions were life saving.

And since the Sorcerer acted only after the Paladin's Diplomacy check failed, the sorcerer never undermined the Paladin.

There was no feasible third option available to anyone, unless the OP left something out.

The Paladin shouldn't fall, nor should he feel any pressure or need to leave the party.

[hamishspence]

The actions of the PCs, including the sorcerer, constitute the prevention of mutiny.

Wouldn't it also constitute a hijacking, by way of imprisoning the captain?

I think older definitions of mutiny or piracy included actions by the passengers - not just the crew.

[ShaneMRoth]

Wouldn't it also constitute a hijacking, by way of imprisoning the captain?

I think older definitions of mutiny or piracy included actions by the passengers - not just the crew.

What other option was available to keep the captain safe?

[hamishspence]

Acting as his bodyguards and backing him up, rather than taking over.

[Deadline]

Acting as his bodyguards and backing him up, rather than taking over.

Then according to you, wouldn't the paladin now fall because he's associating with the dastardly captain who is deceiving the crew? Bonus points for when the crew discovers they've been lied to and attempt a mutiny and your sorcerer winds up intimidating them into obedience.

[Draconium]

Acting as his bodyguards and backing him up, rather than taking over.

In which case, they would be knowingly and willingly aiding a dishonorable scoundrel, which would go against the paladin's code. (Arguably.) This way, they can punish his actions while still keeping him safe and preventing a mutiny.

[Amphetryon]

[COLOR="#0000FF"]
No two people have the same opinion on what will cause a Paladin to fall. The easiest solution I've seen was to give the Paladin a Phylactery of Faithfulness so that he could consult his deity to find out if a given action would be problematic. That way the Paladin's player doesn't have to choose between being a mind reader or playing a sub-par fighter.
Unfortunately, for the sort of DM who unilaterally sets up multiple situations for the Paladin to fall, the Phylactery of Faithfulness just shifts the problem from "Player needs to be a mind reader or play a sub-par Fighter' to "Player needs to recognize that he's there to roll dice for the DMPC."

[hamishspence]

The captain will know more about Getting the Ship to the Nearest Safe Haven than the PCs will. It's like a lifeboat situation only with the whole ship - the best qualified person needs to stay in charge, regardless of past dubious behaviour.

[Renen]

Paladin's life is tough. Not only are you low tier, but everyone including your god, grandmother and some mysterious creature called "DM" all want you to fall.

[Shackel]

I understand what some posters here are saying, but I fail to understand this:





Even though the paladin will not fail, he must cease associating with the sorcerer if he keeps threatening the crew.

Considering that is, in fact, a rather explicit note that innocents should not be threatened or harmed, and the paladin should not be around those who break these rules, I'd say that there should be at least some sign that he's treading down a dark path. No instant fall, but certainly "seek atonement", if not at least getting close to it.

[Deadline]

Unfortunately, for the sort of DM who unilaterally sets up multiple situations for the Paladin to fall, the Phylactery of Faithfulness just shifts the problem from "Player needs to be a mind reader or play a sub-par Fighter' to "Player needs to recognize that he's there to roll dice for the DMPC."

Naturally, but it at least solves the "needs to be a mind reader" problem. Most DMs that want to destroy all humans force the Paladin to fall won't use this though, because it makes their motivations pretty obvious for all to see. These days I just scrap the code altogether, and let the player RP the inner turmoil that comes with trying to be a champion of virtue.

[Keltest]

Considering that is, in fact, a rather explicit note that innocents should not be threatened or harmed, and the paladin should not be around those who break these rules, I'd say that there should be at least some sign that he's treading down a dark path. No instant fall, but certainly "seek atonement", if not at least getting close to it.

A paladin would not need to seek atonement for the dark path a comrade is taking, though they may consider themselves in need of it if they failed to interrupt that path to the best of their ability.

[Shackel]

A paladin would not need to seek atonement for the dark path a comrade is taking, though they may consider themselves in need of it if they failed to interrupt that path to the best of their ability.

That sounds about right, but, if they're doing nothing to at least rectify or bring light to the darkness, though, I think that's when the atonement might start creeping in. After all, the sorcerer took an already distressed crew and, when it would've been a perfect time to at least make them feel safe, instead brought despair and the feeling that the entire crew are already dead men. And that, with an even more powerful corrupt captain, there's nothing that can be done.

That takes it a step further, in my eyes. Doing nothing for these poor crewmen, and, worse, just letting the Sorcerer prance off with nary a word about an act that borders heavily on Neutral Evil(in that it is purely self-serving, and is perfectly fine with harming others to get their way, in this case, emotionally)? Certainly no insta-fall, but I think the paladin might start getting that feeling in their gut of divine dissatisfaction.

[ShaneMRoth]

Paladin's life is tough. Not only are you low tier, but everyone including your god, grandmother and some mysterious creature called "DM" all want you to fall.

Where is it written that the Paladin's patron deity (or higher power) wants her to fall from grace?


Considering that is, in fact, a rather explicit note that innocents should not be threatened or harmed, and the paladin should not be around those who break these rules, I'd say that there should be at least some sign that he's treading down a dark path. No instant fall, but certainly "seek atonement", if not at least getting close to it.

A group of mutineers who are going to murder their captain don't seem like they are innocent to me.

[Keltest]

That sounds about right, but, if they're doing nothing to at least rectify or bring light to the darkness, though, I think that's when the atonement might start creeping in. After all, the sorcerer took an already distressed crew and, when it would've been a perfect time to at least make them feel safe, instead brought despair and the feeling that the entire crew are already dead men. And that, with an even more powerful corrupt captain, there's nothing that can be done.

That takes it a step further, in my eyes. Doing nothing for these poor crewmen, and, worse, just letting the Sorcerer prance off with nary a word about an act that borders heavily on Neutral Evil(in that it is purely self-serving, and is perfectly fine with harming others to get their way, in this case, emotionally)? Certainly no insta-fall, but I think the paladin might start getting that feeling in their gut of divine dissatisfaction.

They tried making the crew feel safe, remember? The sorcerer even let the paladin do it himself. It didn't work. The paladin wouldn't need to feel divine dissatisfaction with the sorcerer, because they would be feeling their own displeasure. But short of a stern talking to, maybe, and generally being cool to them until the sorcerer atones or it becomes an impediment, the paladin would not suffer any external repercussions, or inflict them on the sorcerer.

[hamishspence]

A group of mutineers who are going to murder their captain don't seem like they are innocent to me.

They thought the captain was guilty of attempted mass murder. They were wrong - but that doesn't mean their initial reaction was unreasonable.

[Deadline]

Considering that is, in fact, a rather explicit note that innocents should not be threatened or harmed, and the paladin should not be around those who break these rules, I'd say that there should be at least some sign that he's treading down a dark path. No instant fall, but certainly "seek atonement", if not at least getting close to it.

So you would consider the crew to be innocents? You may be the first person in history ever to use that word to describe the crew of a sailing vessel.

[hamishspence]

Innocent in the "innocent till proven guilty" sense.

[Deadline]

Innocent in the "innocent till proven guilty" sense.

So that's how you read the Paladin code? I get a much more specific definition in mind when I read that, given the story implications that surround Paladins in fiction. It's much more of a "the weak and downtrodden" kind of thing. If you want to apply modern law principles to the Paladin code, don't get angry when folks start arguing technicalities. Heck, have your Paladin take ranks in Profession(Barrister) and be a rules lawyer playing a lawyer! :smalltongue:

[hamishspence]

It's more "Everyone is innocent to the paladin (and thus, fair game for protection from aggressors), and so forth - unless the paladin has reason to believe otherwise - like catching them in aggression".

A person doesn't have to be "weak and downtrodden" for a paladin to come leaping to their aid, if aid is needed.

If you see a man chased by wolves in the middle of a forest, do you ignore him because he's richly dressed?

[ShaneMRoth]

They thought the captain was guilty of attempted mass murder. They were wrong - but that doesn't mean their initial reaction was unreasonable.

Murdering a man in a position of legitimate authority without a trial?

What Paladin would sign off on that?


So you would consider the crew to be innocents? You may be the first person in history ever to use that word to describe the crew of a sailing vessel.


Innocent in the "innocent till proven guilty" sense.

If this encounter had occurred within sight of dry land then the ship could have been called to Port and the Captain, and the Crew, could have been given... I don't know... whatever passes for due process in the setting. But, on a ship at sea?

The Paladin needs a reasonable third option, and 'being the bodyguard for Captain Jerkass day and night', just doesn't cut it.

Paladins need to sleep too.

And when she does go to sleep, what do you suppose is going to happen?

Holding a Paladin to a high standard is one thing. Setting her up to fail is another.


Heck, have your Paladin take ranks in Profession(Barrister) and be a rules lawyer playing a lawyer! :smalltongue:

I'm the dude playin' the dude disguised as another dude!

[Shackel]

They tried making the crew feel safe, remember? The sorcerer even let the paladin do it himself. It didn't work. The paladin wouldn't need to feel divine dissatisfaction with the sorcerer, because they would be feeling their own displeasure. But short of a stern talking to, maybe, and generally being cool to them until the sorcerer atones or it becomes an impediment, the paladin would not suffer any external repercussions, or inflict them on the sorcerer.

I was more referring to literal divine dissatisfaction at letting that happen and not trying to make the crew feel safer after the fact(it might be hard, sure, but when has being good been overall easier than evil in the D&Dverse). Not a true repercussion, but patron deity* more wagging their finger. It's like drawing the line, or a first strike: it's not the end of the world that it's happened, but it does establish that this is the wrong path so the paladin knows.

After all, it's not like paladins are perfect, and if deities went around willy-nilly taking their powers because they made a single mistake they barely knew about, there'd barely be any paladins at all.


So you would consider the crew to be innocents? You may be the first person in history ever to use that word to describe the crew of a sailing vessel.

... Yes. It's somewhat worrying when the vehement "no-fall paladin" supporter is trying to excuse them from the paladin code because they happen to be manning a ship.

* Truth be told, I always felt that paladins, like clerics, should be linked closer to their patron deity than just "Lawful Good", but, well, that's D&D.

[hamishspence]

Murdering a man in a position of legitimate authority without a trial?

What Paladin would sign off on that?

Apparently, an awful lot of paladin players are happy to kill without trial if the victim "pings Evil".

[Keltest]

I was more referring to literal divine dissatisfaction at letting that happen and not trying to make the crew feel safer after the fact(it might be hard, sure, but when has being good been overall easier than evil in the D&Dverse). Not a true repercussion, but patron deity* more wagging their finger. It's like drawing the line, or a first strike: it's not the end of the world that it's happened, but it does establish that this is the wrong path so the paladin knows.

After all, it's not like paladins are perfect, and if deities went around willy-nilly taking their powers because they made a single mistake they barely knew about, there'd barely be any paladins at all.



... Yes. It's somewhat worrying when the vehement "no-fall paladin" supporter is trying to excuse them from the paladin code because they happen to be manning a ship.

* Truth be told, I always felt that paladins, like clerics, should be linked closer to their patron deity than just "Lawful Good", but, well, that's D&D.

Paladins don't actually need to follow a god to gain their powers, though they often do because the churches of the good deities often provide a code similar to the code the paladin would be following anyway.

[ShaneMRoth]

Apparently, an awful lot of paladin players are happy to kill without trial if the victim "pings Evil".

Where the rule of law is not in effect (most 'dungeon' environments) the Paladin's right to self defense is absolute, regardless of the alignment of whoever is attacking him.

Paladins who attack non-belligerent Evil creatures on sight are referred to as Murder Popes in my campaign. They Atone more frequently than they change their socks.

Also I don't award XP for that crap (that's my Murder Hobo house rule... not RAW)

I make all of this clear at Session Zero and I've never had a Murder Pope problem.

[hamishspence]

The Paladin needs a reasonable third option, and 'being the bodyguard for Captain Jerkass day and night', just doesn't cut it.


If the crew can be convinced that Captain Jerk and First Officer Schmuck are their only chance of survival, they may hold off on vengeance.

Where the rule of law is not in effect (most 'dungeon' environments) the Paladin's right to self defense is absolute, regardless of the alignment of whoever is attacking him.


I could see it applying even in towns for that matter - right to self-defence being pretty absolute in most places (though in particularly unjust ones, the Have Nots may be punished for defending themselves from the Haves - poor person defending themselves from aristocratic attackers springs to mind.)

[ShaneMRoth]

If the crew can be convinced that Captain Jerk and First Officer Schmuck are their only chance of survival, they may hold off on vengeance.

According to the OP, the Paladin tried that. It was Plan A. Plan A didn't work.

[Keltest]

If the crew can be convinced that Captain Jerk and First Officer Schmuck are their only chance of survival, they may hold off on vengeance.

I believe that such a tactic would be covered under the previously attempted diplomacy check.

[Draconium]

If the crew can be convinced that Captain Jerk and First Officer Schmuck are their only chance of survival, they may hold off on vengeance.

The OP did state, in a later post, that the crew was currently waiting for the First Mate to decide on a course of action. In all likelihood, this is probably going to be the result - the First Mate will probably convince the PCs to help him convince the crew to allow the captain to continue on his job, at least until they hit civilized port. Either that, or he'll act as captain until then.

[Renen]

Where is it written that the Paladin's patron deity (or higher power) wants her to fall from grace?



It was a joke. Its also not written their grandmother wants them to fall either.



Paladins need to sleep too.


Not if they use magic to remove fatigue that they gain from lack of sleep. :D

[Deadline]

I'm the dude playin' the dude disguised as another dude!

No, no, that would be the Disguise skill. :smallwink:


... Yes. It's somewhat worrying when the vehement "no-fall paladin" supporter is trying to excuse them from the paladin code because they happen to be manning a ship.

* Truth be told, I always felt that paladins, like clerics, should be linked closer to their patron deity than just "Lawful Good", but, well, that's D&D.

Well, that's a strong reading that ignores everything else I've said in favor of one off-color remark about sailors being anything but salty, scurvy sea dogs. But hey, at least my way you don't have the Paladin facing no-win falling scenarios 50 times before breakfast. But eh, <trollface>whatever floats your boat </trollface>. :smallbiggrin:

[Shackel]

Paladins don't actually need to follow a god to gain their powers, though they often do because the churches of the good deities often provide a code similar to the code the paladin would be following anyway.

Point on that, though, heck, rules just similar to clerics in general would probably clear a lot of things up; having a number of concepts they adhere to, or deities.

[Deadline]

Point on that, though, heck, rules just similar to clerics in general would probably clear a lot of things up; having a number of concepts they adhere to, or deities.

The Paladin's code should be a device used to enhance the RP and fun, not a stick you use to beat your player into submission (or that your player should use to beat his party into submission). I'm generally in favor of the reading that doesn't require the DM or Paladin player to be a jerk. It's why all these "Should the Paladin fall?" threads get my goat. It's like the folks posting them are trying their level best to read the code in whatever way will suck the most possible fun out of the game. The Paladin's code isn't something you need to be afraid of, it should be a bit of fluff you and your player can use to enhance the game. Instead of coming here and asking if it's a violation of the Paladin code, you should ask your player, "Is this something your Paladin is ok with? How does it fit into your code?" Boom! Instant enhancement. Beating them and screaming "It follows the code as I interpret it or else it gets the hose again!" doesn't enhance much in my eyes. But perhaps I have the wrong goat. Different goats for different folks and all that.

Goat.

[hamishspence]

I'm curious:


The players imprisoned the captain, leaving the ship without a competent captain, and didn't let the crew turn the ship around and go back home, since the sorcerer has made it clear that they would die anyway.
"Sorcerer made it clear that they would die anyway" - was that intended to mean that the sorcerer knows that they are "past the point of no return" and will die at sea if they attempt to return?

Doesn't quite go with:


People have the right to decline to sail, without threats on their lives. Failing to meet the dragon would have no consequences.

[Sliver]

Not really. If a cop ignores another cop (of the same rank) taking bribes - that's "turning a blind eye".

Yes, they are the same rank. So is the Paladin player the same rank as the non-Paladin players that the paladin needs to keep in line, usually. The authority isn't due to higher rank, but due to being in superior moral standing. The holier-than-thou attitude, which becomes supported if you enforce the code.

You will rarely have a case of absolute authority, but you don't need to be of higher rank to have some authority. The cop isn't supposed to ignore corruption, and by turning a blind eye, he fails. If he didn't have any authority over the other cop, in the form of reporting him, then it wouldn't be considered a failure, because he had nothing he could do, and thus wouldn't be 'turning a blind eye'.

If it were two paladins (assuming that taking the bribe is a chaotic act, or with reasons behind it that wouldn't force automatic falling) in the same order, of the same rank, if the first paladin turns a blind eye, it's a failure on his part. He should do something. He does have the authority to investigate or report the event. He has the obligation to do it. Rank doesn't come into play.

By punishing a player for failing to police the others, or 'turning a blind eye' on their misdeeds, you are telling him that, if he plays a paladin, he is obligated to keep them in line. You are giving him authority over them, unless you are punishing him for something that you don't expect him to be able to do.

The strict code is fine for stories and NPCs, but it can't be used as a straight up mechanic when it comes to players and PCs in any sort of mixed-party scenario, unless all involved agreed to it.


I'm curious:


"Sorcerer made it clear that they would die anyway" - was that intended to mean that the sorcerer knows that they are "past the point of no return" and will die at sea if they attempt to return?

Doesn't quite go with:

No, it means that the sorcerer threatened to kill them if they attempt to turn back. It is probably an empty threat, but the crew was terrified nonetheless. What you quoted is the DM explaining that the crew should have had that choice, and that there was no greater good clause in meeting the dragon that could offset the bullying that they used to achieve it.

[Dr TPK]

I'm curious:


"Sorcerer made it clear that they would die anyway" - was that intended to mean that the sorcerer knows that they are "past the point of no return" and will die at sea if they attempt to return?

Doesn't quite go with:

Oh, there's some ambiguity there, certainly. The sorcerer basically said that "We will sail off of the edge of the world (which he knew wasn't going to happen) or you try to turn this boat around and I will effin' kill the lot of you." He made it appear that the crew would die in any case, but he knows that neither will happen.

[Sagetim]

Considering that is, in fact, a rather explicit note that innocents should not be threatened or harmed, and the paladin should not be around those who break these rules, I'd say that there should be at least some sign that he's treading down a dark path. No instant fall, but certainly "seek atonement", if not at least getting close to it.

A mutiny of sailors is not innocent. The captain is not innocent. The Paladin is about as close to innocent as anyone gets in this situation.

The captain is at fault for the mutiny, because he lied to his crew and misguided them about their destination. The crew ceased to be innocent when they decided to mutiny and that murder was the best course of action*. The paladin did his best to stop this with a diplomacy (that failed). The paladin tried to be nice. The sorcerer scared people, none of whom were innocent, away from murder (generally an evil act). The paladin doesn't fall, the sorcerer has not committed an evil or chaotic act, and the crew is not innocent. The crew is probably still planning on killing the captain. The paladin's job in this case is to do what he can to try and keep the captain alive, within reason. Not because the captain is a legitimate authority. No, because the captain should be subjected to a trial when they get back into port. Because the captain done ****ed up that badly that just killing him is too merciful.
The crew, when everyone gets back to port, should probably be compensated a little extra. But not by the players. By money coming from the captain. In this whole situation, the paladin will not fall. Even if the crew murders the captain, because the paladin is not obligated to protect the captain from being murdered. It would just work out best if the captain lived to suffer for his crimes with suitable punishments. The paladin will not fall if he has to kill the entire crew, because the crew stopped being innocent a while ago, and the paladin will especially not fall for defending himself.

*Attempted Murder means you are not innocent. Witnessing the attempted murder first hand rather negates any 'innocent until proven guilty'.

The sorcerer is fine. Unless he suddenly sprouts two extra heads and uses them to curse the sailors to death then animate them as an undead crew, then starts sexually assaulting the corpses every day until he's evil aligned*, the paladin doesn't have to disassociate from or smite him. Seriously, the sorcerer will have to fall to evil and dupe the paladin for a while for the paladin to even risk falling from association. It's more than just 'oh, the sorcerer animated dead'. Casting Animate Dead is an evil act, sure, but the paladin isn't the one doing it. And if the person doing it hasn't fallen to an evil alignment, the paladin isn't obligated to smite them. Even if the person did fall to evil with that casting of animate dead, the paladin can continue to associate with them for a while to try and redeem said person. To extend the example: If the sorcerer fell to evil while animating undead, and the paladin tried to redeem them, then the sorcerer kept animating undead behind the paladin's back, the paladin doesn't fall immediately. If they saw the now evil sorcerer casting animate dead however, they would be put in the rock and a hard place location of having to make the sorcerer stop that ****.


*necrophilia is an evil act in dnd. You can thank the BOVD/BOED for that. Maybe Libris Mortis too.

The Paladin is not obligated by his oaths to baby the crew. Doing something nice to try and quell their fears about sailing further is not required by his paladin code. But it Would help to smooth the situation over. Bearing that in mind, the Paladin could do a number of things to calm the crew down and try to ensure some more long term order takes root, but they are not going to fall for failing to do these things. Mostly because a paladin is not required by their oath to be especially creative. If the player doesn't think to do something because it didn't occur to them, they probably shouldn't fall for it unless it was Major and Obvious.

You might find it helpful to let the players give each other ooc advice in dealing with certain problems to represent high mental ability scores, or to help each other represent higher ability scores than they actually have. A wizard with 20+ intelligence is arguably smarter than anyone who actually exists in real life, so if the wizard's player says they want to pow wow with the other players to come up with a cunning plan, and present it as their character coming up with it on their own, that could be very conductive to characters acting like they actually have the ability scores on their sheets. By that same token, paladins generally have at least 12 to 14 wisdom in my experience, so if a paladin's player brain farts on a paladinly solution to a problem and another player suggests it, you, as the GM can just say 'well do you want to do that?' and move on. Granted, I haven't been in a dnd group that doesn't operate under this kind of unspoken house rule with regards to metagaming, but that's the direction I started thinking in while considering this post.