How to warn someone not to play a Paladin without seeming like a douche?

[SangoProduction]

So, in his background, the so called Paladin said, and I paraphrase, "after realizing what he had done - what his adoptive father made him do, as his father laughed, he stabbed the father in the back, and sets off to find the root of the corruption in the church."

And the DM said "...Yeah...that would make you fall, if you actually did that."

The Paladin says he'll change it...but...that really flies the red flags for me, if the paladin's falling before he's even been rolled up. It's probably not going to be anywhere near as bad as my nightmare experience, but...I don't see this being a particularly fun game for him, if a single action like stabbing someone (who's presumably evil) in the back, is actually enough to make him fall.

So, that brings us to the title of the thread.

[Crake]

Just tell him that if he wanted to "set off to find the corruption in the church" that a martial cleric going into church inquisitor would fit his character much better

[SangoProduction]

Just tell him that if he wanted to "set off to find the corruption in the church" that a martial cleric going into church inquisitor would fit his character much better
That's cool. Thanks. I'll try that.

[Dragonexx]

Yeah, paladins and their code are basically just an excuse for DM's to be controlling asshats to their players.

[BWR]

Yeah, paladins and their code are basically just an excuse for DM's to be controlling asshats to their players.

Or, in my experience, they are an excuse to play awesome characters under cool DMs. ******** GMs will be ********s no matter what class is played.

[Endarire]

I also advise warning the player straight about this since he may want to be a Paladin regardless. It's good to dissuade him from going Paladin and instead going martial Cleric (or something else) in the same breath and sentence.

Finally, intonation - and not just the words - matters. In short, sounding like you care about his situation instead of dismissing him will let you share your warning without sounding "like a douche."

[animewatcha]

What level is this guy starting as? Maybe paladin/grey guard with the Jimmy Cricket philactery so you can nag him every time he does something that would cause falling ( even for grey guard ).

[shortround]

He can be a non-Paladain sword swinging martial and still want to purge his church of evil. Paladins and Clerics aren't the only people who can pray or are allowed to be Lawful Good. I you really gotta have the divine flavour built in, the Crusader is also an option.

[Crake]

He can be a non-Paladain sword swinging martial and still want to purge his church of evil. Paladins and Clerics aren't the only people who can pray or are allowed to be Lawful Good. I you really gotta have the divine flavour built in, the Crusader is also an option.

I assume it's the player who chose paladin, so I'm guessing he wants some sort of divine connection/power.

[Dragonexx]

I've seriously encountered the kind of people who are "The paladin sneaks around a dangerous opponent because their not the objective? They fall!" "The paladin uses ambush and sabotage tactics against a superior army? They fall!" It's seriously one step away from "The paladin jaywalks? They fall!"

Whoever wrote the paladin code was a moron.

[Crake]

I've seriously encountered the kind of people who are "The paladin sneaks around a dangerous opponent because their not the objective? They fall!" "The paladin uses ambush and sabotage tactics against a superior army? They fall!" It's seriously one step away from "The paladin jaywalks? They fall!"

Whoever wrote the paladin code was a moron.

I'm pretty sure whoever was DMing for you was actually the moron. There's nothing about sneaking past an enemy that goes against the paladin's code. Honour is defined as "The qualit of knowing and doing what is morally right". Lying, cheating and using poison are the given examples of "Acting without honor", these are things that are morally wrong (using poison in dnd is apparently morally wrong according to the game designers, as reiterated in the book of exalted deeds, apparently all poisons are evil). Sneaking and fighting tactically are not against those, and there is nothing morally wrong with doing so. If sneaking past a foe you could not otherwise best was the only way you could save some innocents, then there's nothing dishonorable about that.

That was entirely your DM just being an ass.

[DMVerdandi]

Also, Point him in the direction of the otherworldly feat.
Turns the character into a native outsider, which scores them Proficiency with martial weapons. Half of the problem that people go through when choosing paladin over cleric is like some idea that you can't get a sword, even though it's comically easy to do so.

I would also talk about just how late paladin spells come on, and how little options you have by neutering yourself like that. It seems to be full class features, but each and every one of them can be replaced by a cleric's spells.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Perhaps just a simple "hey, based on that backstory thing I'm kind of worried that the DM is going to be obnoxious about the paladin code; it happened to me once and it was no-fun at all, so I wanted to give you a heads up?" If they agree, then you can talk about how to achieve the same idea without the code.

[Crake]

Perhaps just a simple "hey, based on that backstory thing I'm kind of worried that the DM is going to be obnoxious about the paladin code; it happened to me once and it was no-fun at all, so I wanted to give you a heads up?" If they agree, then you can talk about how to achieve the same idea without the code.

Lets be honest, murdering someone by stabbing them in the back is pretty decent grounds for a paladin to fall.

[Tiri]

Out of context, not really. There are any number of reasons a paladin might be engaged in the process of stabbing someone in the back, and many of them are Good or Neutral.

[kellbyb]

Lets be honest, murdering someone by stabbing them in the back is pretty decent grounds for a paladin to fall.

I'm inclined to disagree. Backstabbing one person is not particularly compliant with the paladin code, but I would not say it is an extreme violation (only gross violations of the code will make you fall), and I wouldn't say it's an explicitly evil act either.

[JoshuaZ]

I'm inclined to disagree. Backstabbing one person is not particularly compliant with the paladin code, but I would not say it is an extreme violation (only gross violations of the code will make you fall), and I wouldn't say it's an explicitly evil act either.

Dude. This is murder of a person with no warning who doesn't pose any sort of threat. If that shouldn't cause a paladin to fall, what do you think does short of murdering infants?

[Agincourt]

Dude. This is murder of a person with no warning who doesn't pose any sort of threat. If that shouldn't cause a paladin to fall, what do you think does short of murdering infants?

And a father-figure, to boot. I'm having difficulty understanding how this is an example of a heavy-handed DM. It's not clear from the OP what the adopted father had done; it's definitely not made clear that this was some sort of irredeemably evil act. As written, it seems that the paladin was angry so he stabs his father in the back. Petulantly committing patricide is evil if I'm DMing. I'm having trouble seeing the argument that this is somehow not evil.

[kellbyb]

And a father-figure, to boot. I'm having difficulty understanding how this is an example of a heavy-handed DM. It's not clear from the OP what the adopted father had done; it's definitely not made clear that this was some sort of irredeemably evil act. As written, it seems that the paladin was angry so he stabs his father in the back. Petulantly committing patricide is evil if I'm DMing. I'm having trouble seeing the argument that this is somehow not evil.

I realize that this is straying dangerously close towards tautological templar territory, but if said adopted father's actions were enough to prompt him towards murder during a backstory scene intended to set him up as a paladin, then I'm inclined to believe that it was a serious enough act to make this man a threat in need of disposal.

I still would like to hear more, but this is what I'm thinking.

EDIT: Also, it sounds like said father was connected to the also-mentioned corruption in the church, which would be another strike towards the being a dangerous individual.

[Jay R]

Warn him what might happen. But really, a Paladin who falls before getting any experience points is just a Fighter with a cool backstory.

Make it clear that a Paladin must abide by the code, and that if he doesn't, he will stop being a Paladin. Then let him make his own decision.

I come out of this with a cool new character concept - the would-be paladin who falls on his first adventure, and spends the rest of his adventuring career as a Fighter trying to learn what the code is really supposed to mean. He'd be one level behind on bonus feats, but half the time, that costs nothing.


Yeah, paladins and their code are basically just an excuse for DM's to be controlling asshats to their players.

I haven't found it so. Todd treated my paladin fairly. Dirk treated April's paladin fairly. Mike treated Crystal's paladin fairly.

If the player and DM are reasonably in sync about what the paladin's code means, then there should be no problems.

The one time I saw any trouble, it seemed to me that the player, not the DM, was trying to be a jerk, by trying to twist the paladin's code to allow nasty, selfish behavior that nobody but a lawyer could interpret as either good or lawful.

But I strongly recommend the player and DM have a serious talk about what's expected before the player decides to be a paladin.


I'm inclined to disagree. Backstabbing one person is not particularly compliant with the paladin code, but I would not say it is an extreme violation (only gross violations of the code will make you fall), and I wouldn't say it's an explicitly evil act either.

There are certainly (rare) situations in which stabbing somebody in the back could be a necessary act, which the paladin must do. For instance, it might be the only way to stop the villain from blowing up the orphanage. In a war, the enemy sentry needs to be taken out quickly and silently.

But in the situation as described, the paladin's victim isn't committing a crime that must be stopped, or part of a group that the paladin is currently fighting against. The action was personal revenge only. This is First Degree Murder in any jurisdiction I know of.

If a DM doesn't make him fall for that, then the DM's sense of morality is sufficiently alien to me that I could not play in his game.

[Agincourt]

I realize that this is straying dangerously close towards tautological templar territory, but if said adopted father's actions were enough to prompt him towards murder during a backstory scene intended to set him up as a paladin, then I'm inclined to believe that it was a serious enough act to make this man a threat in need of disposal.

I still would like to hear more, but this is what I'm thinking.

While it's possible the Paladin's actions were justified, as described they certainly were not. We may not even be in disagreement here. We have the slight problem that the OP is paraphrasing what another player wrote.

However, as described by the OP, murdering a father with little provocation is evil. Several posters have stated that the DM was in the wrong here, but the OP needs to provide a lot more information to show that it was somehow not evil for the paladin to stab his father in the back.

So I think kellbyb has touched on a good point. Several posters have identified the problem as a DM who hates paladins, but from my perspective, the problem is the player who believes whatever he is doing is good simply because he says it's in the name of goodness and righteousness (a Tautological Templar). If the player switches to an inquisitor, that doesn't solve the problem. We still have a player who thinks it's okay to murder and stab people in the back because they are doing so for "good" reasons.

[Tuvarkz]

"after realizing what he had done - what his adoptive father made him do, as his father laughed, he stabbed the father in the back, and sets off to find the root of the corruption in the church."

It is clear the paladin's father was unrepentant, heck, gloating evil. Ignoring his evil due to familial bonds would cause the paladin to fall. That the character's father happened to have his back turned or to twirl around as he gloated is not to cause the paladin's fault for properly attempting to purge evil.

[Stealth Marmot]

It is not a douchey thing to say that a backstory and motivation is too dark and revenge-minded to be for a paladin, at least not one that intends to STAY a paladin.

[Agincourt]

It is clear the paladin's father was unrepentant, heck, gloating evil. Ignoring his evil due to familial bonds would cause the paladin to fall. That the character's father happened to have his back turned or to twirl around as he gloated is not to cause the paladin's fault for properly attempting to purge evil.

What exactly is the father unrepentant of, though? I think the paladin player may have intended this to be a sort of kicking-the-dog type moment where everyone "knows" the father is evil because he had the audacity to laugh. I suppose we're supposed to picture the father twirling his mustache because he manipulated the paladin into doing something really, really bad.

But what exactly was this manipulation and what exactly did the paladin do as a result? I have no idea. Just because a player says an npc did something so evil it justifies killing them does not make it so. For the types of games I like to play, you need a lot more justification to stab someone in the back. Player characters do not have license to murder random people in the street because they detect as evil. That doesn't change just because you know the person.

I know that it is assumed that in D&D the PCs will do some amount of killing. However, there is a vast difference between killing in a battle setting, people who are armed and intend to kill, and killing people, possibly unarmed, within the boundaries of civilization.

[kellbyb]

What exactly is the father unrepentant of, though? I think the paladin player may have intended this to be a sort of kicking-the-dog type moment where everyone "knows" the father is evil because he had the audacity to laugh. I suppose we're supposed to picture the father twirling his mustache because he manipulated the paladin into doing something really, really bad.

But what exactly was this manipulation and what exactly did the paladin do as a result? I have no idea. Just because a player says an npc did something so evil it justifies killing them does not make it so. For the types of games I like to play, you need a lot more justification to stab someone in the back. Player characters do not have license to murder random people in the street because they detect as evil. That doesn't change just because you know the person.

I know that it is assumed that in D&D the PCs will do some amount of killing. However, there is a vast difference between killing in a battle setting, people who are armed and intend to kill, and killing people, possibly unarmed, within the boundaries of civilization.

It seems to me that this is intended to be some sort of character defining moment for the PC. Since the player is trying to establish his character as a paladin, I highly doubt that he would begin with murder over a petty grievance. That said, and in absence of information (OP please tell us what father man actually did) I'm going to assume it was something heinous.

If it turns out that it actually was something petty, then my opinion will shift the other way.

[RedMage125]

Or, in my experience, they are an excuse to play awesome characters under cool DMs. ******** GMs will be ********s no matter what class is played.
I wish I could "Like" this post.

This is 100% true for so many game mechanics that people complain about. Alignment, for example. A Jerk DM who seeks to control his players' actions will try to do that even without using alignment "punishments"


I've seriously encountered the kind of people who are "The paladin sneaks around a dangerous opponent because their not the objective? They fall!" "The paladin uses ambush and sabotage tactics against a superior army? They fall!" It's seriously one step away from "The paladin jaywalks? They fall!"

Whoever wrote the paladin code was a moron.
You've had it said like 2 or 3 times, but I want to add additional emphasis that this is, in fact, just a DM being a douche.

Also, Point him in the direction of the otherworldly feat.
Turns the character into a native outsider, which scores them Proficiency with martial weapons. Half of the problem that people go through when choosing paladin over cleric is like some idea that you can't get a sword, even though it's comically easy to do so.

That feat does NOT get you any proficiencies. It only changes your creature type, which affects the way certain spells affect you (hold person, charm person, etc).

Outsiders get proficiencies for RACIAL Hit Dice, not ones from class levels. It is ARGUABLE that if your base race has Racial Hit Dice, and you take this feat as your "1st Hit Die" feat, that you get Outsider proficiencies, skill points, saves and attack bonuses for your racial hit dice.

But if you have a race that only has 1 HD, you "trade" that HD for your 1st class level when you take a class and get no other creature-type benefits of skills/skill points, base save, BAB, or proficiencies. Those are replaced by your class.

[Stealth Marmot]

That feat does NOT get you any proficiencies. It only changes your creature type, which affects the way certain spells affect you (hold person, charm person, etc).

Outsiders get proficiencies for RACIAL Hit Dice, not ones from class levels. It is ARGUABLE that if your base race has Racial Hit Dice, and you take this feat as your "1st Hit Die" feat, that you get Outsider proficiencies, skill points, saves and attack bonuses for your racial hit dice.

But if you have a race that only has 1 HD, you "trade" that HD for your 1st class level when you take a class and get no other creature-type benefits of skills/skill points, base save, BAB, or proficiencies. Those are replaced by your class.

Not true, an Aasimir for example has all martial weapon proficiencies, and they don't get racial hit dice.

The thing about this feat however, is that it has pretty narrow requirements. People forget that Forgotten Realms specifically has feats that are 1st level only AND are setting based which are not meant to be used outside the setting AND even then requires a person be from a certain area, so even humans who take two feats at first level will have limited selection in the combos they can take.

That's why these feats are specifically more powerful than others, and people tend to forget that. If there is a warning is in the manuals for these feats, it is NOT obvious enough.

[RedMage125]

Not true, an Aasimir for example has all martial weapon proficiencies, and they don't get racial hit dice.

The thing about this feat however, is that it has pretty narrow requirements. People forget that Forgotten Realms specifically has feats that are 1st level only AND are setting based which are not meant to be used outside the setting AND even then requires a person be from a certain area, so even humans who take two feats at first level will have limited selection in the combos they can take.

That's why these feats are specifically more powerful than others, and people tend to forget that. If there is a warning is in the manuals for these feats, it is NOT obvious enough.

Grossly incorrect.

I just looked up the Aasimar description in the Monster Manual, Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, and Races of Destiny.

NONE of them get all martial weapon proficiencies.

That feat does NOT grant any proficiencies.

Monster Manual, page 290 specifies that 1-HD creatures REPLACE their racial HD with a class level when they take a class. So they would receive no benefits from the outsider type for things like skill points, base saves, BAB, or proficiencies, because those are things determined by class.

Your DM may have ruled it differently, but that is not the RAW answer. The only way to even ARGUABLY get that benefit from the Otherworldly feat is to have a base race with at least 2 racial HD, and take that feat as your "1st level" feat. That would make both racial HD Outsider Hit Dice, conferring the benefits of that creature type.

If you wish to continue making this point, please provide EXPLICIT support from the books, including page numbers, for your argument. As of now, you have not.

[Stealth Marmot]

Under the d20 SRD a Humanoid is listed as being proficient in all simple weapons OR by character class. This is listed under "traits" not "features"

Under the SAME d20 SRD the Outsider has listed under "traits": "Proficient with all simple and martial weapons AND any weapons mentioned in its entry."

The Native subtype does not explicitly remove those proficiencies either.

This is, of course, the 3.5 SRD.

Upon reading the PATHFINDER SRD, the Pathfinder SRD specifies that PC races are considered 0 it die creatures without any weapon or armor proficiencies based on type but instead based on class.

This of course gets rather sticky when talking about how elves get their racial proficiencies, but the language of the Pathfinder SRD backs you up while the 3.5 SRD backs me up.

Since the OP didn't specify which system as far as I can see, I guess we are simultaneously both right and both wrong? We have a Schroedinger's argument here. We are both right and wrong so long as this quantum state of not knowing which system is being used is in effect.

[tomandtish]

If the player and DM are reasonably in sync about what the paladin's code means, then there should be no problems......

But I strongly recommend the player and DM have a serious talk about what's expected before the player decides to be a paladin.


Very much this. It's always important that players and GMs are on the same page when it comes to alignment, and especially when it comes to alignment dependent classes. Honestly, it seems like 90% of problems could be avoided if people just talked about expectations before they started playing.

[Jay R]

It is clear the paladin's father was unrepentant, heck, gloating evil. Ignoring his evil due to familial bonds would cause the paladin to fall. That the character's father happened to have his back turned or to twirl around as he gloated is not to cause the paladin's fault for properly attempting to purge evil.

He didn't do it "properly". And he didn't purge evil; he merely replaced it. "Unrepentant" and "gloating evil" are not justifications for murder. They just aren't.

The number of unrepentant, evil people did not go down due to this murder. It stayed constant.

[RedMage125]

Under the d20 SRD a Humanoid is listed as being proficient in all simple weapons OR by character class. This is listed under "traits" not "features"

Under the SAME d20 SRD the Outsider has listed under "traits": "Proficient with all simple and martial weapons AND any weapons mentioned in its entry."

The Native subtype does not explicitly remove those proficiencies either.

This is, of course, the 3.5 SRD.

Upon reading the PATHFINDER SRD, the Pathfinder SRD specifies that PC races are considered 0 it die creatures without any weapon or armor proficiencies based on type but instead based on class.

This of course gets rather sticky when talking about how elves get their racial proficiencies, but the language of the Pathfinder SRD backs you up while the 3.5 SRD backs me up.

Since the OP didn't specify which system as far as I can see, I guess we are simultaneously both right and both wrong? We have a Schroedinger's argument here. We are both right and wrong so long as this quantum state of not knowing which system is being used is in effect.

I am assuming 3.5e, since PF was not specified.

But actual 3.5e rules (with errata) trump the SRD, and 3.5e rules specify that 1-HD creatures substitute the racial features of their creature type with those of their class when they take a class level. Weapon and armor proficiencies are class features. After all, human wizards don't get "all simple weapon" profs for being "humanoid".

Monster Manual pg 295 specifies that only humanoids with more than one racial HD make use of the features of the humanoid type. Otherwise, they go by class. The change in type from humanoid to outsider does not explicitly confer the benefits of features of Outsider Hit Dice, ergo, it does not.

A Bugbear or Gnoll (humanoids with racial HD) who was permitted to take the Otherworldly feat COULD, arguably, get the benefit of those Outsider Hit Dice features (saves like a monk, skill points like a rogue, fighter BAB, all martial weapon profs., etc). I say arguably, because by RAW, none of the races mentioned in prerequisites for the feat have racial HD, so it would require a houserule to begin with.

[Grod_The_Giant]

He didn't do it "properly". And he didn't purge evil; he merely replaced it. "Unrepentant" and "gloating evil" are not justifications for murder. They just aren't.

The number of unrepentant, evil people did not go down due to this murder. It stayed constant.
Since we don't know the backstory, since all we have is the climatic sentence, I think we can maybe give the guy the benefit of the doubt, yes? Can we maybe assume that the player in question knows how to play a good-aligned character, and stick to answering the OP's question?

[Jay R]

Since we don't know the backstory, since all we have is the climatic sentence, I think we can maybe give the guy the benefit of the doubt, yes? Can we maybe assume that the player in question knows how to play a good-aligned character, and stick to answering the OP's question?

The OP's question is about the DM ruling that the action in question would cause the paladin to fall. If you "assume that the player in question knows how to play a good-aligned character," and that his action wouldn't cause the paladin to fall, then you are not answering the OP's question.

When I assume that it is an action that would cause the OP to fall in that game, I am addressing his question.

[willoftheway]

The OP's question is about the DM ruling that the action in question would cause the paladin to fall. If you "assume that the player in question knows how to play a good-aligned character," and that his action wouldn't cause the paladin to fall, then you are not answering the OP's question.

When I assume that it is an action that would cause the OP to fall in that game, I am addressing his question.

The op's question is about warning someone to simply not play paladin in a game where he's already made the determination for himself that the GM's ruling of this fall was unreasonable. Therefore operating on the same assumption presented in the OP is the only way to answer the question within the parameters set out by the OP.

Certainly you could instead assume that the OP is wrong in his beliefs about the GM's ruling, but that is definitively not answering his question.

[SangoProduction]

But what exactly was this manipulation and what exactly did the paladin do as a result? I have no idea. Just because a player says an npc did something so evil it justifies killing them does not make it so.

Sorry dudes. I was busy for much of the time since I posted this, but before I respond to anything else....An NPC set up in a backstory by the player as being irredeemably evil....is irredeemably evil, unless the DM says to change the background. Because it's the player's background. What they say DOES make it so.

[Crake]

The op's question is about warning someone to simply not play paladin in a game where he's already made the determination for himself that the GM's ruling of this fall was unreasonable. Therefore operating on the same assumption presented in the OP is the only way to answer the question within the parameters set out by the OP.

Certainly you could instead assume that the OP is wrong in his beliefs about the GM's ruling, but that is definitively not answering his question.

To be fair, the OP never mentioned whether the red flag was for the DM or the paladin. The way it was written, it could have been for either really.

But I'd like to think I'm a reasonable DM, and murdering an unarmed individual is pretty steady grounds for a fall in my eyes. He could have easily subdued him, and took him to a legitimate authority to be judged for his crimes, but unless the character, at that time, had the authority to be judge, jury and executioner, then he acted in an unlawful manner to kill that man, aka, murder. Its a textbook case of falling really, heated moment of anger, character acts irrationally, breaking his vow and losing his powers.


Sorry dudes. I was busy for much of the time since I posted this, but before I respond to anything else....An NPC set up in a backstory by the player as being irredeemably evil....is irredeemably evil, unless the DM says to change the background. Because it's the player's background. What they say DOES make it so.

I think the point there was that being irredeemably evil does not justify murder, it justifies imprisonment, followed by judgement by his peers. Again, as above, unless the paladin had that authority, which THAT would be up to the DM, as to whether the paladin's order gives that kind of authority to their members, what he did was grounds for falling.


I'm inclined to disagree. Backstabbing one person is not particularly compliant with the paladin code, but I would not say it is an extreme violation (only gross violations of the code will make you fall), and I wouldn't say it's an explicitly evil act either.

Also just wanted to address this: It's not the backstabbing that's the issue, it's the murder part. Though, to be fair, rarely does backstabbing NOT result in murder (Note: I'm not talking about flanking, I'm talking about stabbing someone when they don't expect it, aka unarmed and unprepared, which is usually what backstabbing refers to)

[SangoProduction]

Personally, I would say that the paladin's background isn't fit to be a Paladin, it's very much Evil, and in no way really points to being an actual Paladin. But, the DM did say, and I quote, "Technically, by stabbing someone in the back (attacking someone who is flat footed) you would violate your paladin vows and lose your special paladin abilities."

I mean, I could see the character coming around after the realization of corruption, and end up playing as a Paladin, but that was statement basically said "I'm going to impose restrictions that you must psychically know, or else you are going to have to roll up a new character."

Paladin Backstory: Olaf was born as a viking to the north. At the age of 5 he was sent on a raiding party to the holy lands, to be ambushed by paladins Olaf was knocked out only to awake to being surrounded by paladins and his family gone. he was taken in and raised as a paladin growing stronger and bigger than his new father at the age of 18 because of his bloodline at the age of 23 he was well known as the Bloody Paladin for receiving the more gruesome of missions. On his last mission the church sent him on he was to retrieve a holy relic and to kill anyone in possession of said object he made it to his destination and found a Innocent family not causing any harm. he tried talking to the family but before he could murmur a word his father killed the the family and mutilated the children. Olafs eyes grew with fire and hatred for the church and his father that took him under his wing so long ago, and stabed his father in the back and started his journey back to the capital to find the men in charge of the church.

[Calthropstu]

I'm pretty sure whoever was DMing for you was actually the moron. There's nothing about sneaking past an enemy that goes against the paladin's code. Honour is defined as "The qualit of knowing and doing what is morally right". Lying, cheating and using poison are the given examples of "Acting without honor", these are things that are morally wrong (using poison in dnd is apparently morally wrong according to the game designers, as reiterated in the book of exalted deeds, apparently all poisons are evil). Sneaking and fighting tactically are not against those, and there is nothing morally wrong with doing so. If sneaking past a foe you could not otherwise best was the only way you could save some innocents, then there's nothing dishonorable about that.

That was entirely your DM just being an ass.

There is a very good reason using most poisons are considered dishonorable. It removes the chance to surrender, and will continue to damage them long after they do so. It also causes MUCH higher casualty rates in war.

[Tiri]

There is a very good reason using most poisons are considered dishonorable. It removes the chance to surrender, and will continue to damage them long after they do so. It also causes MUCH higher casualty rates in war.

It's possible to just give your opponent the antidote in case of their surrender.

[Nifft]

There is a very good reason using most poisons are considered dishonorable.

Because the ruling class was disproportionately vulnerable to poison, and disproportionately skilled at armed combat -- therefore armed combat is good and honorable, while poison is evil and shunned.


"If we're not supposed to eat aristocrats, then why are they made of meat?" -- Kom-Kob, the communist kobold

[Crake]

It's possible to just give your opponent the antidote in case of their surrender.

There are also plenty of non-lethal, unharmful poisons. As ironic as it is, drow poison is very useful for subduing and bringing in criminals to be judged.


Personally, I would say that the paladin's background isn't fit to be a Paladin, it's very much Evil, and in no way really points to being an actual Paladin. But, the DM did say, and I quote, "Technically, by stabbing someone in the back (attacking someone who is flat footed) you would violate your paladin vows and lose your special paladin abilities."

I mean, I could see the character coming around after the realization of corruption, and end up playing as a Paladin, but that was statement basically said "I'm going to impose restrictions that you must psychically know, or else you are going to have to roll up a new character."

Paladin Backstory: Olaf was born as a viking to the north. At the age of 5 he was sent on a raiding party to the holy lands, to be ambushed by paladins Olaf was knocked out only to awake to being surrounded by paladins and his family gone. he was taken in and raised as a paladin growing stronger and bigger than his new father at the age of 18 because of his bloodline at the age of 23 he was well known as the Bloody Paladin for receiving the more gruesome of missions. On his last mission the church sent him on he was to retrieve a holy relic and to kill anyone in possession of said object he made it to his destination and found a Innocent family not causing any harm. he tried talking to the family but before he could murmur a word his father killed the the family and mutilated the children. Olafs eyes grew with fire and hatred for the church and his father that took him under his wing so long ago, and stabed his father in the back and started his journey back to the capital to find the men in charge of the church.

Honestly, based on that backstory, the paladin did seem like he acted way out of order. There weren't even any words exchanged, he didn't try to defend the family, didn't speak up, just let it happen and then when it was over, mutely stabbed him in the back. That's straight up fall material right there, and a classical case: Paladin is betrayed by his order, throws away his ideals from a lifetime of serving a falsehood, and heads off in search of righteous vengeance. There were a lot of different ways he could have handled that, he chose the worst.

[Calthropstu]

There are also plenty of non-lethal, unharmful poisons. As ironic as it is, drow poison is very useful for subduing and bringing in criminals to be judged.

Agreed. I would still rule it falling material for a Paladin, but not an evil act. It would cause a paladin to fall, but it would require a simple atonement spell. I would also rule it chaotic, since poison usage is illegal in most places. A paladin violating the law repeatedly would cause him to fall. But a chaotic good ranger bounty hunter using drow sleep poison to bring in wanted criminals... definitely not evil actions.


Honestly, based on that backstory, the paladin did seem like he acted way out of order. There weren't even any words exchanged, he didn't try to defend the family, didn't speak up, just let it happen and then when it was over, mutely stabbed him in the back. That's straight up fall material right there, and a classical case: Paladin is betrayed by his order, throws away his ideals from a lifetime of serving a falsehood, and heads off in search of righteous vengeance. There were a lot of different ways he could have handled that, he chose the worst.

Absolutely. To be honest, I agree with OP 100% on this. This player obviously does not understand the concept of noble paladin warrior. A true paladin would have called out to his father "draw your sword knave for clearly thou art possessed of wickedness." Or some other such clap trap. Probably demanding to know why this was done.

[Tuvarkz]

Honestly, based on that backstory, the paladin did seem like he acted way out of order. There weren't even any words exchanged, he didn't try to defend the family, didn't speak up, just let it happen and then when it was over, mutely stabbed him in the back. That's straight up fall material right there, and a classical case: Paladin is betrayed by his order, throws away his ideals from a lifetime of serving a falsehood, and heads off in search of righteous vengeance. There were a lot of different ways he could have handled that, he chose the worst.

The backstory says the character's father acted faster than what the character could say a word against (particularly if the player's paladin doesn't have Combat Reflexes).
True, a better paladin would've called his father out, but not delaying the "stab the evil, innocent murdering enemy part." A paladin can very well pragmatical without falling; otherwise a paladin wouldn't be allowed to flank, attack a flat-footed enemy, or fight when having numeric advantage. A single chaotic action does not make the paladin fall nor does make him swap alignments.

[Crake]

The backstory says the character's father acted faster than what the character could say a word against (particularly if the player's paladin doesn't have Combat Reflexes).
True, a better paladin would've called his father out, but not delaying the "stab the evil, innocent murdering enemy part." A paladin can very well pragmatical without falling; otherwise a paladin wouldn't be allowed to flank, attack a flat-footed enemy, or fight when having numeric advantage. A single chaotic action does not make the paladin fall nor does make him swap alignments.

I cannot fathom a scenario where the father could have killed the whole family before he could have said a word, or done anything. But again, it comes down to the murder part. I have no qualms with much anything else, but its the murder part that's just flat out evil. Again, as I've reiterated twice already, unless the paladin had the authority to be judge, jury and executioner, what he did was murder. It wasn't in self defence, it wasn't in defence of innocents (they were already dead at this point) so the most paladin-like thing to do would be to knock him out, take him back to down, and have him judged for his actions. If he suspected his church to be corrupt, then take him for judgement to whatever authority had jurisdiction over where he committed his crimes. Paladins are meant to uphold a higher standard than others, and that means not always taking the easiest path. There is no excuse.

Of course, this is why I generally urge most players to NOT play a paladin, because I find, when it comes to rpgs, most people aren't willing to take that extra effort, and generally, most parties don't want to have to deal with it either. So unless I suspect the player is capable of upholding that standard, and that the party is on board with it, I just tell them to play crusaders or clerics instead.

[Jay R]

Paladin Backstory: Olaf was born as a viking to the north. At the age of 5 he was sent on a raiding party to the holy lands, to be ambushed by paladins Olaf was knocked out only to awake to being surrounded by paladins and his family gone. he was taken in and raised as a paladin growing stronger and bigger than his new father at the age of 18 because of his bloodline at the age of 23 he was well known as the Bloody Paladin for receiving the more gruesome of missions. On his last mission the church sent him on he was to retrieve a holy relic and to kill anyone in possession of said object he made it to his destination and found a Innocent family not causing any harm. he tried talking to the family but before he could murmur a word his father killed the the family and mutilated the children. Olafs eyes grew with fire and hatred for the church and his father that took him under his wing so long ago, and stabed his father in the back and started his journey back to the capital to find the men in charge of the church.

Based on this, I'd say it's a tie. All the paladins should fall, including the PC who stood by and watched as more than one innocent person was being mutilated. slay them all, but this takes more time.]

I agree that this player shouldn't play a paladin, but the primary reason is that he thinks those murderous thugs are paladins.

The real red flag is that the DM didn't say, "Hold it! Those aren't paladins," early in this story.


Absolutely. To be honest, I agree with OP 100% on this. This player obviously does not understand the concept of noble paladin warrior.

Agreed. but that's shown more by the fact that the other paladins didn't fall, long before his character had a chance to. The DM should have objected to the backstory before it got to that point.


A true paladin would have called out to his father "draw your sword knave for clearly thou art possessed of wickedness." Or some other such clap trap. Probably demanding to know why this was done.

Agreed. and a true DM would have said, "Those aren't paladins for clearly they are possessed of wickedness," probably demanding to know why this was done.

[Tuvarkz]

I cannot fathom a scenario where the father could have killed the whole family before he could have said a word, or done anything. But again, it comes down to the murder part. I have no qualms with much anything else, but its the murder part that's just flat out evil. Again, as I've reiterated twice already, unless the paladin had the authority to be judge, jury and executioner, what he did was murder. It wasn't in self defence, it wasn't in defence of innocents (they were already dead at this point) so the most paladin-like thing to do would be to knock him out, take him back to down, and have him judged for his actions. If he suspected his church to be corrupt, then take him for judgement to whatever authority had jurisdiction over where he committed his crimes. Paladins are meant to uphold a higher standard than others, and that means not always taking the easiest path. There is no excuse.

Of course, this is why I generally urge most players to NOT play a paladin, because I find, when it comes to rpgs, most people aren't willing to take that extra effort, and generally, most parties don't want to have to deal with it either. So unless I suspect the player is capable of upholding that standard, and that the party is on board with it, I just tell them to play crusaders or clerics instead.

By this logic paladins should be basically always doing nonlethal damage, and that is bollocks. If a paladin sees a vampire attacking innocents, is he not to smite the vampire and destroy it? I recall undead being immune to nonlethal damage and by your rulings, the paladin cannot kill the vampire before taking it to trial; and is likely to be unable to safely apprehend it without the vampire escaping; which would mean the vampire has contractual immunity against the paladin.

A paladin is a direct agent of justice invested by a (generally) lawful god (or the lawful aspect of one); and a lawful god probably trumps any earthly authority. As such, a paladin should technically be able to act as judge jury and executioner since gods seem to be nearly omniscient and able to remove a paladin's power the moment they do something against the code of conduct.

[Crake]

Based on this, I'd say it's a tie. All the paladins should fall, including the PC who stood by and watched as more than one innocent person was being mutilated. slay them all, but this takes more time.]

I agree that this player shouldn't play a paladin, but the primary reason is that he thinks those murderous thugs are paladins.

The real red flag is that the DM didn't say, "Hold it! Those aren't paladins," early in this story.



Agreed. but that's shown more by the fact that the other paladins didn't fall, long before his character had a chance to. The DM should have objected to the backstory before it got to that point.



Agreed. and a true DM would have said, "Those aren't paladins for clearly they are possessed of wickedness," probably demanding to know why this was done.

I think the point of the backstory was that the paladins WEREN'T actually paladins, and that the church was corrupt?


By this logic paladins should be basically always doing nonlethal damage, and that is bollocks. If a paladin sees a vampire attacking innocents, is he not to smite the vampire and destroy it? I recall undead being immune to nonlethal damage and by your rulings, the paladin cannot kill the vampire before taking it to trial; and is likely to be unable to safely apprehend it without the vampire escaping; which would mean the vampire has contractual immunity against the paladin.

A paladin is a direct agent of justice invested by a (generally) lawful god (or the lawful aspect of one); and a lawful god probably trumps any earthly authority. As such, a paladin should technically be able to act as judge jury and executioner since gods seem to be nearly omniscient and able to remove a paladin's power the moment they do something against the code of conduct.

You're strawmanning me by implying my logic means paladins need to always do nonlethal damage, as I said no such thing. I even pointed out that what he was doing was specifically NOT in self defence or the defence of innocents (since by the time he acted they were all dead), not to mention acting against someone unprepared and unassuming. As for whether paladins are allowed to act as judge, jury and executioner, as I said, that is setting dependent, I did mention (if not in the post you quoted, then a previous quote) that whether or not he had that authority is up to the DM to decide if his order gives them that authority, and additionally if that authority was legitmate in the particular jurisdiction. If they were in foreign lands, it's quite possible that the ultimate authority in the region (which according to the paladin's code should be upheld), he should have surrendered his father to THOSE authorities, or sought extradition to his homeland for judgement there.

As for gods granting their paladins power and whatnot, well, your argument falls apart by the fact that the gods (aka the DM) decided that the actions he performed DID warrant a fall. But that aside, paladins can worship no god and still gain powers and fall, so clearly it's not about that at all. Whether he had authority to do such an act is entirely up to the DM and whether or not such authority was given to the paladin, and clearly the answer was no.

[willoftheway]

Stuff and things

Before I respond I want to make it clear I mostly agree with your conclusions, but not for the same reasons.

I think the problem with the way you're talking about paladins is it honestly sounds like you feel DnD worlds have complex modern legal and penal systems. And while your own personal ones may certainly, I don't think that's the default assumption. In general my experience - and it would seem the nature of the game's design - has lent itself to what one might refer to as frontier style justice. The sword and quite often the various churches are the law; and putting down a vile, murdering corruptor is not only okay, it's the right thing to do.

If in an area with access to a proper jailing facility, sure it's definitely nicer to subdue and arrest. But neither good nor law nor even honor are obligated to be nice. It often comes with the territory, but it is not an explicit obligation.

That being said I quite often do not trust less experienced players to navigate these sort of complex moral and legal waters. More often than not I have watched lawful good quickly dive headfirst into lawful stupid. Not playing a paladin is likely the better choice for this player, but I personally would be loathe to make the judgment call on whether the weight for that rests on the player or the GM without knowing them myself.

[Crake]

Before I respond I want to make it clear I mostly agree with your conclusions, but not for the same reasons.

I think the problem with the way you're talking about paladins is it honestly sounds like you feel DnD worlds have complex modern legal and penal systems. And while your own personal ones may certainly, I don't think that's the default assumption. In general my experience - and it would seem the nature of the game's design - has lent itself to what one might refer to as frontier style justice. The sword and quite often the various churches are the law; and putting down a vile, murdering corruptor is not only okay, it's the right thing to do.

If in an area with access to a proper jailing facility, sure it's definitely nicer to subdue and arrest. But neither good nor law nor even honor are obligated to be nice. It often comes with the territory, but it is not an explicit obligation.

That being said I quite often do not trust less experienced players to navigate these sort of complex moral and legal waters. More often than not I have watched lawful good quickly dive headfirst into lawful stupid. Not playing a paladin is likely the better choice for this player, but I personally would be loathe to make the judgment call on whether the weight for that rests on the player or the GM without knowing them myself.

I had a long-winded post written out, but it was getting out of hand and just meandering, so I'll just say this: It was one person, so keeping him subdued to travel back to town wouldn't have been hard, and the two of them were part of a religious order that would almost certainly want to conduct a trial to determine the cause or reason for his father's actions. What if his father had been under the effect of a compulsion, or overwhelmed by some kind of pure evil, or if the paladin had been looking at an illusion that he had failed to see through, but his father had not? Or vice versa, he had seen through the illusion but his father had not? There was no investigation, no trial, just see something that could be deemed as evil? Kill. That's lawful stupid at best, chaotic evil at worst.

Also, there's nothing nice about: nonlethal damage, being imprisoned to wait for trial, or being put under trial and being sentenced to death for murder. These things are, however, lawful.

[Nifft]

It really depends what the father in question just coerced the son to do.

I would have no problem with a Paladin who was raised as a cold-blooded assassin, then had a revelation about morality and murdered his handler, and after that murder sought repentance & became a Paladin.

Basically, you get a free pass for doing Fall-worthy stuff before you actually sign the Code of Conduct, and that can make for a fun backstory.

[willoftheway]

I had a long-winded post written out, but it was getting out of hand and just meandering, so I'll just say this: It was one person, so keeping him subdued to travel back to town wouldn't have been hard, and the two of them were part of a religious order that would almost certainly want to conduct a trial to determine the cause or reason for his father's actions. What if his father had been under the effect of a compulsion, or overwhelmed by some kind of pure evil, or if the paladin had been looking at an illusion that he had failed to see through, but his father had not? Or vice versa, he had seen through the illusion but his father had not? There was no investigation, no trial, just see something that could be deemed as evil? Kill. That's lawful stupid at best, chaotic evil at worst.

Also, there's nothing nice about: nonlethal damage, being imprisoned to wait for trial, or being put under trial and being sentenced to death for murder. These things are, however, lawful.

Again, you are looking at this with a modern mindset. And honestly there's nothing wrong with that. If in your games the cultural values of right and wrong, good and evil, justice and criminality align with those of modern times there's one hundred percent nothing wrong with that. I'd never suggest that playing as such was wrong. I certainly agree with these values for the real world. I just don't feel that's the default assumption for dnd.

The default setting for dnd is at the very least semi medieval and by that nature significantly rougher than modern times. Killing someone who is capital E evil because they are capital E evil, because they have committed heinous acts that you have witnessed, not waiting for obtuse court systems and delivering justice yourself is in the default setting perfectly acceptable and even righteous behavior. Again, I'm not suggesting that running your game worlds otherwise is anything other than great. Just that these are more the default when it comes to dnd.

I also can't help but take issue with your almost accusatory alternate theories on this paladin's situation. The player said without waffling that his character's father was essentially the bbeg of his back story. The back story he was writing. I don't see how you can suggest he was wrong about this.

[Echch]

Personally, I would tell him the backstory just doesn't really fit the Paladin-theme. The Paladin in OOTS is a pretty awesome representation of what a Paladin should be if you ask me.

Back in the day, I believe you had to have very good charisma to be able to be a Paladin at all. And that somewhat makes sense to me: When I think Paladin, I primarily think "Guy who's had it good in their lives". Being Lawful or Good, not to mention both, is something I believe to be something that you first need to be able to afford, and high charisma is the biggest social help you can have.

[Nifft]

Personally, I would tell him the backstory just doesn't really fit the Paladin-theme. The Paladin in OOTS is a pretty awesome representation of what a Paladin should be if you ask me.

Back in the day, I believe you had to have very good charisma to be able to be a Paladin at all. And that somewhat makes sense to me: When I think Paladin, I primarily think "Guy who's had it good in their lives". Being Lawful or Good, not to mention both, is something I believe to be something that you first need to be able to afford, and high charisma is the biggest social help you can have.

On the other hand, I see no problem with a character who did bad stuff for a while -- and then repented.

I like themes of redemption, and struggles with behavior & personality change as character development, in my games.

[Crake]

Again, you are looking at this with a modern mindset. And honestly there's nothing wrong with that. If in your games the cultural values of right and wrong, good and evil, justice and criminality align with those of modern times there's one hundred percent nothing wrong with that. I'd never suggest that playing as such was wrong. I certainly agree with these values for the real world. I just don't feel that's the default assumption for dnd.

The default setting for dnd is at the very least semi medieval and by that nature significantly rougher than modern times. Killing someone who is capital E evil because they are capital E evil, because they have committed heinous acts that you have witnessed, not waiting for obtuse court systems and delivering justice yourself is in the default setting perfectly acceptable and even righteous behavior. Again, I'm not suggesting that running your game worlds otherwise is anything other than great. Just that these are more the default when it comes to dnd.

I also can't help but take issue with your almost accusatory alternate theories on this paladin's situation. The player said without waffling that his character's father was essentially the bbeg of his back story. The back story he was writing. I don't see how you can suggest he was wrong about this.

The way I tend to interpret backstories as a DM is they are ment to be a hook. How that hook is implemented is entirely up to the DM. Any detail omitted by the player, or not specified, comes down to the DM to ajudicate, hell, even details specified can be changed if you're confident the player will enjoy the outcome. The paladin went out to root out the corruption in his church, that corruption could very well have been some kind of demon possessing members, some evil artifact that was twisting the minds of the members from whatever dark vault it was stored away in, or some evil wizard that was using enchantments to control the clergy. I don't ever consider backstories to be closed content, they are written in the perspective of the character, not a third party observer who knows all the facts.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the idea that medieval times lacked any sort of justice system, even if it was as simple as justice delivered without the guilty party present in the form of a wanted dead or alive poster. This is of course a law vs chaos argument, which is not as relevant as a good vs evil argument for a paladin, since a single chaotic act does not lead to a paladin's fall, and I would never argue as such. If the paladin took the law into his own hands from time to time, I would not consider it fall-worthy (unless it started to happen often enough that it warranted an alignment change), but I maintain that in an order of paladins, he did not have the authority to judge his superior, thus his decision to proclaim his father as evil was chaotic in nature, taking the law into his own hands, when, as the paladin code specifies, there was a legitimate authority who would have held precedence over his decision that he should have honored.

[willoftheway]

The way I tend to interpret backstories as a DM is they are ment to be a hook. How that hook is implemented is entirely up to the DM. Any detail omitted by the player, or not specified, comes down to the DM to ajudicate, hell, even details specified can be changed if you're confident the player will enjoy the outcome. The paladin went out to root out the corruption in his church, that corruption could very well have been some kind of demon possessing members, some evil artifact that was twisting the minds of the members from whatever dark vault it was stored away in, or some evil wizard that was using enchantments to control the clergy. I don't ever consider backstories to be closed content, they are written in the perspective of the character, not a third party observer who knows all the facts.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the idea that medieval times lacked any sort of justice system, even if it was as simple as justice delivered without the guilty party present in the form of a wanted dead or alive poster. This is of course a law vs chaos argument, which is not as relevant as a good vs evil argument for a paladin, since a single chaotic act does not lead to a paladin's fall, and I would never argue as such. If the paladin took the law into his own hands from time to time, I would not consider it fall-worthy (unless it started to happen often enough that it warranted an alignment change), but I maintain that in an order of paladins, he did not have the authority to judge his superior, thus his decision to proclaim his father as evil was chaotic in nature, taking the law into his own hands, when, as the paladin code specifies, there was a legitimate authority who would have held precedence over his decision that he should have honored.

As far as your feelings on back stories I suppose I'll have to just chalk that up to style differences. But I do have to note as a player I'd feel incredibly robbed of agency if you filled in a detail that completely ruined the tone and theme of my character's back story like the father who I wrote to be the BBEG of the story actually just being tricked by an illusion or any of the other more extreme details you suggested to fill in with.

Also I never suggested there was no legal systems in place in medieval times. My suggestion was that it was not in any way pervasive and all present. Particularly not in the fashion it is now. It is not so easy as suggested to just drag this great evildoer back to higher authorities. So dispensing justice as was necessary could well be within the purview of a literal living embodiment of law and good.

Is that what actually happened? No idea. Again, I am very loathe to weigh in on where fault actually lies between this player and GM for the paladin's fall. I just also don't feel that the paladin's story at face value with the information we actually have is a definite fall series of events. I think there's plenty of ways for it to go in both the he shouldn't fall or he should fall camps.

[Keltest]

At least in my experience, settings where you have people capable of large scale mayhem being taken down by (proto) adventurers tend to have said actions taking place outside of any group's obvious jurisdiction. Evil McMurderStabs might be a heinous murderous bad person who kidnaps babies and sacrifices them to his own ego, but unless he is doing so within a city, nobody is actually interested or able to do anything about it without randomly stumbling over it.

So lets say a knight does stumble over this guy and incapacitates him. What is he going to do then? Drag him back to town? That's probably just a peasant village of farmers and/or miners or something. So he goes to the nearest big city. The guy isn't going to get a trial, theres no evidence or anything to be presented. He's either going to be released because some crazy guy kidnapped him, or hanged because youre already deemed of sound enough judgment to have made that call yourself.

[Echch]

On the other hand, I see no problem with a character who did bad stuff for a while -- and then repented.

I like themes of redemption, and struggles with behavior & personality change as character development, in my games.

Oh sure, as long as it works out correctly. For example, I have no real problem to believe that a cleric can become a Paladin.
Or rather, I would not say that his characters backstory would be wrong for a different kind of class. Specifically the prestige Paladin.

The difference is that you have to surivive being LG long enough, which always seems very unrealistic to me. To me, being a Paladin implies to rescue the poor villager from street thugs. Yet, a simple by-the-numbers also implies to me that a level 1 paladin will not survive a fight with 5 level 5 thugs (ACF fighters). And he cannot just not do it.

For a high-level character, on who already has some levels and a good survivablity, that's another story.

Thus to me, a Paladin either:
Is already potent enough to survive such a situation (a prestige/mulitclass Paladin).
Has never been confronted with such a situation (one way or the other... a high charisma helps).
Is dead.

[Calthropstu]

Odd note, I was just replaying neverwinter nights and the paladin Aribeth has a backstory wreaking bloody slaughter on orcs who had done no wrong to her going so far as to slaughter whole caravans before becoming a palading. So, canon, evil and chaos before becoming a paladin is irrelevant.

[Crake]

At least in my experience, settings where you have people capable of large scale mayhem being taken down by (proto) adventurers tend to have said actions taking place outside of any group's obvious jurisdiction. Evil McMurderStabs might be a heinous murderous bad person who kidnaps babies and sacrifices them to his own ego, but unless he is doing so within a city, nobody is actually interested or able to do anything about it without randomly stumbling over it.

So lets say a knight does stumble over this guy and incapacitates him. What is he going to do then? Drag him back to town? That's probably just a peasant village of farmers and/or miners or something. So he goes to the nearest big city. The guy isn't going to get a trial, theres no evidence or anything to be presented. He's either going to be released because some crazy guy kidnapped him, or hanged because youre already deemed of sound enough judgment to have made that call yourself.

That's ignoring the context. In the case presented, the jurisdiction was not a geographical one, it was a religious one. A member of the clergy had committed great evil, and he should have been taken back for questioning, if not for the simple case of finding out just how deep the corruption ran within the clergy


As far as your feelings on back stories I suppose I'll have to just chalk that up to style differences. But I do have to note as a player I'd feel incredibly robbed of agency if you filled in a detail that completely ruined the tone and theme of my character's back story like the father who I wrote to be the BBEG of the story actually just being tricked by an illusion or any of the other more extreme details you suggested to fill in with.

Considering his father was, at least previously, a seemingly good, honorable, and just man, I don't see how it's unreasonable to say that he was under some kind of influence to justify such an out of the blue 180 turn. And, based on the backstory, his father was far from the BBEG, he was just a footsoldier in a corrupt clergy that needed to be purged, at least from the sounds of things. He was clearly out to seek out and cleanse whatever corruption this had stemmed from, and there was clearly going to be someone behind it all. Who's to say that wasn't any of the things I mentioned? It's not like his backstory was a closed case and you opened it up, his backstory was open, and you need something to fill in the gaps as to why these things happened. Maybe his father would have been proud of his for cleansing his corrupt soul in a holy smite, and he is visited by his purified ghost and given guidance, etc etc. If, as a player, you consider it a loss of agency to have your backstory woven into a grander scheme, then all you're really doing is limiting the DM's ability to put together an interesting narrative. I can see agency applying anything your character does from the start of the game forward, you have control over yourself, but you're still only limited to your character's perspective, and I feel that should also apply retroactively. Your backstory should only be written from your perspective, and not contain absolute truths, only what your character learned, and what they could know from that.

MAYBE, if players are okay with organizing a story together with the DM, and they don't mind knowing the truth behind things, and they enjoy playing from a third person perspective, where they know things that their character doesn't know, I can see a backstory with absolute truths being written, but in that case, it should really be a collaborative process with the DM anyway.

[Elkad]

I don't have any problem with that backstory at all.

A paladin takes things to the extreme.
Being so fervent even your own church isn't "Lawful Good Enough" fits just fine.
Since they are corrupting the true path of the chosen god, leading innocents astray, killing them all to purify things is Just and Good.
Cutting down someone who was killing innocents works right in. Especially if the murderer did it in the name of the false church. "I don't need a trial or a judge, he did it right in front of me. I AM THE LAW!"

Note that as his DM, I'd expect him to stick to that extremism of his personal code.
Something like "Those who would corrupt the good are the worst of evil, for they imperil the innocent by leading them astray."

[willoftheway]

If, as a player, you consider it a loss of agency to have your backstory woven into a grander scheme, then all you're really doing is limiting the DM's ability to put together an interesting narrative.

Ouch. Now who's getting strawmanned?

What I said was turning my back story into something else entirely by filling details into what you feel are gaps in the narrative would make me feel loss of agency. I won't say anything else on that particular issue as your views on who controls what about a character's personal story arc and actual methodology of writing strike me as intensely bizarre and I can tell we'll never reach an accord on that. I'll agree not to ever sit at your table so long as you agree to never completely ruin the angle I was using in my own character's personal narrative.

[Virdish]

I don't have any problem with that backstory at all.

A paladin takes things to the extreme.
Being so fervent even your own church isn't "Lawful Good Enough" fits just fine.
Since they are corrupting the true path of the chosen god, leading innocents astray, killing them all to purify things is Just and Good.
Cutting down someone who was killing innocents works right in. Especially if the murderer did it in the name of the false church. "I don't need a trial or a judge, he did it right in front of me. I AM THE LAW!"

Note that as his DM, I'd expect him to stick to that extremism of his personal code.
Something like "Those who would corrupt the good are the worst of evil, for they imperil the innocent by leading them astray."

Lurker. This is my favorite analysis in this entire thread.

It's also part of how I see Paladins though. Paladins have always seemed like the arbiters of divine will. They are the ultimate upholders of Law and Good. They are the law. Failing serious questionable circumstances I don't see a ruler questioning their actions. If he hasn't fallen than he obviously hasn't acted in a way that isn't good and lawful.

[Nifft]

Yep, this looks like a fairly typical power struggle, with no possible victory.

Crake-as-DM: "How dare you try to take control of my campaign plot with your character's background!"

willoftheway-as-Player: "Stop touching my backstory! Why can't you let me even control my own character!"

[willoftheway]

Yep, this looks like a fairly typical power struggle, with no possible victory.

Crake-as-DM: "How dare you try to take control of my campaign plot with your character's background!"

willoftheway-as-Player: "Stop touching my backstory! Why can't you let me even control my own character!"

I am actually entirely unsure if I'm getting trashed by this post or not.....

[Nifft]

I am actually entirely unsure if I'm getting trashed by this post or not.....

Neither of you is getting trashed.

Your complaint seems more reasonable IMHO, but both are essentially similar: neither party trusts the other, so both are struggling for more control over the narrative.

Both see themselves as reasonable, because they trust themselves.

[Crake]

Ouch. Now who's getting strawmanned?

What I said was turning my back story into something else entirely by filling details into what you feel are gaps in the narrative would make me feel loss of agency. I won't say anything else on that particular issue as your views on who controls what about a character's personal story arc and actual methodology of writing strike me as intensely bizarre and I can tell we'll never reach an accord on that. I'll agree not to ever sit at your table so long as you agree to never completely ruin the angle I was using in my own character's personal narrative.

I don't see how anything I suggested for the paladin's backstory changes it into something completely different? His backstory is what his character saw and experienced, then the DM steps in and says: Here's what your character didn't know. This isn't apparent until the character actually investigates the reasons behind things and learns why his father was acting that way. As I said, if you are the kind of person who is happier knowing details of the story that your character doesn't, then it would make more sense to collaborate with the DM, rather than just going ahead and telling your story by yourself. The tone of the story in my examples hasn't changed at all, he is still a paladin out in a crusade to cleanse his clergy, but it adds to the narrative and gives a plausible reason as to why things happened. If we stick to what the backstory says, and maintain that his father was always and would have remained unrepentantly evil under the banner of a good clergy, then questions start to arise: How did it take 18 years for the paladin to realise? Why did nobody else realise? How have none of these paladins fallen yet? Why didn't his father kill the 5 year old olaf if he has no problem with mutilating children he sees as evil?

I'm not sure how adding details your character wasn't aware of beforehand would serve to change your character's narrative anyway, the backstory still stands, there are just details your character was unaware of. Adding new light to a story doesn't always change the tone, it's not like I said aliens were mind controlling him and spinning it in some ridiculous direction. The story is written that the church has become corrupt, as has his father. This corruption needs a source, and his father needs to have a reason for doing what he did beyond being a mindless wanton evil-doer.

If you find that somehow unreconcilable, then I suppose we are truly at odds and should likely not play together. That said, some of my best stories have stemmed from really simple backstories that I took in wild directions that the players didn't even consider. I have had players who were dead set on maintaining a specific intended story for their character, but then they always wonder why their stories lack the depth that the others gain, despite the fact that whenever I try to add anything beyond what they want, they ignore it, pretend it didn't happen, and continue telling their own story.

[Dragonexx]

I had a long-winded post written out, but it was getting out of hand and just meandering, so I'll just say this: It was one person, so keeping him subdued to travel back to town wouldn't have been hard, and the two of them were part of a religious order that would almost certainly want to conduct a trial to determine the cause or reason for his father's actions. What if his father had been under the effect of a compulsion, or overwhelmed by some kind of pure evil, or if the paladin had been looking at an illusion that he had failed to see through, but his father had not? Or vice versa, he had seen through the illusion but his father had not? There was no investigation, no trial, just see something that could be deemed as evil? Kill. That's lawful stupid at best, chaotic evil at worst.

Also, there's nothing nice about: nonlethal damage, being imprisoned to wait for trial, or being put under trial and being sentenced to death for murder. These things are, however, lawful.
Again, you are looking at this with a modern mindset. And honestly there's nothing wrong with that. If in your games the cultural values of right and wrong, good and evil, justice and criminality align with those of modern times there's one hundred percent nothing wrong with that. I'd never suggest that playing as such was wrong. I certainly agree with these values for the real world. I just don't feel that's the default assumption for dnd.

The default setting for dnd is at the very least semi medieval and by that nature significantly rougher than modern times. Killing someone who is capital E evil because they are capital E evil, because they have committed heinous acts that you have witnessed, not waiting for obtuse court systems and delivering justice yourself is in the default setting perfectly acceptable and even righteous behavior. Again, I'm not suggesting that running your game worlds otherwise is anything other than great. Just that these are more the default when it comes to dnd.

I also can't help but take issue with your almost accusatory alternate theories on this paladin's situation. The player said without waffling that his character's father was essentially the bbeg of his back story. The back story he was writing. I don't see how you can suggest he was wrong about this.

I made a few posts about this topic in another thread.


Or just kick in the merchants door, drag him in front of a court, and present your case and evidence.

Of course this assumes that the courts are fair, when quite a lot of courts from previous ages were heavily biased, with racism, sexism, classism, faithism, and probably a ton of other prejudices. Not to mention the idea of evidence-based investigation and innocent until proven guilty not being a universal concept, trial by jury being exceedingly rare, laws not being at all enforceable on the people you'd want to enforce them on and there being no such thing as nations anyways.


You have to remember, when dispensing justice, that social structures are very different in D&D than they are in real life. In real life, a single person cannot fight society and win, and cannot do significant damage without a large amount of effort, planning and preparation that can be detected and foiled. In D&D land you have necromancers who can raise an army of spawn creating undead, super-widened spells can obliterate entire villages, dragons can rage across the countryside burninating crops and people, and high level characters can seriously just go Dynasty Warriors on armies. How can any legal and court system handle people like this?

Say a 12th level warlock busts down commoners shop because they happened to have a magical reagent they wanted. What can a legal system do against people who can use illusions and enchantments and shapeshifting and summons, without relying on their own high powered people, and then having to trust that those people have their best interests at heart?


There's been some attempts at explaining how things like laws and ethics work in a standard D&D setting.

https://www.dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Dungeonomicon_(3.5e_Sourcebook)/Socialomicon

Long story short, many of the things we think of as bad today are perfectly acceptable by the standards of a typical dnd setting.